Someone Explain This Benghazi Situation

[Havok]

I have no idea what it is about. I pretty much shut myself off from the "news" as A) I mostly don't care anymore and B) I'm sick of the 24 hour news cycle.

However as there seems to be legitimate traction on impeachment and this story seems to be actual news, I am curious about it now.

[Mr Bean]

Short version?
In Benghazi there was a small consulate that had been set up. It was your standard walk up and knock on the door affair without room for big walls, lots of security or anything you see in a typical hostile country embassy. On September 11th of last year several government officials and local contractors lost their lives in an attack on this installation. Much political noise was made about the situation for weeks leading up to the election and then everything was forgotten pretty much the next week. Later the State Department release a pretty vicious report on the entire situation noting how dumb it was to operate this type of low security facility in a place as dangerous as Benghazi. Also noted were the lack of response plans and the fact there was no rapid reaction force in country and again the fact there was anyone in this type of consulate in Benghazi at all.

Secretary Clinton says it was all her (And thus the State Department fault), the State department fucked up in letting this thing happen. She took credit and admitted that the people she picked had fucked up so she fucked up.

And that's the end of the story.
Everything beyond that from conspiracy theories about us staging the attack to some general (Somewhere) being denied the opportunity to go to the aid of the besieged Americans was nonsense. The first attack and first casualties were pretty much all over with inside twenty minutes. The second two AM attack was a separate compound and those troops were already on high alert, nothing sort of pulling everyone inside the city out the day before could have really prevented anything.

So the calls for impeachment... it's really hard to justify and you'll note people calling for impeachment over Benghazi have a hard time going from State fucked up to The President must be removed because.... reasons.

[Kuja]

So the calls for impeachment... it's really hard to justify and you'll note people calling for impeachment over Benghazi have a hard time going from State fucked up to The President must be removed because.... reasons.

Not that it really stops some folks. My dad made a noise about how it's going to be "Obama's Watergate" but then my dad is an avid Fox News fan.

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm going to have to disagree with Bean.
Spoiler

In September 2012 there was an anti-Muslim film that sparked protests at American embassies in the middle east. During these protests the Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and 3 Americans were killed. Initially the attack was reported as being part of those same protests.

Here's the thread from this forum discussing the attack and movie.

A film attacking Islam's prophet, Muhammad, has sparked aggressive protests against U.S. interests in both Egypt and Libya. A Libyan security official says one American consulate employee has been shot dead and another wounded in the hand during an attack at the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Bengazi.

Later it turned out that the attack was pre-planned and not in response to the movie.

The republicans have been trying there damnedest to drum this up as a controversy since Obama and Clinton both made statements that it was sparked by protests and the republicans think that they can frame this as a lie and coverup.

Here's an blogger explaining why it's resurging now:

Why Benghazi? Message: they care


by digby

For those of you trying to figure out just what in the hell the wingnuts are pretending to be all upset about with Benghazi, Jon Podhoretz runs it down in simple terms. Basically, it's that they' convinced the administration knew it was a terrorist attack and tried to cover it up in the early days of the raid. Blah, blah, blah.

But this is just precious:

We don’t know why the Obama administration chose to do this. We can speculate. We can guess it did so because it had developed a story line for the 2012 election in which al Qaeda was dead, and this muddied that story line.

But there’s a very good counter-argument that, politically, Obama missed an opportunity: He could have gotten up and said, “I’m the man who got bin Laden, and we’ll get these men, too.” That would’ve rallied the country. Who would’ve objected? Who would’ve criticized?

The point is, all we will have is speculation until someone on the inside gives up the goods in a memoir, if anyone ever does.

Is this an impeachable offense? No. Will Hillary Clinton’s evident involvement in the revision of the administration’s line on Benghazi harm her presidential chances in 2016? No.

Will this be of great political utility to Republicans? No. Will this harm Democrats terribly? No — even though Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings did say, “Death is a part of life,” in response to the fact that four Americans were slaughtered by terrorists.

One might wonder, then, why the Republicans have worked themselves up into full-blown hysteria over this. I have my theory --- that Roger Ailes and the boys are dusting off the old Clinton scandal playbook, which can most accurately be described as making chicken salad out of chicken shit.

But that's not the official story among the so-called intellectual right at least as represented by J-Pod:

We can say it’s a big deal because of the testimony of Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer in Libya at the time of the attacks. “It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State,” Nordstrom said as his voice cracked with sorrow and he paused several times to choke back tears. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve and, most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, who were murdered on Sept. 11.”

Those old softies.

Update: Mark Ambinder spells it out

Consider me as confused as Terrence Jeffries. The voluble conservative gadfly let it slip on Sean Hannity's radio program today that he really doesn't know what possible motivation the Obama administration would have for altering talking points about the Benghazi terrorist attack, or in forcing Hillary Clinton to go along with a conspiracy to somehow cover up something having to do with the death of four American diplomats and intelligence officers.

A few seconds earlier, Jeffries had described a statement that went out from the U.S. embassy in Egypt attempting to calm passions amid the firefight. (He directly attributed the statement to Hillary Clinton, but hey, why let facts get in the way?) Said Jeffries: "They need to explain that Sean. They haven't done it yet. The root of it is Hillary Clinton."

Hannity isn't quite ready to move on. "I think Hillary was running interference for Obama but I'm convinced that the talking points had to go through the re-election campaign that was located in the White House."

But Jeffries must make sure that the blame lies with Hillary Clinton; the buck must stop with her, because she's going to run for president in 2016, and Jeffries needs to raise money off of her, and he needs to begin to draw a caricature of her as uncaring, unfeeling, and willing to let four Americans die rather than face up to the fact of an al Qaeda renaissance.

TL:DR: Fox News is trying to drum up a fake controversy to torpedo a Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential run. There is no controversy or "legitimate impeachment traction".

[Nephtys]

They've been trying their damned best to make this some sort of crazy inside job plot by the Administration going to the highest levels. Instead of a simple 'There was a fuckup and Americans died to an attack'.

I've heard multiple attempts to stick a 'watergate' or 'bengazigate' label to this. Which is utter nonsense.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also of note that the walk up and knock facility was running CIA hearts and minds lets get the locals to help us fuck over al queda operations out of it. Which is why part of the fuck up was that being super secretive dicks the CIA didn't share info with the State Department. (Mind you this has nothing to do with whose in charge of the Whitehouse they've had that reputation almost as bad as Hoover FBI from the beginning (I think they learned it from the Hoover FBI)

[Dominus Atheos]

They've been trying their damned best to make this some sort of crazy inside job plot by the Administration going to the highest levels. Instead of a simple 'There was a fuckup and Americans died to an attack'.

I'd argue even that word fuckup goes to far. more like "we're at war and Americans died to an enemy attack"

not being able to predict an enemy attack isn't a fuckup. Nobody involved did anything wrong.

[Flagg]

They've been trying their damned best to make this some sort of crazy inside job plot by the Administration going to the highest levels. Instead of a simple 'There was a fuckup and Americans died to an attack'.

I'd argue even that word fuckup goes to far. more like "we're at war and Americans died to an enemy attack"

not being able to predict an enemy attack isn't a fuckup. Nobody involved did anything wrong.

There was a fuckup. Congress refused to fund extra security for the state department and four people died.

So basically:
State Department and WH ask for more security funding.
Republicans in congress refuse.
Benghazi happens.
Republicans blame the black lady who did her job, then black guy because hey, he's black, then Hillary because they are terrified of her.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The republicans have been trying to find a "Watergate" for Obama since even Before He was President
At the time they crowd about how his "connection" to Bill Ayers was going to sink him for sure. And then of course when it didn't, they blamed the "Liberal Media" for hushing it up...

Don't have too much to add to the Benghazi thing after what has already been said, said from one of the things the Right harp about is evidently "not doing enough".. That evidently there was, like a whole army we could have sent to help and stuff, and, like there was an aircraft carrier, and like we could have totally sent a whole bunch of fighters and bombers there to help in just minutes! But we didn't cause Obama was like evil!"

Once again how this is supposed to lead to impeachment by Obama is a mystery I will not try to understand.

[Lost Soal]

You forgot the part where he went to bed. Because apparently the President being awake makes planes travel faster, or something.

[Ahriman238]

Ah yes, much has been made of the president's actions, irrefutably proven by stalker-ish monitoring, that night. He gets a call at 1 am, saying that a US consulate is under attack, relief is on the way but isn't going to make it on time. He takes a minute to confirm that the military, State, and his speechwriters are doing their jobs, then rolls over and goes back to sleep. Like a monster.

A REAL president would have spent the rest of the night up pacing, stewing in his impotence and brought to the brink of a nervous breakdown over the fate of a handful of Americans. Or, you know, started randomly nuking half the world because he has no idea where Benghazi is.

And then he gets a second call an hour later, and he goes back to bed again. Where was the leadership in this crisis? Why did he wait until morning to reassure a populace that hadn't yet heard of the killings! How dare he trust his people to do their jobs, and act as though his job required him to be well-rested and capable of making life-or-death decisions at all times.

And that is why I voted for Stein.

[CaptHawkeye]

I just can't take these guys seriously when they claim they're whistle blowing a serious controversy. The Republicans did shit way shadier than Bhengazi for years under and before Bush. Now they're the country's self-appointed first line of defense for political scandals right? They care so much about the risks to the lives of Americans in warzones that they opted not to start two wars in the Middle East on dubious claims of WMD possession!

[TimothyC]

I have no idea what it is about. I pretty much shut myself off from the "news" as A) I mostly don't care anymore and B) I'm sick of the 24 hour news cycle.

However as there seems to be legitimate traction on impeachment and this story seems to be actual news, I am curious about it now.

Things that others have missed so far:

• There was a Quick Reaction Force team in Tripoli, ready to board a Libyan C-130 to fly to Benghazi. It is next to impossible that the presence of this team would have effected the outcome of the events in any way, but after the first attack, they were told to hold back by someone in AFRICOM or higher. Who was it, and when did they make that call?
• Secretary of State Clinton, despite having been in contact with Gregory Hicks (The Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya) on the night of the attack, was not interviewed by the Accountability Review Board. Why is this the case?
• Who pushed for the changes to the talking points that were used by Ambassador Rice on the talk shows on the 16th of September, and why did Ambassador Rice blame the video or the attacks when it was known inside the State Department that there were no protests leading up to the attack?

[Losonti Tokash]

A couple good summaries:

What they're accusing him of is trying to make people think it wasn't terrorists until forced to, ordering military units that were going to help to stand down, denying earlier requests for more security, and covering up something (mostly through telling proxies to lie and denying congressional access to the survivors).

If you're asking for a rundown of what actually happened then it's more complicated. Basically a bunch of people fucked up and by the time anyone realized how badly it was too late to do anything about it. Intelligence reports contradicted each other immediately after the event and some people said stuff that turned out to be wrong.

e: it should be noted that what they're accusing him of is a constantly shifting thing as one line of attack gets discredited and/or they find some other report to chew on. Benghazi is the creation science of right wing attacks. They know the answer (Obama bad) and what he's accused of is whatever best leads to that conclusion at the time.

There are two complaints:

1. That the administration sent Ambassador Rice out on a tour of the Sunday shows with false talking points to cover up their knowledge that the attacks were linked to al Qaeda. The theory being that admitting that AQ was involved would hurt Obama in the election. This is a bit crazy because (1) why would this hurt Obama exactly? and (2) the information about the attacks being linked to AQ were given to Republicans in the House and Senate so how is this a cover-up?

2. That forces that could have responded in time to help fight back were told to stand down by the DoD and/or CIA (and by extension Obama). Gregory Hicks, a Foreign Service officer who was in Tripoli at the time of the attack, claims that a Lt. Col. in Tripoli was getting ready to leave for Benghazi and was told not to go by his superiors. The Pentagon denies this, and also states that at the time they didn't know enough about the situation to be sure how to properly respond.

And there's the unspoken complaint that everyone acknowledges is true: that the State Department mission in Libya requested additional security funds and were turned down at the undersecretary level in Washington. Hillary has already said that this should not have happened, but the request never reached her desk. There's also the fact that additional security funds were not available because Congress has been on a bit of a craze about reducing spending of late.

[Flagg]

I have no idea what it is about. I pretty much shut myself off from the "news" as A) I mostly don't care anymore and B) I'm sick of the 24 hour news cycle.

However as there seems to be legitimate traction on impeachment and this story seems to be actual news, I am curious about it now.

Things that others have missed so far:

• There was a Quick Reaction Force team in Tripoli, ready to board a Libyan C-130 to fly to Benghazi. It is next to impossible that the presence of this team would have effected the outcome of the events in any way, but after the first attack, they were told to hold back by someone in AFRICOM or higher. Who was it, and when did they make that call?
• Secretary of State Clinton, despite having been in contact with Gregory Hicks (The Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya) on the night of the attack, was not interviewed by the Accountability Review Board. Why is this the case?
• Who pushed for the changes to the talking points that were used by Ambassador Rice on the talk shows on the 16th of September, and why did Ambassador Rice blame the video or the attacks when it was known inside the State Department that there were no protests leading up to the attack?

Here's one: Why didn't Chairman Issa call Pickering to testify and then lie about it on TV yesterday? Is it because he's a lying sack of shit shill for the Republican party and is only interested in trying to torpedo Hillary Clinton in 2016? See how I answered a question within the question to make him look bad? Oh wait, none of that is made up bullshit like Benghazi.

[Havok]

So the story is news, but there is no impeachment traction other than what Fox News and some others are putting out there. (McCain is even like, whoa there young fellas)
Thanks for the info guys.

Is it kinda sad and a reflection on our current news state that I trust you guys more than cable, print, internet and network news?

[LadyTevar]

This should be in New & Politics, not Off-Topic

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course, Obama's Plumbers playing around with the AP is a different issue entirely, but one that's a hell of a lot more concerning and might actually lead to impeachment.

[Flagg]

Of course, Obama's Plumbers playing around with the AP is a different issue entirely, but one that's a hell of a lot more concerning and might actually lead to impeachment.

How? It's perfectly legal.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course, Obama's Plumbers playing around with the AP is a different issue entirely, but one that's a hell of a lot more concerning and might actually lead to impeachment.

How? It's perfectly legal.

That remains to be seen. You trust proclamations from the government now? An investigation IS in order, unlike with Benghazi.

[Flagg]

Of course, Obama's Plumbers playing around with the AP is a different issue entirely, but one that's a hell of a lot more concerning and might actually lead to impeachment.

How? It's perfectly legal.

That remains to be seen. You trust proclamations from the government now? An investigation IS in order, unlike with Benghazi.

No, I trust the fact that its fucking legal to do what they did. But let's ignore that and explain why they did what they did. It's because republicans threw a shit fit over leaks supposedly from the WH and this wiretapping was to try and find the leak.

Back to it being legal: You know how I know its legal? Because ironically Obama cosponsored legislation in 2007 to make it illegal. Legislation that went down in flames. He's asking one of the other cosponsors to reintroduce the legislation, which I also expect to go down in flames.

[Patroklos]

There was a fuckup. Congress refused to fund extra security for the state department and four people died.

So basically:
State Department and WH ask for more security funding.
Republicans in congress refuse.
Benghazi happens.
Republicans blame the black lady who did her job, then black guy because hey, he's black, then Hillary because they are terrified of her.

The cuts amounted to a couple percentage points of the secuirty budget and were largely a rollback of increases in budgets to cover the high security requirements of State activities in Iraq.

But even if you want to believe those cuts had any impact on the level of security there is nothing linking them to Libya. State operates hundreds to thousands of sites worldwide, the idea that the one they would choose to suffer the impact of any cut would be the one in a just established mission in a post war chaotic enviroment with known armed Al Queda (and other group) infiltrated militias is beyond comprehension.

If you want to get your panties in a wad about some WH ass covering during the reporting feel free, that has little interest to be compared to what allowed this to happen in the first place. There is no denying that the facilities were not as secure as they should have been in the circumstances of Libya at that time.

[Flagg]

Btw, the reason for the leak investigation? The AP revealed the name of a CIA spy who managed to infiltrate al Qaeda and stop a plot to blow up a US bound jet. So let me play for them the worlds smallest violin.

[Flagg]

There was a fuckup. Congress refused to fund extra security for the state department and four people died.

So basically:
State Department and WH ask for more security funding.
Republicans in congress refuse.
Benghazi happens.
Republicans blame the black lady who did her job, then black guy because hey, he's black, then Hillary because they are terrified of her.

The cuts amounted to a couple percentage points of the secuirty budget and were largely a rollback of increases in budgets to cover the high security requirements of State activities in Iraq.

But even if you want to believe those cuts had any impact on the level of security there is nothing linking them to Libya. State operates hundreds to thousands of sites worldwide, the idea that the one they would choose to suffer the impact of any cut would be the one in a just established mission in a post war chaotic enviroment with known armed Al Queda (and other group) infiltrated militias is beyond comprehension.

If you want to get your panties in a wad about some WH ass covering during the reporting feel free, that has little interest to be compared to what allowed this to happen in the first place. There is no denying that the facilities were not as secure as they should have been in the circumstances of Libya at that time.

Yes, but the fact is that the republicans cut the budget for security. If there's a scandal it's that. And btw, it's come out that Ambassador Stevens was offered extra security several times and refused it. So it's just a giant non story.

[Patroklos]

Only if you can prove that:

1.) The State department shouldn't have had its security funding cut. As I said a huge portion of their pre cut funding was for Iraq facuilities almost all of which had been shut down by this time. There is a correct level of funding for state department security and it is not always more.

2.) That those cuts in any way impacted the Libyian mission in particular. If they decided to level all the cuts accross the board instead of say smartly allocating them to places like Iceland and Finland (but more likely just losing a surplus from no longer staffed locations) in favor of not degrading places like Yemen or Libya then thats a scandel all by itself. Thats for those claiming the cuts were at fault to prove one way or the other.

As to the denials of security by Stevens that is because they were offered directly by the military after his own State chain of command told him no. Ambassadors can't just establish armed military camps in their countries all by themselves, especially when told specifically by their superiors that they can't. This gets back to the question WHY state told them no when it appears the military thought it a good idea and was onboard wit doing so and it certainly has nothing to do with money.