U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

'An outspoken critic of Israel who once said the Jewish state should be added to the list of 9/11 terror suspects was recently selected by the Obama administration to participate in an international forum on human rights.

The State Department defended the selection. Christopher Midura, a spokesman with the U.S. Mission to the OSCE, said: “Mr. al-Marayati has been involved in U.S. government initiatives for almost 10 years and has been a valued and highly credible interlocutor on issues affecting Muslim communities. He was invited to participate in this year’s (event) as a reflection of the wide diversity of backgrounds of the American people.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism also recently completed a one-year study that concluded “known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House.” Among the visitors was al-Marayati, whom the logs show has visited the White House at least seven times.

On the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, al-Marayati said on a Los Angeles radio show: “If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”’ - FOXNEWS

322

http://news.yahoo.com/cia-found-militant-links-day-libya-attack-072734613--politics.html
CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack

323

Good montage…

325

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

ooohhh boy…

Looks like he knew the whole time he was in Vegas.

326

www.foxnews.com/...group-on-radar/

A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows some some of the initial assessments of last month’s deadly consulate attack in Libya, including one email within hours of the attack that noted that the group Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility.

Ansar al Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be a an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation?s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU?which is shorthand for ?Sensitive But Unclassified.?

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack,” the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

“The operations Center will provide updates as available.”

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli,” the email reads.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/.../#ixzz2ABBLWtT8

327

Also msnbc…it is getting around

328

So… Posting something on Facebook - not good enough evidence for anything. However a video posted months prior on Youtube - totally to blame for attacks on Americans

Seems legit to me, nothing to see here folks, move along.

329

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So… Posting something on Facebook - not good enough evidence for anything. However a video posted months prior on Youtube - totally to blame for attacks on Americans

Seems legit to me, nothing to see here folks, move along.[/quote]

My whole problem is that they claim it just wasn’t hard enough evidence. That an investigation was ongoing and they didn’t want to point fingers. THEN WHY WAS A PROTEST OVER A VIDEO PUSHED SO FREAKING HARD!?!?! Why wasn’t it something like “We’re currently investigating the nature of the attack.” That’s it. Period.

330

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

So… Posting something on Facebook - not good enough evidence for anything. However a video posted months prior on Youtube - totally to blame for attacks on Americans

Seems legit to me, nothing to see here folks, move along.[/quote]

My whole problem is that they claim it just wasn’t hard enough evidence. That an investigation was ongoing and they didn’t want to point fingers. THEN WHY WAS A PROTEST OVER A VIDEO PUSHED SO FREAKING HARD!?!?! Why wasn’t it something like “We’re currently investigating the nature of the attack.” That’s it. Period.
[/quote]

.
I’ve heard reports that the place that was attacked was a CIA safehouse, not a consulate (sp?).

I’m telling you, one of two things happened:

  1. They were running weapons to the wrong people for whatever reason and US weapons were not only used to kill Americans, but more were taken.

  2. There is/was something at that house and taken that day that is somehow, going to look much worse for this administration’s FP than dead Americans. God only knows what that may be.

It isn’t as simple as “this destroys my stump talking point.” Because that could be spun as a reason to keep obama if they weren’t stupid.

331

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

.
I’ve heard reports that the place that was attacked was a CIA safehouse, not a consulate (sp?).

[/quote]

There was a house that the CIA was using as a base of operations about a mile from the consulate that was attacked as well. The consulate was also attacked as well, and was where Ambassador Stevens was when the attack started. Two SEALs and an unknown number of CIA agents were killed in the attack on the CIA building.

332

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

.
I’ve heard reports that the place that was attacked was a CIA safehouse, not a consulate (sp?).

[/quote]

There was a house that the CIA was using as a base of operations about a mile from the consulate that was attacked as well. The consulate was also attacked as well, and was where Ambassador Stevens was when the attack started. Two SEALs and an unknown number of CIA agents were killed in the attack on the CIA building.
[/quote]

And as I understand it it was the CIA safe-house attack that was the more obviously coordinated assault. Mortars came down with precision which pretty much telegraphs premeditation, and heavy arms were used. The consulate attack by contrast involved AK’s and a fire (which is what killed Mr. Stevens) set with flammables which had been housed in the complex itself.

333

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

.
I’ve heard reports that the place that was attacked was a CIA safehouse, not a consulate (sp?).

[/quote]

There was a house that the CIA was using as a base of operations about a mile from the consulate that was attacked as well. The consulate was also attacked as well, and was where Ambassador Stevens was when the attack started. Two SEALs and an unknown number of CIA agents were killed in the attack on the CIA building.
[/quote]

And as I understand it it was the CIA safe-house attack that was the more obviously coordinated assault. Mortars came down with precision which pretty much telegraphs premeditation, and heavy arms were used. The consulate attack by contrast involved AK’s and a fire (which is what killed Mr. Stevens) set with flammables which had been housed in the complex itself.[/quote]

Your wording is a bit unclear, these were two prongs of a single coordinated assault on multiple targets. The attack on the consulate was probably mostly a distraction and symbolic attack, which is why less sophisticated weaponry was used. It also may have been to force the staff out of the main consulate and to possibly smoke out other safehouses, since that is where many of the staff from the consulate fled, but that is not as likely as just simply a distraction and symbolic attack. The CIA house was defended by SEALS and probably had a couple of SAD boys (who are recruited from tier 1 special operations teams) there as well, so it makes sense to attack them with the heavy weaponry. Both the Consulate and the CIA base would have been seen as primary targets by the people that planned the assault.

334

[quote]Sloth wrote:

My whole problem is that they claim it just wasn’t hard enough evidence. That an investigation was ongoing and they didn’t want to point fingers. THEN WHY WAS A PROTEST OVER A VIDEO PUSHED SO FREAKING HARD!?!?! Why wasn’t it something like “We’re currently investigating the nature of the attack.” That’s it. Period. [/quote]

Exactly. When this went down, one of two things were basically true:

  1. The administration knew close in time to the attack that it was a premediatted terrorist attack.

  2. The administration did not know what the hell was going on and didn’t have enough facts to authoritatively decalre what did happen.

So, as you ask, why weren’t we told (1) or (2), instead of (3), with (3) being a failry straightforward declaration that “we know what happened, and it was a spontaneous demonstration agains the video that went out of control”?

I am fine with (1) or (2). In fact, I think (2) is often the right answer close in time to an event, because as the dust settles, the story is often different. So, why (3)?

335

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

.
I’ve heard reports that the place that was attacked was a CIA safehouse, not a consulate (sp?).

[/quote]

There was a house that the CIA was using as a base of operations about a mile from the consulate that was attacked as well. The consulate was also attacked as well, and was where Ambassador Stevens was when the attack started. Two SEALs and an unknown number of CIA agents were killed in the attack on the CIA building.
[/quote]

And as I understand it it was the CIA safe-house attack that was the more obviously coordinated assault. Mortars came down with precision which pretty much telegraphs premeditation, and heavy arms were used. The consulate attack by contrast involved AK’s and a fire (which is what killed Mr. Stevens) set with flammables which had been housed in the complex itself.[/quote]

Your wording is a bit unclear, these were two prongs of a single coordinated assault on multiple targets. The attack on the consulate was probably mostly a distraction and symbolic attack, which is why less sophisticated weaponry was used. It also may have been to force the staff out of the main consulate and to possibly smoke out other safehouses, since that is where many of the staff from the consulate fled, but that is not as likely as just simply a distraction and symbolic attack. The CIA house was defended by SEALS and probably had a couple of SAD boys (who are recruited from tier 1 special operations teams) there as well, so it makes sense to attack them with the heavy weaponry. Both the Consulate and the CIA base would have been seen as primary targets by the people that planned the assault.[/quote]

What you’re saying makes sense, but it is also at least partially speculative. And the suggestion that these are two prongs of the exact same attack should take into account the fact that almost four hours separated the consulate attack from the battle at the outpost–a piece of evidence which casts serious doubt on your “distraction” theory. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to look at the following timeline:

  1. Attack on consulate with light arms.

  2. Four hours of nothing.

  3. Attack on outpost with heavy arms

…and to conclude that the two may–note that I’m saying may–fall into separate categories even if they aren’t completely unlinked events.

336

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

.
I’ve heard reports that the place that was attacked was a CIA safehouse, not a consulate (sp?).

[/quote]

There was a house that the CIA was using as a base of operations about a mile from the consulate that was attacked as well. The consulate was also attacked as well, and was where Ambassador Stevens was when the attack started. Two SEALs and an unknown number of CIA agents were killed in the attack on the CIA building.
[/quote]

And as I understand it it was the CIA safe-house attack that was the more obviously coordinated assault. Mortars came down with precision which pretty much telegraphs premeditation, and heavy arms were used. The consulate attack by contrast involved AK’s and a fire (which is what killed Mr. Stevens) set with flammables which had been housed in the complex itself.[/quote]

Your wording is a bit unclear, these were two prongs of a single coordinated assault on multiple targets. The attack on the consulate was probably mostly a distraction and symbolic attack, which is why less sophisticated weaponry was used. It also may have been to force the staff out of the main consulate and to possibly smoke out other safehouses, since that is where many of the staff from the consulate fled, but that is not as likely as just simply a distraction and symbolic attack. The CIA house was defended by SEALS and probably had a couple of SAD boys (who are recruited from tier 1 special operations teams) there as well, so it makes sense to attack them with the heavy weaponry. Both the Consulate and the CIA base would have been seen as primary targets by the people that planned the assault.[/quote]

My mistake, I thought the safe house was much closer than a mile, and the two were basically the same building.

337
338

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi…publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son?s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening," Woods says, he wants answers on what happened?and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing - separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere - at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.” - The Weekly Standard

Well I’m sure Mr. Woods will be glad to know that the person responsible for all this is in jail now. WTF?

339

I’ve read that Woods was apparently laser painting targets. Now, I hadn’t thought about this until I saw someone else ask this. Why? I’m not a military man, nor do I keep up with our capabilities that well. So, why would he be ‘laser painting’ targets? Does this expose him?

340

Also isn’t the President now claiming he gave the directive to do everything we could to protect our personnel. So, what happened? Who is calling off assets being moved and forces deployed if the President gave such an order?