Senate Report Concludes the Benghazi Attacks Were Preventable

[BlindBoo]

Two weeks ago the NYT reported and you eagerly agreed that it was a video which caused a protest.
Now it's the CIA...
You'd better find the main water shut off valve because for Obama and his people, this thing is circling the bowl.

No. Here is what they reported.

"The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

.....

"One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Nothing about a protest.

From your post:

Anger at the video motivated the initial attack.
some of them provoked by the video

What is it to you think a "protest" is? Are you ******* blind?

Protest - "an event at which people gather together to show strong disapproval about something"

Attack - "take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war."

Thank you for highlighting the difference. The initial talking points included references to the possibility of the Attack developing in reaction to the Protest in Cairo over the dumbass video. Or that there was even protest in Benghazi. That turned out not to be true. I take exception to thereisnospoon claiming the NYT's reported the video cause a Protest. It didn't.

 

[Redfish]

No. Here is what they reported.

"The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

.....

"One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Nothing about a protest.

WTF, was that a squib-kick or what?

it was the only appropriate response to a NYT piece that blames americans when americans are murdered by terrorist bastards.

after all, can't offend any of the "good" muslims, now can we?

 

[BlindBoo]

WTF, was that a squib-kick or what?

it was the only appropriate response to a NYT piece that blames americans when americans are murdered by terrorist bastards.

after all, can't offend any of the "good" muslims, now can we?

Do tell how the article does that.

 

[Yurt]

WTF, was that a squib-kick or what?

it was the only appropriate response to a NYT piece that blames americans when americans are murdered by terrorist bastards.

after all, can't offend any of the "good" muslims, now can we?

Do tell how the article does that.

And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

 

[BlindBoo]

it was the only appropriate response to a NYT piece that blames americans when americans are murdered by terrorist bastards.

after all, can't offend any of the "good" muslims, now can we?

Do tell how the article does that.

And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Understanding what motivated the assholes to violence is different than assigning blame to the thing that motivated the assholes.

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

-President Obama

 

[Yurt]

Do tell how the article does that.

And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Understanding what motivated the assholes to violence is different than assigning blame to the thing that motivated the assholes.

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

-President Obama

what? you asked how the article blamed the video...i gave you what they said and you quote obama????

 

[percysunshine]

This is still a topic of debate?

Weird.

 

[depotoo]

People died.

And if you read the reports about a third of it puts blame on the CIA.

They do this, by the way, all over the world.

Two weeks ago the NYT reported and you eagerly agreed that it was a video which caused a protest.
Now it's the CIA...
You'd better find the main water shut off valve because for Obama and his people, this thing is circling the bowl.

No. Here is what they reported.

"The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

.....

"One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Nothing about a protest.

And yet that youtube only had around a thousand views at the time of the Benghazi attack...

 

[BlindBoo]

And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Understanding what motivated the assholes to violence is different than assigning blame to the thing that motivated the assholes.

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

-President Obama

what? you asked how the article blamed the video...i gave you what they said and you quote obama????

Care to address what I said?

 

[BlindBoo]

Two weeks ago the NYT reported and you eagerly agreed that it was a video which caused a protest.
Now it's the CIA...
You'd better find the main water shut off valve because for Obama and his people, this thing is circling the bowl.

No. Here is what they reported.

"The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

.....

"One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Nothing about a protest.

And yet that youtube only had around a thousand views at the time of the Benghazi attack...

Do you think all the Muslims around the world who rioted actually watched the video? Could it be they were reacting to what their Mullahs were telling them about the video?

The ignorant bastards used a stupid American made video as an excuse to riot. Is that blaming Americans?

 

[JimH52]

Yes, 911 was preventable also, but W did not believe the intelligence.

 

[rdean]

Yes, 911 was preventable also, but W did not believe the intelligence.

Benghazi was the SECOND time Republicans refused to listen to a Clinton warning.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money

Then after Benghazi, the fuckers RAISED embassy security budgets by two ******* billion.

 

[Yurt]

Yes, 911 was preventable also, but W did not believe the intelligence.

Benghazi was the SECOND time Republicans refused to listen to a Clinton warning.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money

Then after Benghazi, the fuckers RAISED embassy security budgets by two ******* billion.

i didn't realize the republicans were in the executive office

budgets had nothing to do with obama's failures. nice try, but even the senate report backs me up on that.

 

[Yurt]

Yes, 911 was preventable also, but W did not believe the intelligence.

and obama didn't believe the benghazi intelligence, but he gets a pass

 

[francoHFW]

Media Matters for America
"I don't care about the bloody report!" Bill O'Reilly yelled that after James Carville so thoroughly debunked O'Reilly on the bipartisan Benghazi Senate report that O'Reilly had to pretend the report didn't even exist. More on this, plus the amazing video here: Fox News Doesn't Care About The "Bloody Senate Report" | Blog | Media Matters for America

The Senate report makes clear where reports of a protest were born -- from the intelligence community. The report noted that the intelligence community (IC) received and disseminated an account in the immediate aftermath of the assault that there had been protests against the anti-Islam video at the diplomatic facility prior to the attack, based largely on press accounts that made that claim. The report also revealed that it took days for eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicating that there had been no protests to make their way into CIA assessments -- this information was not reviewed or disseminated until after Rice's statements.

What's more, the Senate's findings specifically dismissed the notion of a cover-up, stating:

The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to "cover-up" facts or make alterations for political purposes.

Fox News' heavy coverage of the Senate report has consistently ignored the facts in the report in order to smear the administration's response.

 

[Freewill]

So the CIA made up a story and the WH repeated it. A story that the provided text says was mostly from news reports. Which is interesting considering a lot of the riots didn't happen on 9/11.

So the bottom line, the administration didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[driveby]

The 9-11 Commission also deem the attacks that day in 2001 were preventable. Who was held accountable then?

Remember the time shortly after 9/11/01 when representatives from the Bush administration blamed those attacks on a you tube video?.........

 

[Freewill]

Yes, 911 was preventable also, but W did not believe the intelligence.

Benghazi was the SECOND time Republicans refused to listen to a Clinton warning.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money

Then after Benghazi, the fuckers RAISED embassy security budgets by two ******* billion.

rdean once again with this vitriol pile of steaming BS.

The untruth spread is nothing but liberal lying and a cover story. First of all the administration denied security increase. Second it is the country that hosts the embassy/consulate that is responsible for personnel security.

In House Committee testimony on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

and this:

State Dept. Rejected Security Requests

State Department officials acknowledged that they rejected security requests in Libya in the weeks leading up to the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi during a congressional hearing on Wednesday. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb admitted to opposing a request to extend the stay of a security team that had assisted Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other diplomats between February and August, though she said it would not have made a difference in Benghazi. The security officer who made the request said he interpreted the decision to mean “there was going to be too much political cost.”

State Dept. Rejected Security Requests - The Daily Beast

So once again when the Obama administration gets in trouble the liberal left invents talking points and they keep repeating them until they become true in their mines. The administration rejected an increase in security, I wonder why. Even if the cuts, which they did not, caused security to be reduced, which they did not, why would the administration then put our people in harms way? Who in the world would do such a thing? The Ambassador to France has a 16 man marine contingent to protect security information but the Ambassador to the country we just helped bomb the crap out of gets none? Really is that what rdean would have us believe that it was just a cut in the INCREASE the budget requested that was the cause?

BTW there was an attack today where two Americans were killed. Let's see if that rises to the level of the critique of Benghazi. I'll bet not because Benghazi was different, it was preventable, as the Senate report stated.

 

[paperview]

And yet that youtube only had around a thousand views at the time of the Benghazi attack...

It was being broadcast on T.V's in the Middle East. What was happening earlier in the day in Egypt? The whole damn world was watching that.

To remind again:

"Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy."

You can't go by just "youtube views" -- they were showing clips of it on Middle Eastern TV's.

Also, too:

"But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi.

“It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.

Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests." -From the NYT account

Also, the Grand Mafti had issued calls days before for protests about the film.

 

[paperview]

To add to the above:

Date: ---------------> Sept 10:
Egypt: Grand Mufti Angered By Prophet Muhammad Defaming Movie

Grand Mufti of the Republic Ali Gomaa strongly condemned a movie which denigrates Prophet Muhammad saying it is offensive to all Muslims. Prophet Muhammad is our guide and light, he said. The film was made by some extremist expatriate Copts.

"Freedom of speech does not warrant desecrating sanctities," Gomaa said in a statement Sunday. He called on human rights activists and organizations to stand against desecrating all religions.

allAfrica.com: Egypt: Grand Mufti Angered By Prophet Muhammad Defaming Movie

The Grand Mufti (Arabic: مفتي عام*) is the highest official of religious law in a Sunni or Ibadi Muslim country.