• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NYT: Libya Warnings Were Plentiful

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were “Al Qaeda-leaning,” according to American and European officials.

The warning about the camps was part of a stream of diplomatic and intelligence reports that indicated that the security situation throughout the country, and particularly in eastern Libya, had deteriorated sharply since the United States reopened its embassy in Tripoli after the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government in September 2011.


By June, Benghazi had experienced a string of assassinations as well as attacks on the Red Cross and a British envoy’s motorcade. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September attack, e-mailed his superiors in Washington in August alerting them to “a security vacuum” in the city. A week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a “state of maximum alert” in Benghazi after a car bombing and thwarted bank robbery.

(Eastern Libya)... was also known as one of the major sources of militants who traveled to Iraq in 2007 to join the main terrorist group there, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.


The number of State Department security agents at the compound in Benghazi fluctuated, sometimes dipping to as few as two. Five American security agents were at the compound on Sept. 11 — three stationed there and two traveling with Mr. Stevens.


In addition to the Americans, there were several armed Libyans who served as a quick-reaction force. The Americans were also able to call on the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, a militia supportive of the Libyan government. Yet another small group of Libyan guards stood watch at the gates and perimeter of the compound, but this group was unarmed and equipped with only whistles and batons.

When it came to weapons, the American security team was outgunned. The Americans were equipped with M4 rifles and side arms. But Libya was rife with rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns, mortars and AK-47s.

Much of the security depended on maintaining a low profile.**

On June 6, a bomb was planted near the American Mission’s outer wall, blowing out a 12-foot-wide hole.

On June 11, the lead vehicle of the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by an armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a British medic and driver.

...the Red Cross in the city pulled out after it was attacked a second time. “When that occurred, it was apparent to me that we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove,” said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, the head of the military security team in Tripoli.

Ansar al-Shariah, a local militant group some of whose members had ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, a local Qaeda affiliate, operated a militant training camp whose location was well known to Benghazi residents.


American intelligence agencies had provided the administration with reports for much of the past year warning that the Libyan government was weakening and had little control over the militias, including Ansar al-Shariah.


By early September, some Libyan officials in Benghazi were echoing the same security warnings as Mr. Stevens was relaying to Washington.

after the initial security teams began rotating out of Libya months later, he said, “there was a complete and total absence of planning.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/w...ngs-in-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0

Bush43 was attacked mercilessly on every front. The Left even attacked him for not having sent troops to protect the museums (that were looted) after they toppled Saddam. They attacked him for sending troop to war without having up-armored vehicles (thanks to Clinton neglecting the military). There was nothing too big or small to attack Bush43.

These aren't artifacts that needed protecting, but Americans known to the President and Clinton in a very dangerous part of the world. They failed to connect-the-dots. Then they lied for a couple weeks. Now they're playing beat-the-clock. It's disgusting.


** Low profile????????? Like the terrorists who hate America and would want to see Americans killed didn't know who was where????
 
Why is the NYT picking on the President? Don't they care if he wins? ****ing traitors ought to be shut down. No Freedom of the Press for those bastards.
 
What I knew it a 22nd Benghazi Thread---How desperate are you republicans? ** Nobody cares except you Obama haters who will believe that right wing tabloid New York Times.



**sorry I was just beating them to it.
 
What I knew it a 22nd Benghazi Thread---How desperate are you republicans? ** Nobody cares except you Obama haters who will believe that right wing tabloid New York Times.



**sorry I was just beating them to it.

Thanks for that.

Indeed, it would come as a surprise to no one (who's been paying attention) that Libya was and is a chaotic place.
 
The way obama kept our embassy open and unguarded in Libya shows how delusional he is. He truly thinks that since he bombed Qaddafi out of power that all Libya loves him and us.

The Embassy in Tripoli does have security..

Consulates rarely do..

I don't think that you can speak for what the President thinks...
 
The Embassy in Tripoli does have security..

Consulates rarely do..

I don't think that you can speak for what the President thinks...

Our ambassador was left in a city that has become an Alquiada stronghold with no real security, you tell me what obama was thinking if you don't like my theory.
 
I think whether the administration should have anticipated danger in Benghazi is a worthy question. Unfortunately, the entire subject has been so clouded by manipulations and conspiracy theories regarding what Obama did and said after the tragedy, that Republicans have lost standing to credibly challenge the issue. Classic "boy who cried wolf" scenario. I hope the truth eventually comes out on both issues.

Interesting, too, the difference between the title of the thread, "Libya Warnings Were Plentiful," and the title of the NYT article, "Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific." Conservatives should be careful of pulling stuff like this if they want to be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Our ambassador was left in a city that has become an Alquiada stronghold with no real security, you tell me what obama was thinking if you don't like my theory.

I think that Derna, Benghazi and Marsa Brega have competing militias and tribal affiliations that undermine the fledgling govt of Libya. I think they are awash in weapons.. and intel is conflicting.

You do realize that Benghazi is a city of about 700,000 people..

250px-The_Old_Town,_Benghazi,_Libya.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think whether the administration should have anticipated danger in Benghazi is a worthy question. Unfortunately, the entire subject has been so clouded by manipulations and conspiracy theories regarding what Obama did and said after the tragedy, that Republicans have lost standing to credibly challenge the issue. Classic "boy who cried wolf" scenario. I hope the truth eventually comes out on both issues.

I disagree. For better or worse, the GOP is the one standing in opposition to those concealing the information. It shouldn't take $50M and 2 years to get the answer to the simple question "Who ordered the military to stand down?" The press has been addled by profit motive leading them to replace actual reporters with high-dollar personalities and a stable of paid guests. You may not like it, but the party in opposition has the default duty to check power. I will be the first to tell you that the democrats/media failed in rubberstamping the Iraq war with no scrutiny whatsoever just because of the 9/11 patriotic blindness. I am always of the opinion that when people are being put in harm's way, we have a greater duty to question than a lesser one.
 
I think that Derna, Benghazi and Marsa Brega have competing militias and tribal affiliations that undermine the fledgling govt of Libya. I think they are awash in weapons.. and intel is conflicting.

You do realize that Benghazi is a city of about 700,000 people..

250px-The_Old_Town,_Benghazi,_Libya.jpg

You didn't answer the question. Why did obama leave our ambassador in such a chaotic and dangerous city with virtually no security even though that ambassador sent numerous emais asking for just that. What is your theory on this?
 
You didn't answer the question. Why did obama leave our ambassador in such a chaotic and dangerous city with virtually no security even though that ambassador sent numerous emais asking for just that. What is your theory on this?

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo was warned there could be trouble, official says - CNN.com

The US Embassy was warned in advance that there could be trouble over the video..

As for the consulate in Benghazi, I think the Ambassador was not often in Benghazi. I have not seen any mention of the name of the private security firm that the two former seals worked for, but I would have at least assumed that had assessed security risks.

Remember the bombing In Arabia? Khobar Towers?

The Saudis had advised the US military that security needed to be beefed up, but they didn't want to spend the money.
 
You didn't answer the question. Why did obama leave our ambassador in such a chaotic and dangerous city with virtually no security even though that ambassador sent numerous emais asking for just that. What is your theory on this?
I don't have a theory, but I can offer a few considerations that might have influenced the Obama (or the State Department's) decision...

Increasing security in Benghazi might require decreasing security elsewhere.

The prior attacks in Benghazi were smaller in scale . . . bombings, etc. There could have been a judgment call that a large-scale attack which would require hundreds of US soldiers to defend against was improbable (this is where the point that the warnings were not "specific" is important).

I think further investigation is warranted, there are indications there may have been incompetence, but it is too early to actually draw that conclusion. I encourage Obama to release the information necessary for us to determine whether mistakes were made. But at this point, a week before the election, I don't think it is unreasonable to wait. We have already seen how the partisan media can pick and choose from evidence to craft whatever story they want. If it comes out that Obama was incompetent, impeach him. But at the moment it is too soon to say, and the risks at this point outweigh the benefits of releasing this info.
 
Why do we need proper security? al Qaeda's on the run. :roll:
 
Unfortunately, the entire subject has been so clouded by manipulations and conspiracy theories regarding what Obama did and said after the tragedy, that Republicans have lost standing to credibly challenge the issue.

To quote Col. Sherman Potter... pure horse hockey.

For 2 weeks Obama mislead.
We know a lot and the only people who have lost credibility are Obama, Clinton, Rice and their hangers-on.
Leftists would like this to go away; it shouldn't. It deserves to be right up front... and Obama should come clean.

 
I disagree. For better or worse, the GOP is the one standing in opposition to those concealing the information. It shouldn't take $50M and 2 years to get the answer to the simple question "Who ordered the military to stand down?" The press has been addled by profit motive leading them to replace actual reporters with high-dollar personalities and a stable of paid guests. You may not like it, but the party in opposition has the default duty to check power. I will be the first to tell you that the democrats/media failed in rubberstamping the Iraq war with no scrutiny whatsoever just because of the 9/11 patriotic blindness. I am always of the opinion that when people are being put in harm's way, we have a greater duty to question than a lesser one.

The answer to your simple question is simple. There is only one person who could have ordered the military to stand down.
 
The answer to your simple question is simple. There is only one person who could have ordered the military to stand down.

I know who gave the Order. Why is it so hard for that person to own up to it? I want to hear it how of his mouth instead of "bumps in the road".
 
I know who gave the Order. Why is it so hard for that person to own up to it? I want to hear it how of his mouth instead of "bumps in the road".

You don't know jack ... still.
 
I know who gave the Order. Why is it so hard for that person to own up to it? I want to hear it how of his mouth instead of "bumps in the road".

The only theory that I can come up with as to the why is that the commander in name only cannot bring it upon himself to issue an order to fire on his muslim brothers.

Isn't it telling that the excuse that after the bad movie float did not fly, the the excuse has now turned to just being incompetent?

And, if the incompetent excuse does not flow to the very top, why have there been no firings at the 2nd tier?
 
Last edited:
I want the words to come out of his mouth so his "superfans" will finally be denied the "well we need an investigation" crap. It is insanely easy to disclose the information and the why without "compromising national security" or any of the other crap they are trying to build a wall around the President with. Mostly, I want Mr. Woods to know what he wants to know about his son's death instead of being jerked around by the spin.
 
Why is the NYT picking on the President? Don't they care if he wins? ****ing traitors ought to be shut down. No Freedom of the Press for those bastards.

This is what the NYT's said about those "warnings"

Interviews suggest that though the State Department received many warnings about the deteriorating situation in Benghazi, none focused on the diplomatic compound that was attacked.
 
The only theory that I can come up with as to the why is that the commander in name only cannot bring it upon himself to issue an order to fire on his muslim brothers.

Isn't it telling that the excuse that after the bad movie float did not fly, the the excuse has now turned to just being incompetent?

And, if the incompetent excuse does not flow to the very top, why have there been no firings at the 2nd tier?

Huh? You can't be serious. That's positively nuts.
 
Huh? You can't be serious. That's positively nuts.

As I said that is the only theory that I can come up with. I would be interested in your theory given the facts as we know them.
 
Back
Top Bottom