Taken from today's Wall Street Journal
Yet another stand-alone newsbite on the Libyan "incident" of 9/11/12:
In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that "there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."
FOLKS... DID YOU READ THE PREVIOUS NEWSBITE? (ENOUGH SAID.)
What he didn't say is how relentless he'll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders.
None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up.
BUT, HEY... THEY'VE BEEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY BUDDY ROB SO FAR - GO FIGURE!
First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: "What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent."
IF NOT A LIE... THAN INCOMPETENCE. RIGHT? THE PROBLEM WITH GIVING MS. RICE "THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" IS THAT I CERTAINLY KNEW SHE WASN'T MAKING AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. WHY DIDN'T SHE...? (AND ASSUMING "SIMPLE" INCOMPETENCE IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO, ROB.)
Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack.
ROB. IT WAS 9/11. ISN'T THAT REASON ENOUGH ALONE - ALL BY ITSELF - TO INCREASE SECURITY FOR THE DAY? ISN'T THAT ENOUGH TO TRIGGER COMMON SENSE "PREPARATION" FOR A WORST-CASE SCENARIO?
"The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week...
ROB... THE AMBASSADOR HIMSELF FELT HIMSELF TO BE AN AT-RISK TARGET. (REMEMBER, BUDDY... OBAMA AND CLINTON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE DIARY - LET ALONE ENVISION IT'S CONTENTS BEING MADE PUBLIC.)
...calling the security measures in place there "robust."
ROB... "ROBUST...???" REALLY...?!?!
Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march "hijacked" by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.
RIGHT? TRUE? (BUT HERE'S THE THING, ROB... WHY DID THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR STORY IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHY DIDN'T THEY KNOW WHAT THE FOREIGN MEDIA KNEW... WHAT LIBYAN OFFICIALS KNEW... WHAT WILLIAM R. BARKER KNEW (THANKS TO SIMPLY READING OPEN-SOURCE SOURCES)?
AGAIN... BEST CASE... INCOMPETENCE. (BUT IT SURE STILL LOOKS LIKE A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT EARLY ON TO SHIFT BLAME... TO SHIFT FOCUS AND ATTENTION... (AND WHO COULD BLAME THEM FOR TAKING THE BET THAT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT? PERHAPS THEY WERE CONFIDENT THE LIBYAN AUTHORITIES WOULD BACK THEIR PLAY? PERHAPS THEY COUNTED ON THEIR ALLIES IN THE MSM TO PROTECT THEM AND NOT "GO OFF THE RESERVATION" LIKE CNN HAS DONE.) NO, BUD... I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS... BUT I'M CERTAINLY LOOKING AT ALL THIS THE SAME WAY I WOULD IF IT WERE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OR A ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION.
You'd think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with.
I KNOW, ROB... I KNOW... IT WAS A CONSULATE, NOT AN EMBASSY. GRANTED! SO LET'S SUBSTITUTE FOR "COMPOUND" THE WORD... "AMBASSADOR." WHY WAS ANY AMERICAN AMBASSADOR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SO OUT OF CONTACT AND RELATIVELY UNPROTECTED ON 9/11?
(*TWIDDLING MY THUMBS*)
The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.
YEP. TO ME IT WOULD. HOW'BOUT TO YOU...?
Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration's holes.
AND, YET... YOU DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY.
On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren't demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs.
Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.
ROB. UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE ARE RIGHT-WING WSJ LIES... CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T SEE WHAT I SEE (AND HAVE SEEN ALL ALONG) SO CLEARLY?
Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack, four lightly armed Libyans and five American security officers were on duty. The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines, whose deployment to Libya wasn't a priority.
OOH...! I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT NO MARINES ASSIGNED TO THE EMBASSY! WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT ONE, ROB?
Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the "never-ending" security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list.
COULD IT BE THAT STEVENS NEVER MENTIONED ANY OF HIS FEARS TO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON? IS THAT POSSIBLE? ROB... IF ANYONE IN THE PRESS HAS BOTHERED TO ASK HRC, I FOR ONE AM NOT AWARE OF IT. ARE YOU? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION... RIGHT? ME? IF FIND IT VERY DOUBTFUL THAT STEVENS FAILED TO KEEP HRC IN THE LOOP. BUT EVEN IF HE HAD... ISN'T IT HRC's RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW STUFF LIKE THIS...??? (OH... WAIT... RE-READING FROM PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS IT'S CLEAR HRC DID KNOW ABOUT IT! AT LEAST THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALLY KNEW ABOUT IT. RE-READ THE "DETERIORATING SECURITY WAS NO SECRET" PARAGRAPH.)
Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike — on Sept. 11 no less — in this fashion.
ROB. YOU'VE TOLD ME YOU DIDN'T BLAME BUSH FOR 9/11. FAIR ENOUGH. I ACTUALLY DID... TO A CERTAIN EXTENT... A FAR LESSER EXTENT THAN I BLAME CLINTON... BUT IN ANY CASE I "GET" YOUR RATIONALE. BUT AS TO THE QUESTION ABOVE RAISED BY THE WSJ... WHAT SAY YOU?
Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory...
I DON'T KNOW, ROB. MAYBE I'M JUST A CYNIC... BUT I'M GUESSING THE MEDIA HEAT ON BUSH WOULD HAVE BEEN A HELL OF A LOT HOTTER AND I REITERATE MY GUESS THAT HAD THIS HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH AND YOU AND I HAD A RIDE TOGETHER WITHIN A FEW DAYS... WE WOULD SURELY HAVE DISCUSSED IT.
AND MORE IMPORTANT... MY GUESS IS THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN "DISCUSSING" IT.
(*YET ANOTHER SHRUG*)
Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others.
FRANKLY I'LL STICK WITH "LIED."