TexasCHLforum.com

DUH.!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... ya-attack/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today...

Carney: "It is, I think, self evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. That is self evident. ... Had this happened on any day of the week on any month, this would have been a terrorist attack. This was an assault on our embassy, a violent attack, rather, on our diplomatic facility there that resulted in the death of four Americans."

Yesterday...

Carney: "What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as our Ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack.

The two former SEALS murdered in Benghazi were NOT on the Ambassadors security detail.
The former SEALS were in the Consulate on other business and "stepped into the breach" when the poo hit the propeller.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/revising-libya-story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The two former SEALS, Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, were not employed by the State Department diplomatic security office and instead were what is known as personal service contractors who had other duties related to security, the officials said.
...............
“Woods and Doherty weren’t part of the detail, nor were they personally responsible for the ambassador’s security, but they stepped into the breach when the attacks occurred and their actions saved others lives -- and they shouldn’t be lumped in with the security detail,”

An unconfirmed report I read said that Doherty's contractor assignment was tracking, photographing and destroying MANPADS.

So, the US ambassador was in secret visit to Bengazi with no security. That is stupidity of the first rate or a suicide mission.

Beiruty wrote:So, the US ambassador was in secret visit to Bengazi with no security. That is stupidity of the first rate or a suicide mission.

Why should it be unsafe? He'd have been safe in the U.S. He'd have been safe in Tokyo. He'd have been safe in Berlin. He'd even have been safe in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, the US ambassador was in secret visit to Bengazi with no security. That is stupidity of the first rate or a suicide mission.

Why should it be unsafe? He'd have been safe in the U.S. He'd have been safe in Tokyo. He'd have been safe in Berlin. He'd even have been safe in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Because it is well know fact that US killed Al-libby just few month back, and Al-Qaeeda and/or their supporters are highly active in EasternLibya. Gaddafi kept them in check, till US decided to let them prevail or at least as side effect let them roam freely in Eastern Libya.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, the US ambassador was in secret visit to Bengazi with no security. That is stupidity of the first rate or a suicide mission.

Why should it be unsafe? He'd have been safe in the U.S. He'd have been safe in Tokyo. He'd have been safe in Berlin. He'd even have been safe in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Those countries have elections and protections for people's civil rights.

Beiruty wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, the US ambassador was in secret visit to Bengazi with no security. That is stupidity of the first rate or a suicide mission.

Why should it be unsafe? He'd have been safe in the U.S. He'd have been safe in Tokyo. He'd have been safe in Berlin. He'd even have been safe in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Because it is well know fact that US killed Al-libby just few month back, and Al-Qaeeda and/or their supporters are highly active in EasternLibya. Gaddafi kept them in check, till US decided to let them prevail or at least as side effect let them roam freely in Eastern Libya.

Beiruty, just so you know, I'm not going to argue about this one with you because I confess not to knowing much about it. I've heard both sides of that story from sources in which I normally have confidence. I've heard on one hand that post-revolution Libya was generally, not perfectly, but generally safe for Americans because they appreciated our support during the revolution. On the other hand, I've heard those who say the exact opposite. This leads me to assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle.....that it was kind of dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as....say....Somalia would be for an American. It seemed to me that if the Ambassador was comfortable traveling with minimal security, and if he was someone who actually knew Libya and had served there before, then his security posture would have seemed to be reasonable.......and this is also why I had no trouble believing that the attacks there, in Cairo, and elsewhere were coordinated and came as a surprise.

Interesting proposal for a remedy... Desensitization.

What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus -- “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?

Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... rtoon-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those who says, moderate Muslims are in-active in the face of extremists:

Libyans storm Islamist militia base in Benghazi:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/2 ... HL20120922" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It looks like they did it because the extremists are cramping their style, not because the extremists attacked outsiders. It's a positive step, but a little like someone objecting to gangs doing drive-by shootings in their neighborhood after years of not caring as long as the violence was in other neighborhoods.

In case you've missed this, CNN is taking heat for one of their reporters on the scene in Benghazi picking up the Ambassadors personal journal and reporting on the contents... The State Department is making a diversionary fuss about CNN's "ethics" while ignoring the fact that the finger of blame is pointing directly at Mrs. Clinton's Department of State.

Warning: Some Adult Language: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/libya ... y-and-stat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the fiasco appears to be largely — if not entirely — a State Department botch. It was the State Department that failed to provide its ambassador adequate security; it was the State Department that fled Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack, apparently failing to clear or secure the scene, leaving Stevens' diary behind; and it was State that had taken the lead on the ground after the Libya intervention.

There is some adult-only language in this email exchange between a BuzzFeed "reporter" and Mrs. Clinton's personal spokesman, so..
WARNING: ADULT LANGUAGE: LINK

Finders keepers.....the state department should do a better clean up. If a CNN reporter could get there so could they.

It sounds like the insane department would rather CNN left it for the terrorists to find.

Double-DUH.!!

So... Incompetence and checking-out of his Oval Office job responsibilities while 20 of our overseas facilities are under protest and/or attack to campaign on "The View" is pretty bad.... well.. REALLY bad...

But... How can anyone support BHO's when his lies are so blatant? When he clearly runs from the truth?
Not to mention all those promises he's made that, if carried out, pretty much guarantee Socialism in America?

Sorry... I'm being repetitive and rhetorical again and again.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... s-confirm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack.

Is that last part correct? or miswritten? Hard to imagine the FBI is not already on the ground today...

RoyGBiv wrote:

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack.

Is that last part correct? or miswritten? Hard to imagine the FBI is not already on the ground today...

Answering my own question... Senator Ayotte [Senate Armed Services Committee Member] confirms that the FBI was not on the ground in Benghazi a week after the incident and she is "not clear [whether] they are on the ground today".

0:35 in the video here
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... s-confirm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and at 4:00
"I participated in a briefing last week..... I got more information from the NY Times than I got from the administration."