Skip to main content

ABC News is now ginning up an allegation that the State Department denied a request for additional Security by the Libyan embassy - and suggesting that in some way the Obama Administration bears some responsibilty for the death of Ambassdor Stevens and 3 others as a result of the Beghazi attack last month.

ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties.
Let's read that again carefully....
...denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane
So really this wasn't a denial of Security, it was a denial of a request to keep a Plane they had been using 6 months previously when there was NO AIR TRAFFIC in Libya.

So exactly how does the lack of this plane mean that the Obama Administration was lackadaisacal about Security?

This is one of the reasons I don't watch ABC News.  The wingnut influence (of their ownership company Disney, who tried to block the release of Farenheit 9/11 and then their "Investigative Unit" who cut and spliced together the original "Reverend Wright Tapes" and ginned up the "God Damn America" debacle, not to mention their in-kind contribution the Bush Campaign - "Path to 9/11") is undeniable.

Their on air reporter breathlessly claims that (You should listen to the audio, it's amazingly inflammatory):

An explosive email from the State Dept. that reveals the extra security requested by American diplomats before last month's deadly attack were denied.  
Oh, so this email is "Explosive?"  It is a Unabomber Email Now?

The fact is extra Security (as in personnel) isn't what they asked for, they simply asked to be able to keep using the plane. Would having their own private plane be more "secure"?  Well, yeah, but they weren't attacked on a plane now were they?  They were on the ground in a completely different city.

The Email actually says this:

Undersecretary for Management has determined that support for Embassy Tripoli using the DC-3 will be terminated immediately.

Post's request to continue use of the plane in support of SST (Security Support Team of 16 Special Forces Troops) was considered. However, it was decided, NEA will charter a special flight for their departure if needed

This is what the State Dept said to ABC:
the DC-3 was pulled from Iraq and moved to support Libya early on when there was no commercial airline service into Libya. When commercial service was re-established in Libya, the aircraft was reassigned to other State Department business. We use our aircraft when no commercial flights exist.
Which frankly makes perfect sense, but this isn't mentioned until 3/4th of the way down in the article.

This took place six months before the attack and the only thing it means is they didn't have their own plane, if they needed one - they would charter one.

What's the diff?  Well apparently this is.

The U.S. government official who provided the email to ABC News – and wanted to remain anonymous because of  the sensitivity of the matter – described the small DC-3 plane as an asset for a security team to more freely and safely move throughout the country, and to more easily transport arms and other security equipment. In short, having the plane allowed the security team to better perform its duties, the official said.

The State Department official acknowledged that the plane was used to get around Libya, not just to get in and out of the country. But once commercial air service was re-established, the State Department decided that the SST didn’t need the plane anymore. The security team, it would seem, disagreed.

Ok, there was a disagrement.  And someone with hurt fee fees, trying to settle a score released the email.

The point that really set me off is this, from the 3rd Paragraph of the report.

No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively  made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August.
If no one has made that argument why is ABC reporting this "explosive email" about something that didn't make a difference?  And if you read further as I note above, it appears that it wasn't the 16 member SST that left in May (the team stayed until August), it was just the plane. that they didn't need anymore.

So is ABC trying to make someone suggest they would have survived if the SST back in Tripoli still had their own DC-3?

Seriously, what's this email have to do with an attack that didn't take place in Tripoli, and didn't involve use of a plane of any kind? What exactly is ABC trying to pull by making an issue out of something that one way or another "no one argues" would have prevented the attack?


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  geography (32+ / 0-)

    isn't a strongpoint of Americans or the American press.

    The Embassy in Tripoli vs. the Consulate in Benghazi, they are two different places?? Who knew!

    But as soon as the attack started,  we could have revved up the DC 3 and, recalled the special forces team to Libya,  sent a special forces team straight to the Tripoli, then to the ariport in Tripoli to the airport in Behghazi,through the demonstration and arrived in time to save the day.

    It is absurd to have to deal with the media these days.  Anything to scream breaking, and a major scandal, then have something with less oomph than a Fourth of July sparkler,   is really at the heart.

    Maybe they could report on something real next time.

  •  ABC should be hammered for this, and it shouldn't (17+ / 0-)

    have to be the WH that does it.
    My guess is that g. stephanopolis will be hearing from Bill Clinton.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:24:54 PM PDT

    •  Fuck that...I sent an email (7+ / 0-)

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:07:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wrote this here on Sept 15... (0+ / 0-)
      I'm just waiting for the R's to start their
      hearings to "find out" who knew what and when.

      There are reports (as yet not verified) that the Libyan government gave notice that things were percolating. There have been attacks on the Red Cross and other diplomatic personal and buildings.

      If this is true, seem our guard was down and not enough security provided.

      BTW were there other people in the Consulate. If they were there, how did they escape?

      As soon as I heard about the attack I knew the Rs would jump on anything that even smelled like the Obama admin may have dropped the ball. It's just what they do!

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 06:48:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree what you describe would not have changed (6+ / 0-)

    anything in my opinion.

    However this might have:

    In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.  

    Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

    The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

    Furthermore, here is some additional info,
    The new information disclosed in the letter obtained by The Daily Beast strongly suggests the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens were known by U.S. security personnel to be targets for terrorists. Indeed, the terrorists made their threats openly on Facebook.

    For example, following a May 22 early-morning attack on a facility that housed the International Committee on the Red Cross, a Facebook page claimed responsibility, and said the attack was a warning and a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” That reference was likely to American surveillance drones over a city that provided fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.

    In June a Facebook page associated with militants linked to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi posted a threat to Stevens based on the route he took for his morning jog. The Facebook page also posted a picture of Stevens. The letter to Clinton notes that “after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them.”  

    We can only speculate at this point. Could this new information have made a difference and saved lives? We will never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that people are dead.
    •  Surprise! (0+ / 0-)

      Libya is a dangerous place. U.S. presidents have been shot and killed ffs.

    •  Well, according to the Wall Street (17+ / 0-)

      Journal, Stevens didn't want more security:


      Current and former officials said the security choices in Benghazi reflected efforts by Mr. Stevens to maintain a low-profile security posture and show faith in Libya’s new leaders, despite questions about their ability to rein in heavily armed bands of militants. Officials say Mr. Stevens personally advised against having Marines posted at the embassy in Tripoli, apparently to avoid a militarized U.S. presence.

          The security plan for the consulate also reflected confidence Mr. Stevens felt in a city where he worked for months with rebels battling Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.

      That said, there are some real questions that should be asked and answered about this incident, especially in regards to the administration's claiming that this wasn't a pre-planned terrorist attack long after they had info suggesting it was just that.

      Sometimes paranoids have enemies; and sometimes Republican hacks have legit questions.

      Unfortunately, this won't be a genuine inquiry into the causes of this incident and terrorism generally, but a gettuffonterra fear-fest.

      •  That is true from what I've read (8+ / 0-)

        Again from the Daily Beast:

        A senior State Department official contacted for this story said the ambassador was “not reckless” with his own security or that of his staff. But this official also acknowledged that the ambassador was “an old-school diplomat” and strongly desired to have as few barriers between himself and the Libyan people.
        All Ambassadors need to understand a fundamental principle. There are too many in the ME that hate us (well there are too many in the world that hate us). And the reason? Our foreign policy. That's why ambassadors should not be negligent with security but very cautious and on guard
        •  Right, I'm not sure that the (5+ / 0-)

          the fact that an ambassador doesn't want heavier security absolves higher-ups of the responsibility of not providing it.

          In any case: a real tragedy, real questions. It's not happy for Dems that this is happening right before the election and being pushed by un-principled GOP hax, but dem's the breaks. It's the flip side of being CIC and reaping the political benefits of killing bad guys.

          •  Thanks to you both (0+ / 0-)

            I imagine Secretary Clinton will be providing additional insight shortly.

            At some level, I trust the professionalism and seriousness of the people involved enough that I suspect that when the truth comes out, it will have been solidly justified and well thought out.

            Never believe your own press, never drink your own KoolAid

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 03:49:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's also be nice if pols and journalists (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shawn Russell

          pressed the administration on the response -- does the admin believe they have a right to kill the suspected perpetrators in response and if so, by what authority?

          •  I guess what the admin is use this rationale (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            david mizner

            Since OBL orchestrated 9/11 and we killed him, we also have a right to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the instigator behind this attack.

            Zawahiri acknowledged the death of his second in command Abu Yahya and urged Libyans to avenge his killing.
            Not sure if that meets the standards of international law, but when has the "law," stopped us before? I say that with sadness not sarcasm.
            •  Yeah, but even Zawahiri (0+ / 0-)

              doesn't claim he "Orchestrated" this attack, only that he called  - as he has tendency to do - for someone, anyone, to strike back in revenge for the killing of his second-in-command by drone strike.

              •  That's true but don't you think this gives the (0+ / 0-)

                administration a perfect justification to kill him as well?

                I am all for killing Zawahiri if it meets legal standards. I just don't think it does. Here is why:

                None of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the fight against international terrorism, and in particular al-Qaida (Res. 1267 of 1999 to Res. 1974 of 2011), authorize the carrying out of operations on foreign territory, nor the arrest, and even less the killing, of (suspected) terrorists. These resolutions can, at best, be read, in line with the various Terrorism Conventions, as allowing the extradition or prosecution (aut dedere aut iudicare) of terrorism suspects.
                •  He's already on the hit list... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  he's al Qeada's current #1, since the death of Bin Laden.

                  •  Sadly, we probably cannot either kill or capture (0+ / 0-)

                    him anytime soon, thanks to Pakistan:

                    There are indicators that some elements of the Pakistani government may be protecting Zawahiri,” says a U.S. intel official who did not want to be named discussing sensitive information. “We have reports that he’s been hanging out in Karachi for brief periods, and we just don’t think he’s going to be doing that without a lot of people knowing about it.”

                    At the moment, it would be politically fraught, however, for American special operators and CIA agents to carry out an attack even in the remote tribal areas, much less in a city. Pakistan’s political and military leaders, humiliated and furious that Washington kept them in the dark about the bin Laden raid and other missions, have forbidden the United States from conducting drone strikes in their territory. American forces are respecting Pakistani wishes—for now—in an effort to “lower the temperature,” says one senior administration official. But that forbearance won’t last long. Eventually, American officials tell Newsweek, offensive drone operations will restart, with or without Pakistan’s approval.

      •  I appreciate (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rja, angry marmot, kefauver, blueoasis

        his position. One can certainly understand his rationale for not wanting enhanced security. He thought of the Libyans first at risk to his own life.

        That's something most people would respect...including Libyans.

        I suppose we have to wonder now if he was the final authority for that decision or whether someone might be in trouble for allowing it. Chris Stevens was a brave man, and all this politically inspired controversy is the work of cowards.

        "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

        by valadon on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:11:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They knew they were in Danger (17+ / 0-)

      that's the nature of being in the middle of a country that had just engaged in a Civil War and was still not yet stable.  I'm sure there were plenty of threats, the question is where any of them specific enough that the attack could have been averted?  Steven's was already traveling with guards, not just the Americans - but Libyan guards too.  19 of them (I beleive) were killed in the attack.

  •  ABC has been wallowing in attempts to smear (9+ / 0-)

    The president all campaign long. That's part of the reason I stop watching Nightline, everything it became some about politics they would trash the president and spin for Romney. This does not surprise me.

  •  DC-3 is NOT an airplane. (6+ / 0-)

    It's a secret weapon:  the Dick Cheney.
    The " -3 " that follows is a sort of emoticon.
    A symbolic, anatomical signature, if you will.

    Note how tiny the " - " is.

    Paul Ryan is a policy wank.

    by monkeybox on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:31:17 PM PDT

    •  That's the number of times they (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, madgranny, kefauver

      brought him back to life before finally putting in a mechanical heart.  His other one had atrophied.

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:11:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  1955 called, they want their plane back (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomFromNJ, BramP, KenBee, kefauver

      Really a DC-3. Were they out of Curtis Biplanes?

      •  I'm wondering about that "DC-3" too... (0+ / 0-)

        Was the State Dept. really using a 65 year old aircraft (last built in 1945) for this? Yes, it's a great and historic aircraft, but unless this was some sanitized, non-US registered plane in the very best of mechanical condition, I remain very dubious about this.

        NO, I'm not questioning ABC's dirtbag journalism or the opinions on this page, I'm just being pedantic about a very elderly aircraft. DC-3's (or the much more numerous C-47) are just not all that common anymore, even in the Third World. Which makes me doubt the veracity of the emails that mention it...

  •  There was obviously a security failure. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, annecros

    The Ambassador and several other Americans were killed, and the Consulate was destroyed.  The idea that it's a "smear" to say there was a security failure is denial worthy of Republicans.

    Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:32:18 PM PDT

  •  A B C (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Stands clearly for Americans Being Conned.  This used to be a respected media outlet, but no more.  By the way, the little man, George Stepanoplis, is a sniveling coward as well to have allowed some of the hooey that has been shoveled to the American people on his "show".  I doubt that the guy could find his balls even if Bill Clinton called.  Thanks Vyan for your post.

  •  the video at that link is inflammatory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    much more so than the article.

  •  No surprises here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical Moderate

    Dickhead Cheney has also been spreading this crap around.  Just in time for the debate on foreign policy.  You can bet your chocolate that rMoney will bring this up in the debates.  I'm sure he's working on a twinkie zinger right now.

    I'm also sure we need to follow this advice...

    What it is, is up to us. ~ Howard Rheingold

    by madame defarge on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:35:26 PM PDT

  •  So this is a dispute over perks and prerogatives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, T Maysle

    that is in-house and that probably is the kind of thing that occurs no matter which party controls the State Department.  We need figures on how much extra it would have cost to keep that plane right near the embassy-- was it expense, in part, that led to the decision to keep it elsewhere?  But aside from that, what needs to be made clear is that having a plane sitting on the runway that day would not have prevented those crowds from shelling the embassy.  A plane is not "extra security".

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:40:41 PM PDT

  •  Much of the outrage over Benghazi (6+ / 0-)

    is duplicitous, as (surprise, surprise) the GOP is leading a concerted effort to make this an election/debate issue. We can expect the House hearings next Wednesday to be a ill-informed witchhunt repeating the talking-points in Romney's foreign policy address next Monday. That ABC is parroting the RWNM should come as no real surprise...

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

  •  The crime scene may be contaminated (0+ / 0-)

    From TIME:

    Even as the FBI prepares to investigate the incident that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, the consulate grounds may have been left unguarded for too long

    Read more:

    In the interim, evidence at the consulate has been tampered with. It is clear that rubble in the annex where Ambassador Chris Stevens took refuge has been moved. “Securing the crime scene is very important to prevent contamination,” says Soufan.   But with so many people rummaging through the consulate in the past three weeks, ranging from curious visitors to possibly the attackers themselves, the compound is being compromised daily.  And that will make the FBI’s job all the more difficult when it finally pursues its investigation in earnest.

    Read more:

    We may not get any genuine answers soon.
  •  DC3 (11+ / 0-)

    Just so this is clear, a DC3, while an engineering masterpiece, was designed in the 1930s and production stopped in the 1940s.  It isn't a high tech warplane.

    •  Here's an image -- it reminds me of flying Ozark. (6+ / 0-)

      Some description:

      Type:  Short range airliner and utility transport
      History:   No greater accolade for the DC-3 exists than the fact that over six decades after its first flight more than 400 remain in commercial service worldwide. Durability, longevity and profitability are but three of this outstanding aircraft's virtues.

      Development of the DC-3 traces back to the earlier oneoff Douglas Commercial 1 (DC1) and subsequent DC2 which made their first flights in 1933 and 1934 respectively. In 1934 American Airlines requested that Douglas develop a larger more capable version of the DC2 for transcontinental US sleeper flights. The resulting DC-3 (or DST - Douglas Sleeper Transport as it then was) flew for the first time on December 17 1935.

      It is entirely unclear to me how this plane for the security team at the embassy in Tripoli (or rather the security team that left the embassy in Aug) would have helped security at the consulate in Benghazi.

      "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

      by middleagedhousewife on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:17:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A DC-3? Are you serious (6+ / 0-)

    It's a cargo plane. An old one at that. I can't possibly see how a seemingly obsolete cargo plane improves security one iota.

    •  Not entirely obsolete, DC-3's are built (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, T Maysle, kefauver

      like tanks and a particular favorite of bush flyers, low overhead operations (and you can jump out of the back of them because they're not pressurized!)

      I've seen a glass cockpit in a DC-3.

      Makes sense that the "Security Team" would want access to a "go anywhere" kind of plane during the wild times in Libya. Wouldn't have served any purpose in defending the Ambassador and his security detail in the Consulate.

    •  Plane would have been a loss and a security risk. (0+ / 0-)

      another asset to be attacked, and very vulnerable to ground fire and shoulder fired missiles, the type of heavy weaponry that at least one of the people killed there was tasked to track and prevent the spread of.

      In an attack, it would likely have been a target before it even got off the ground, as this attack was also on the 'safe' house, it's not any help in a high security/attack type scenario and likely to have been a trap and a hindrance, the pilots could have been more casualties..hell, would have been more casualties most likely.

      These ABC people et al are such lying jerks, this plane would have been worse than no help in a security situation even if it had a gatling gun mounted on it for night attacks, it's to old, too noisy, too slow. And the people that so obviously had inside intel would surely have made full use of this plane to kill and capture more americans, so this is a win for the administration: their decision to NOT have a plane there...and we don't even know if Amb. Stevens would have used it at the consulate anyway, so if it was on the runway in Tripoli, so what?

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 05:43:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Huge scandal (5+ / 0-)

    regarding blowing the defense budget on aircraft -- um, wait -- huge scandal on not blowing the budget on aircraft . . . . in a country none of the Republicans or pundits could give two shites about.

    There's a reason I haven't regretted not having a teevee for 5 years.  I can, however, watch Revenge on Hulu the day after for free.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:04:38 PM PDT


    I was hoping this turned out to be nothing, and it is - and ABC News should be ASHAMED of itself in parroting this GOP BULLSHIT. Apparently ISSA is even calling a damn HEARING on this.

  •  Expect hear this and more on the 10th (7+ / 0-)

    when Issa starts his latest witch hunt.

    From everything I've read about Ambassador Stevens he was the authority on the current state of affairs in Libya. If he had wanted more of anything I can't imagine that they  wouldn't have jumped to provide it.

    IMO, ABC is probably priming the pump for Issa and it won't surprise me to hear more next week. The Republican machine is about to start an all-out assault on Obama's re-election and Hillary's reputation.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:16:19 PM PDT

  •  The truth is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, kefauver

    the folks getting all excited about this are already planning to vote for Romney.

    The folks already planning to vote for Obama aren't going to change their minds.  Nor are they going to try to play Monday morning quarterback and decide if the administration could have, should have handled things differently.

    And as to the undecideds, Bill Mahre is right.  If someone is undecided at this point, they probably can't find their own polling place.  They are not interested enough to figure out where Benghazi is, much less what it was Obama should or should not have done there.  

    They. Just. Don't. Care.

    Newt Gingrich: Believes marriage is between one man and a series of ever younger women. Wife #1 born ~ 1936, divorced when in her mid-40s...Wife #2 born ~1947, divorced when in her mid-40s...Wife #3 born ~1966.

    by trillian on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:22:52 PM PDT

    •  Totally Agree About Undecideds. (0+ / 0-)

      Also, how the hell are undecideds ever viewed as " likely voters?!" Most of them don't know who they're voting for until the last few days. Hell, they might not even vote.

      Obamacare is upheld by the SCOTUS. Time for some Kossacks to eat a plate of crow.

      by kefauver on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 05:51:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The only explosion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    happened in Matt Drudge's pants.

  •  Anything coming from ABC is suspect, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    IMO. I can't take too much from them before I've had more than enough.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:37:19 PM PDT

  •  ABC? The same one's that tried to whore up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T Maysle, KenBee, kefauver

    the Obama talking blah tape!!


  •  Hey! ABC is just (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    throwing some red meat out there hoping that pitbull rush runs with it.......

    "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

    by fugwb on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:53:51 PM PDT

  •  the r's are desperate. abc is their latest media (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    tool (who's the redstate clown they hired as an "analyst?") & is only too happy to increase the number of eyeballs for their asswipe programs.  this was the best -- errr, worst -- they could come up with.

    just goes to prove the point that there's no sewer the rw won't swim in to hijack the campaign narrative.

  •  Get ready. Issa intends to make an October (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    msdrown, KenBee

    surprise out of this.  

    As if that ABC video isn't bad enough the viewer comments are vile.  Rightwingers have been foaming at the mouth over the Benghazi incident since the day after it happened. They were looking for something objectionable before anyone could even know what had happened and they jumped to any conclusion they could use against the President.

    I came to my own conclusion about North Africa. Neo-cons are having a foreign adventure there.  In Egypt they found a local element in the Copts to act as their proxy.  Neo-cons  don't want the Morsi government.  Neither do the Copts.  They'd rather have the military dictatorship back.  

    There were around 20 candidates competing in the first round of the presidential election in May.  A Mubarak holdover who ran the interim government, Shafik, was one of the candidates. He was favored by the Copts. Islamists and civilian secularists were competing, too.  Of these three factions that divide Egypt, only the top two would proceed to the general election.  The Copts stirred up turmoil, fear, confusion, and doubt to influence public opinion in favor of the military dictatorship.  

    It worked. The top two were Morsi who represented the Islamists and Shafik.  The secular professional middle class was left to choose the least worst. In a very close election, Morsi prevailed 51% to 49%.  It's amazing to think that Egypt came very close to democratically choosing a return to a military dictatorship after the Arab Spring.

    The Copts continue to agitate, hoping to encourage a military coup.  The neo-cons see $1.5 billion in military contracts a year at stake.  They don't like the idea of selling to Morsi.  They'd rather have Mubarak v. 2.0.  Into this context of turmoil, bitterness, cynicism and anger Copts working in America with rightwing sponsors cooked up a video to create chaos in Egypt. Similar media worked for them earlier in the year.

    I don't think it's too far-fetched to consider neo-cons based in Egypt possibly dealing with factions in Libya, Tunisia, and elsewhere.  One way or another they may have stirred up an element in Libya to encourage the attack in Benghazi.  Neo-cons had no inhibition to stop them from dealing with Iran in the 1980s.  Conspiring with foreign enemies in North Africa isn't completely out of the question.

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 03:50:36 PM PDT

    •  absolutely possible (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the political needs of the neocons are served here as well by exaggerating the Libyan governments ability or lack of to provide adequate security, in spite of the precarious nature of stability there, they would undermine the current Libyan govt. to score a cheap point here against Obama and the Arab Spring in general.

      yes, an almost complete concurrence of goals. This reeks of it.

      At the time of the attacks I followed the several conflicting reports at the very earliest, noting the reticence to call this a terrorist attack or blame the militias.
        The newspapers all noticed that the Libyan president would be weakened by these attacks either way, and I think HRC/State did try to minimize the terrorist angle so as to not recklessly cost the Libyan government yet more trouble. The 'wait for the investigation' was a responsible part of that necessary diplomacy.

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 06:00:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, you may be right. (0+ / 0-)

      In the last few years, I've grown very cynical I must say. I've realized that there are all sorts of shady things that happen within the whole government apparatus. There are different factions within the intelligence community, within the Pentagon, within the State department. I don't know to what extent President Obama can control things, but he surely has a LOT of enemies within the system. I've grown so cynical that when something bad happens, I always wonder if "the enemies within" have something to do with it. And it happened more than once when things were going great for the President suddenly there were incidents in Afghanistan, or a "scandal" about a leak, etc.. It may seems a stretch, but a few times the timing was so "perfect" against the President it made you wonder.

      The neocons are still very influential within the government I think. For example, in the last years of the Bush presidency, Cheney and his allies did everything they could to justify a bombing of Iran. Fortunately, there were people within the system that were able to prevent it. Take a look at this:

      And do some research on this woman, I think she gave a couple of interviews.

      Now things are reversed. The President is anti-war, and the neocons are doing everything in their power to create problems for him, and of course to get him out of the White House.

      I realize more and more that a true outsider like Barack Obama, a man who ascends to the Presidency without many powerful allies neither in the system or nor in the  media, will face enormous obstacles. Why do you think the Clintons worked for years to build a support system in DC ( government officials, military people, corporate people, media, etc...). They knew what the reality was. They knew.

      Folks, I think the most important thing that President Obama has done in the last few years is to have built a grassroots movement that will continue to grow. This is the only thing that can counterbalance the big power brokers. And if he wins ( he just has to) I think this time he will cultivate the movement more because he can't accomplish a lot without this big support.

      •  What a complicated story! It was muddied a bit by (0+ / 0-)

        the personal angle.  I'm not sure what to think.

        I was in France at the beginning of this year when four French troops serving in Afghanistan were killed when an Afghan soldier they were training opened fire on them.  The presidential election was ramping up there and the incident became an issue. There were questions whether it was retaliation for the pictures a month earlier of US Marines who urinated on the bodies of dead Afghan insurgents.

        A month later the Quran burning episode happened.  French troops who were interviewed blamed an element in the US force that they said was deliberately trying to sabotage the mission for the sake of domestic politics in America.  This was just speculation based on the way the story changed from not knowing the books were Qurans to burning them because there were messages hidden inside them that had been handwritten by Afghan prisoners held there.  How could they recognize that but not that the books were Qurans? And what about the extensive training the troops get to prevent an offense based on religion.

        Another month later Gen Allen who heads ISAF, the international force, hosted a summit on civilian casualties. He told the attendees, including high officials from the Afghan government, and the governments and military of various countries, that efforts were being made to reduce the number of civilian casualties, a sore point with the Afghans.  A few days later, a US soldier slipped out of his base in the night and killed 11 civilians in a nearby village.  Coincidence?  And what ever happened to him?  Did anyone find out what he had in mind?

        Neo-cons are restless.  Military contractors are looking at the possibility of defense spending cuts due to the Budget Control Act sequester.  And the public is saturated with an unprecedented barrage of lies.   People in France watch what's happening in the US like a reality show.  They know details. The people I know are concerned.  They have questions.  It's not just Obama's lack of friends in DC.  A whole segment of the population is suffering from a form of hysteria.  

        "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

        by leftreborn on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 09:04:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting info re: testimonies of french troops (0+ / 0-)

          and it confirms my fears. I've always thought that the Quoran burning episode made absolutely NO SENSE, because if there is one thing the military is supposed to know, it's that there is an extreme sensitivity about religion in Afghanistan and the whole muslim world.

          As for the US soldier killing civilians, we can't know. Could have been a case of mental instability. Although hasn't it been established that he was NOT ALONE , that many of his fellow soldiers were with him ?

          And don't tell me that the offensive video on muslims, just two months before the elections, wasn't intended to create backlash and violent protests in the ME, with the ultimate objective of tarnishing President Obama's credentials in foreign policy. Heck, I even wonder if the different protests were "facilitated" by some rogue CIA people, or private spies who work for Blackwater or Halliburton or any other private military contractors.

          I listened to an interview of that woman I referred to in my post. The interview is on a very questionable website ( new world order, aliens and stuff) . But since the Washington Post article made me think that that woman was a legitimate witness, I listened to the interview. She said that the pressure for war on Iran is ENORMOUS, but that in President Obama , "we have a good guy in there, who doesn't want war". She also said that people that President Obama has put in very important command posts are not for war either so they're on President Obama's side. Unfortunately, MANY in the military go with the wind and don't push back against the war mongers. The whole interview scared me a bit.

          I've grown very cynical in the last few years and I understand now that the powers aligned against President Obama are much more important than I thought. President Obama is not anti-war but doesn't want to be the puppet of the military-industrial complex. Trying to mitigate their influence must be very difficult and energy consuming. Just one example: there was great pressure for him to leave more troops in Iraq and he resisted it ( I don't think he put too much efforts in the negotiations with Iraq ... ) .  

          No question that the military-industrial complex, the "shadow government" as they call it,  wants a puppet. They have the perfect one in Romney, who is an opportunist and a coward.

          Last thing: for the record, I suspect that the last few weeks have been extremely difficult for the President, with all the tension in the ME, the tantrums of Netanyahu about Iran, the difficulties in Afghanistan, and the Syria/Turkey crisis just the day of the debate. And all sorts of stuff we know nothing about. Add to that the additional burden of a tough re-election campaign. The man is disciplined and in good shape, but you can't ask him to be superhuman. He looked awfully tired the night of the debate. More tired than usual. Something was definitely wrong.

  •  get out ahead of this before the FP debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Romney will be swinging in with this one so State should get out ahead of it quickly.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 05:12:43 PM PDT

  •  Don't be distracted (0+ / 0-)

    The DC-3 request is a red herring.

    First it needs to be understood that Ambassador Stevens was stationed in a small villa complex, not in a "consulate" as we would normally think of one, not even a walled compound. No bullet proof windows, no Marine guards.

    A description of the attack from a Libyan security guard:

    ... the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi which killed U.S. personnel, occurred before there was any demonstration over the anti-Islam film.

    The guard, who is recovering from wounds received by the attackers, and whose name has not been released, said that the assault began with a single warning shot, followed by hand grenades and heavy shooting from automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. "They were shouting 'Kill the bastards,'" he said, not religious slogans.

    He said there were no demonstrators at the time of the attack, and that the attack came in from three sides. He said the attackers' accents were Benghazi, they wore masks, and many had their trouser legs rolled up—a mark of the Salafist sect.


    In his journal which was found at the scene three days after the incident the ambassador had expressed his concern for security in Libya and especially in Benghazi.
    A source familiar with Stevens' thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.


    We should soon know the details of reported requests for improved security at the villa which had been serving as a consulate/embassy.

    Securing the site after the incident has also been extremely lax.

    It is not only the consulate the FBI has neglected.  Libyans guarding the compound the night of the attack note they have not been contacted by Americans since the incident.  “I thought they would want to speak to us,” says Muhammad, who saw some of the attackers.  “But no one has called us.”

    Time World 5 Oct 2012

    also this from a gardener named Idris at the villa:
    Large white boards listing names and numbers of U.S. military and diplomatic installations abroad have vanished.  Documents with detailed accounts of previous attacks against the consulate have disappeared as well.  “It’s not our job to stop people from taking things,” Idris says.  “We are just gardeners.”

    Though Idris and his companion are tending to the grounds, the Americans have not secured the compound.  Idris saysAmerican officials only visited the consulate once around Sept. 24.  “They came with some translators and took some pictures.  They left after 10 minutes.”

    The question that must be answered is "Why?"

    Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

    by truong son traveler on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 07:22:21 PM PDT

  •  Requests were made in August for security personne (0+ / 0-)


    Concentrating a some dumb request for a DC-3 is a distraction.

    You should do a little research.  And maybe listen to the testimony from Wednesday where the security official on the ground in Libya says.. well, read it..

    Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

    The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

    "For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.

    Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.

  •  Two months before the election. Damn. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site