When an Obama adviser called Benghazi an al-Qaeda hotbed

If you are Mitt Romney and about to settle down for a weekend of study of U.S. foreign policy, in preparation for Monday’s debate in Florida, you will probably pay particular attention to a March 29, 2011 article in the Washington Post that included these paragraphs:

“It’s almost a certitude that at least part” of the Libyan opposition includes members of al-Qaeda, said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama. Riedel said that anti-Gaddafi elements in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have had “very close associations with al-Qaeda” dating back years.

“I would hope that we now have a good sense of the opposition in Libya and can say that this is 2 percent, not 20 percent,” Riedel said. “If we don’t, then we are running the risk of helping to bring to power a regime that could be very dangerous.”

Here’s the latest on the topic from the Associated Press:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd,” and it took until the following week to figure that out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions” after such events in the future.

“The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don’t know,” he said. “That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.”

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus’ closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA’s early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

56 comments Add your comment

www

October 19th, 2012
1:05 pm

doesn’t matter.

georgia has enough zombies voting R that it will be a red state for decades.

Scrivener

October 19th, 2012
1:24 pm

Right, w, it doesn’t matter. Maybe that’s your problem – aside from being condescending, that is.

Wondering

October 19th, 2012
1:29 pm

Too many unnamed sources speaking about confidential information. Someone needs to be sent to jail before this leaking of classified intelligence kills another source. I know I would think twice before I cooperate with American Intelligence.

Sometimes things are classified for a reason and sometimes people do it to attempt a coverup. Was the Patreaus briefing closed for a reason? How about the CIA cable? Do congressional staffers need to pass lie detector tests?

Jon Lester

October 19th, 2012
1:53 pm

And now everybody knows the Benghazi consulate also housed the CIA headquarters for the area, thanks to Issa’s hearings.

Georgia

October 19th, 2012
2:27 pm

One argument that doesn’t work is that only four deaths occured compared with the higher numbers of deaths by terrorism during previous administrations.

This one issue is making Monday Night more and more interesting. This is the first time that I can remember when the entire world can fact check what a president said and when he said it vs the timeline being compiled for Monday’s debate. The whole world’s watching! I’ll bet Al Gore is sorry he invented the internet now.

Perhaps Obama’s only chance now is to man up and admit the foreign policy failure and the cover up and forcing Hillary to be the fall guy……talk about must see tv.

cc

October 19th, 2012
3:22 pm

Obama either knew of the requests for additional security in Libya or he didn’t. A president who doesn’t attend security briefings may or may not have known. The requests for additional security were DENIED. Whether he knew of the requests or not, HE is RESPONSIBLE.

FOUR AMERICANS ARE DEAD!

Obama, knowing this did not look good politically, lied and most likely INSTRUCTED OTHERS TO LIE to the American people.

That, my friends, is the bottom line . . .

curious

October 19th, 2012
3:32 pm

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the opposition party (Democrat or Republican) is going to root out details on any screw up.

Knowing that, I doubt anybody knowingly lied. People who were in the know probably elected to lie low.

Jack

October 19th, 2012
3:35 pm

Obama will say Monday night that all the information couldn’t be revealed due to security reasons.

markie mark

October 19th, 2012
3:35 pm

I still dont understand how those on the left can use the presidents generic message about terror attacks as cover – the president sent Susan Rice to all the talk shows for the next two weeks assuring us this was a “spontaneous” attack…..and this was after some of the news agencys were already showing video of well armed extremists attacking. And now the timeline shows the !@!@# well knew this was not part of anything but a planned attack. But for those of you using that throwaway line of the president as an excuse, well, man I guess no matter what he does is fine by you. And to think, they pretty much knew that this was a deliberate, planned attack (even using an infiltrator to find and identify the “safe house”) and still the presidents response the next day was to go to a fundraiser in Las Vegas…..

Hate to think what you guys would say if this was an administration with an R behind its name….

And for all the statements by this Administration that Al-Quaeda was dead after Bin Laden was killed? maybe not so much….and that may be why they were so busy claiming this was not a terrorist attack……

markie mark

October 19th, 2012
3:36 pm

hey Jon….pretty good bet with an infiltrator, they already knew that….or do you still think these people are stupid?

Panic fan

October 19th, 2012
4:00 pm

Hey if it smells like ___ and it looks like—— then it probably is the main issue now is the fact that its been tracked all over the new carpet in the house and it will have to be replaced at whose cost there is no cleaning that can get the —— stain out and good folks have been killed and now comes the blame game on who stepped in it 1st or who took a —- in the yard WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE

Retired Soldier

October 19th, 2012
4:05 pm

A list of questions, both large and small that I haven’t heard the answer to. This is what needs to be answered by the President Monday night.:

1. Who denied additional security assets to Libya, why and when?

2. Why was the Ambassador traveling with so little security?

3. Who was present when the compound was attacked?

4. What actions did any security forces take?

5. When and where were the two former SEALs killed?

6. Was there a gunbattle? Was any of the attackers killed or wounded?

7. Was the Libyian government notified in a timely manner and why didn’t they react?

8. Was the satcom viedeo feed also sent to the White House and the NMCC?

9. When was the President alerted and what was he told?

10. When did the State Dept. brief the White House, what was he told and who was present.

11. Was the assessment sent to the White House by Clapper the same as Clapper received from his Intel agencies? If changed how and by what sources of info?

12. When was the assessment changed by the Intel community from Mob to terror and what caused the change of assessmant?

SKE

October 19th, 2012
4:19 pm

This Benghazi story is a non-issue. I believe our intelligence is hazy at best in Libya with the fall of Ghadafi. No credible intelligence machine exist as back in the Cold War days. Mr Romney and the Right Wing pundits are trying to make this a headline. Was it a terrorist attack…YES! Where there forces that claimed the home-made video sparked outrage……YES! I still don’t see the story! Mr Romney needs to score some points against the Obama administration that will pander only to his base. I’m Republican but I don’t see why he is trying to make headway with what was said ‘when’. Mr Romney claims the Prez did not say ‘terror attack’ until some days later. The Prez claimed he used the term ‘terrorist attack’ on the day following the attack in the Rose Garden.

Plz….find something else to argue about Mr Romney!

Mary Elizabeth

October 19th, 2012
4:29 pm

As usual, Republicans are working against President Obama, even in matters in which the nation’s leaders of both parties should be pulling together against those who might wish harm to come to this nation.

We must not forget that it was under President Obama’s leadership that Osama bin Laden, the master mind of the 9/11 tragedy, was brought to justice – because of President Obama’s concentrated intent that never wavered in achieving that end, from the first day he became Commander-In-Chief.

I trust no one more than President Obama to get to the bottom of who killed U.S. Ambassador Stevens, and others, in Libya. President Obama has already proven himself highly competent, in matters such as this one, in getting resolution accomplished The commotion surrounding this issue is simply politics, as usual. Our President is the North Star of substance in this matter. Trust him.

WOW

October 19th, 2012
4:34 pm

Retired Soldier:

Those questions are exactly what the Administration is investigating. Logic would tell me that they should be given the same amount of time that the previous administration got in investigating 9/11, but then that would assume that this isn’t more about politics than finding out the truth.

Scooter

October 19th, 2012
4:42 pm

Seems to me when you remove a dictator like Gaddahfi, you need to provide extra security for your people in country, especially for the anniversary of 9/11. I also feel like The Obama was insulting our intelligence by claiming the killings were a spontaneous reaction to an obscure video, that just coincidentally happened on 9/11. Mr. President, I am not that gullible.

Retired Soldier

October 19th, 2012
4:46 pm

SKE-

If Obama can satisfactory answer the above questions then it will a non-issue. If he can’t it is a big deal.

Retired Soldier

October 19th, 2012
4:47 pm

ME-

Do you know the answers to the above questions? You should, then give the President a clean bill of health.

Retired Soldier

October 19th, 2012
4:50 pm

WOW-

Far different in size and scoop. We have real time video and first hand accounts from people onsite. These questions have already been answered, it is just the public that doesn’t know the anwers.

BTW, which of those questions should take months to answer?

cc

October 19th, 2012
4:57 pm

“This Benghazi story is a non-issue”

Not to the families of the four dead Americans, and not to many, many of us.

“I trust no one more than President Obama to get to the bottom of who killed U.S. Ambassador Stevens, and others”

Your trust is misplaced. According to him, it was only a “bump in the road” (to his re-election, I’m sure).

“Those questions are exactly what the Administration is investigating.”

No, they just want this to go away until the election is over. Once that election is over (should Obama be re-elected, and he won’t be), this would become only a footnote in history.

cc

October 19th, 2012
4:59 pm

Maybe The Best Ad Of The Political Season So Far.

cc

October 19th, 2012
5:01 pm

Retired Soldier

October 19th, 2012
5:05 pm

cc-

I agree, this advertisement says it all.

cc

October 19th, 2012
5:11 pm

Retired Soldier:

Yes, it does!

Gallup. Are you sure?

October 19th, 2012
5:33 pm

Gallup Performs Poorly When Out of Consensus

Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly.

You do not need to look any further than Gallup’s track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this.

In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.

That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.

The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.

In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.

In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.

Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.

In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.

Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.

In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.

After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.

It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/#more-36284

Rafe Hollister

October 19th, 2012
5:42 pm

Obama should resign for lying to the American people. Compare this to Watergate and you are just dumbfounded that an administration could repeat the same mistake. In Watergate, the Nixon regime lied to cover up a bungled burglary of the Dem HQ’s. No one died and nothing of substance was stolen. Nixon was forced to resign because of the extensive coverup.

The same is going on now. No matter how long it took Obama to find out, it wasn’t 14 days. Why did he continue to lie about the attack being caused by a video. When denying that he was focusing on the campaign trip to Vegas, he said the other day, no, I was aware of the attack as it was happening. State Dept personnel were on the phone with the Ambassador during the attack. It is beyond any reasonable doubt, that Obama knew what happened within 48 hours, even though he was off campaigning. Why the deception, why was Susan Rice sent out to 5 Sunday shows 4 days later, to reinforce the false narrative. RESIGN, Mr. Obama! The precedent is there!

Michelle

October 19th, 2012
5:43 pm

Rafe Hollister

October 19th, 2012
5:46 pm

Gallup, are you sure

Good research, but you can’t dispute Rasmussen, he and some college poll were the only ones who got the 2008 election right. Google Poll accuracy 2008.

Panic fan

October 19th, 2012
5:49 pm

great ad like i said we have seen this all before now its about who is going to pay the bill for that new carpet hey china bought it last time

honested

October 19th, 2012
5:58 pm

BFD.
Libya will take a dozen years to return to civilization, until then it will be little more than a war zone.
I agree that the House was wrong to cut 600 million from State Department Security funding, but it’s just the latest joke to come from the House freshboys.

I am just glad that this short sighted chest thumping will NOT prevent re-election of the President.

Mary Elizabeth

October 19th, 2012
6:01 pm

Retired Soldier, 4:47 pm

The intensity of abuse (”Birthers,” “Socialist,” “Muslim”) President Obama has had to endure during his presidency has been unconscionable, even while he has sustained this nation through an economic crisis which has been second only to the Great Depression of 1929. Your questions are reflective of hubris, imo. I will leave questions regarding embassy security to those in the State Department to address, not to an anonymous partisan poster on a local blog.

You realize, of course, that Rep. Ryan (Romney’s VP choice) cut $264 million more from embassy security funds than was asked for.

If citizens want a “boss” who has a tendency to be a bully and who is condescending to others not of his “status,” then Romney’s your man. If you want a President who has an egalitarian vision for this nation, then you will vote for Obama.

cc

October 19th, 2012
6:19 pm

dishonested:

Little testy, arne’t you? I believe even you are beginning to see the handwriting on the wall, though you will never admit it. What do you have planned for election night? I would imagine that whatever it is, it will involve a lot of drinking in your attempt to ‘drown your sorrows’.

Better luck in 2020, dishonested . . .

Gallup. Are you sure?

October 19th, 2012
6:27 pm

cc

You are going to kick your dog on election night?

Romney isn’t going to win. hahahahahhahaha

It will be closer than many on the left have stated, but Romney is heading back to Iowa on the Wednesday after the election. He will be starting his third quest for the WH.

Save this post. I wont have to go back and find it to remind you on election night.

Buckhead Boy

October 19th, 2012
6:43 pm

Rafe Hollister, I recall that Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight, and the Intrade market called the 2008 Presidential Election exactly right, and today they are in perfect agreement as to the projected distribution in the Electoral College for this one; although Five Thirty Eight has President Obama with 71% odds to win, while the Intrade market has that at 61%.

hiram

October 19th, 2012
7:18 pm

td is cc today, but it’s not a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing – more like Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Jekyll…

burt bacharach

October 19th, 2012
7:19 pm

Our sorry intelligence is still sorry or our govt. lies to us no matter the political party. Bush blamed intelligence for his failures on wmd and Obama is following suit with this cover-up. Looks like the govt. lies out of both sides of its mouth.

honested

October 19th, 2012
7:23 pm

cc,
I can assure you I will be attending an Obama Victory Party as well as a party for the re-election of my State House member.

td

October 19th, 2012
7:30 pm

honested

October 19th, 2012
7:23 pm

Your state house member is and will continue to be no relevant to the decisions of this state and it will be a pity party for your messiah and chief. Get use to the words President Romney.

Rafe Hollister

October 19th, 2012
7:44 pm

Lot of irony when you consider what Dems think. This from the VP Debate.

Biden: We reported what we heard from our intelligence sources regarding blaming the video. Turns out they were wrong.

1 hr later

Biden: Well, the threat from Iran is overstated. Our intelligence sources tell us that they don’t have a weapon and haven’t enriched all the uranium you are claiming.

He didn’t get it, they have not got it for 4 years.

hiram

October 19th, 2012
7:46 pm

Take your choice – td/cc, or Nate Silver:

“Oct. 18: Obama Gains in Forecast on Resiliency in Swing State Polls”

Updated 10/19 – 7:03 PM

Obama 68.1%
Romney 31.9%

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/oct-18-obama-gains-in-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/

deegee

October 19th, 2012
8:01 pm

Over 5,000 Americans were killed in Iraq and 2,000 have been killed in Afghanistan. Some were killed by Al Qaeda, some were killed by friendly fire, some were killed by the people they were there to protect, some killed themselves. They are no less dead by any means. May God rest their souls in peace and may God have mercy on anyone that attempts to gain political capital from the demise of any American that falls while serving their country.

td

October 19th, 2012
8:03 pm

hiram

October 19th, 2012
7:46 pm

And what were the odds of the Yankee’s getting swept by the Tigers?

double

October 19th, 2012
8:07 pm

Compare to 911-why do you think Bush was in a school house in FL?He had no way knowing the plane designated to hit white house would never make it.How many mistakes were made by intelligence during this catastrophe.As for lies,do not think Obama woul be in race.

Mama Says

October 19th, 2012
8:59 pm

ever wonder how under Busch the libs thought it was a cover up that we did not know there were no weapons of mass destrution and now under Obama the lack of knowledge about an active terror attack is a legitimate intelligence failure.

deegee

October 19th, 2012
9:17 pm

Mama, I wonder how someone that enters a political blog can’t spell the name of the 41st and 43rd president of the US.

hiram

October 19th, 2012
9:53 pm

@td/cc
By now, even you should know Nate Silver’s record. The imagination is a wonderful thing though – you can imagine just about anything – hell, you can imagine that, if you flap your arms fast enough, you can jump off a building and fly.

eli

October 20th, 2012
12:45 am

Mama is an idiot. Knowing al Qaida is present in a city means nothing as far as predicting an attack is concerned.

If you blame Obama for Benghazi, then be prepared to blame 9/11 on Bush. He received an actual national security brief that al Qaida planned on hi-jacking and crashing airliners into populated areas.

Face it Republicans. You dislike Romney as much as we liberals do. You know he will say anything to get elected. You just want that (R) on the white house.

Be prepared to pay for it. When mortgage and student loan interest is no longer deductable, when providing health insurance to your employees is no longer an exemptable business expense, when the child tax credit and earned income tax credits are eliminated on top of OASDI and Medicare being voucherized you will crave the days when an individual who lived the American dream held office.

I have said it before and I say it now: any one who has a shred of self respect that has been downsized and/or had their job outsourced can not vote for Romney. Afterall, did you deserve to put your family through such a crisis so some punk born to a CEO and Governor can make millions upon millions destroying your life and the lives of millions of others?

The answer is no.

S

October 20th, 2012
4:38 am

eli…….EXACTLY!

Georgia

October 20th, 2012
5:57 am

Benghazi was a smart mob action. Knowing that terrorists can act on a moment’s notice when alerted of a target opportunity by the eyes and ears that are obviously out there 24/7, our guys should be able to bait an ambush.

Retired Soldier

October 20th, 2012
8:14 am

I don’t blame the attack on Obama, there are questions about how it occured that I haven’t heard answered, but the President isn’t directly to blame.

He does appear to have attempted to mislead America on what occured. If that is true, that is unforgivable.

BTW, I love the talking points about the House cutting the security budget. Head of security Lamb stated before Congress that budget had nothing to do with denying additional security assets in Libya. Second, how could the House alone cut the security budget? Particularly when there hasn’t been a budget in over 3 years?