JFK/RfK/Benghazi - a bloodless coup?

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/why-did-cia-director-petraeus-suddenly-resign-and-why-was-the-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-murdered.html

[Peter McGuire]

Obama says the buck stopped with him, so I should have not voted for him since his administration lied to cover up a massive mistake.

My questions are: What was an Ambassador doing at a Consulate which are always less secure - much less in that war torn country?

Did the Ambassador have some kind of Kennedy style death wish? Again why was he there and why did he not get out of there sooner? ( it seems he delayed his departure to destroy documents!)

Finally. I am sick of these outright lies in the face of an obvious alternative explanation! AND this is WHY letting the Kennedys' be decimated was not a good idea since it or any other lie can be repeated. Why because it can be repeated.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Peter McGuire

[Cliff Varnell]

Hey Len,

Wow. What a dud Benghazi-gate has turned out to be. It's blown up in the face of McCain, Romney & Co. Susan Rice is the odds-on favorite for next SoS.

It's too bad. I was hoping that Benghazi-Style Scrutiny would become the new standard for evaluating the official stories of these events, these terrorist attacks.

Imagine if Benghazi-Style Scrutiny had been in effect on 11/22/63!

Imagine if Robert Kennedy had called a press conference the afternoon of 11/22/63 and blasted Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon for the failure of the Secret Service to protect JFK. Imagine RFK blasting CIA chief Jone McCone because Oswald was "one of his guys."

Imagine Eric Sevareid going on CBS night after night asking pointed questions about the backgrounds of Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby, wondering aloud how Oswald was able to return from the Soviet Union, and how Ruby was able to gain access to the DPD basement.

Imagine newspaper editorials dropping dark hints about possible LBJ involvement.

...Naw, I can't imagine all that, either...

My comments below in blood burgundy

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

I'll vote reluctantly for Obama but find this episode distressing, requests for additional security were denied by the State Dept and people with in the administration made misleading comments about what happen for about 2 weeks. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were part of the plot?

Len,

If the death of four in Benghazi qualifies as a distressing episode certainly a case can be made that the episode(s) on 9/11/01 were at least as distressing. No?

Compare the coverage of the Benghazi attack with the attacks of 9/11 -- there was no serious effort to affix official blame for the security breakdowns which allowed the success of those attacks.

In fact, those who failed in their duties prospered the most.

http://www.nytimes.c...nings.html?_r=0

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Cheney/Rumsfeld got their "Pearl Harbor" without a fraction of the scrutiny Benghazi has received.

Hey Cliff,

Since I was not living in the US at the time of either 9/11attack it’s hard for me to judge the comparative scrutiny of either POTUSs failure to act.

It was all rah! rah! USA! USA! after the 2001 attacks. Bush got off to a shaky start with his Pet Goat moment, but he recovered with his megaphone improv on the rubble at Ground Zero a few days later. Initially, no one pointed fingers for the failures that resulted in the attacks' success -- not for many months.

But the notion that the former escaped scrutiny is not accurate.

But the scrutiny was belated and toothless. The GOP won the 2002 mid-terms largely on the issue of national security. Romney, Rove & Co did their best to beat Obama on the issue of national security, even though the intelligence failures behind 9/11/01 were far more distressing than those of 9/11/12.

America was traumatized by 9/11/01, while we certainly wouldn't say the same of Benghazi. .

There were headlines like the one below and truther sites are filled with MSM accounts of the warnings. The 1^st happened about 9 months after inauguration and the 2^nd less than 2 months before an extremely tight election, thus greater scrutiny is expected.

I don't know that greater scrutiny would be expected, even in an election year. The earlier attacks resulted in the loss of 3,000 lives on American soil, as opposed to 4 on foreign soil.

I would think the attacks of 2001 would receive a lot more scrutiny, given the greater gravity of the matter.

Of course, that's not how it worked out.

Also the Dems, true to forum wimped out on pressing the issue. In 2012 there was actionable intelligence that was not acted on, requests for added security in 2001 it was less obvious what specifically what Bush & Co. could have done to prevent the attacks but of course the earlier disaster was far more catastrophic.

I think Bush & Co. could have tightened airport security over the summer of '01, just as the Israelis and some European countries did. I think they could have enforced a greater degree of co-operation between the FBI and CIA, to share what they each had on possible in-country terrorist cells.

I think they could have listened to the intel coming in about AQ -- instead of steadfastly ignoring it.

The information Tom posted about the CIA “talking points” was interesting, was that a ‘cockup’ or did the CIA do that intentionally to undermine Obama? The latter would be a risky option because as Tom suggested if Obama squeaks by on Nov. 6 some heads could roll.

PS - The notion that PNAC called for a “new Pearl Harbor” is a myth.

To have overtly "called for" a new Pearl Harbor would be treasonous, no?

I think it was more of a case of "pining for a new Pearl Harbor."

After all -- it worked out that way, didn't it?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Peter McGuire]

Very often, great posters on this board reply and clarify what I was trying to say in a way that I was just not able to do. This is the most fantastic example of that!!

Very well done , Cliff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 1, 2012 by Peter McGuire

[Len Colby]

My replies

Hey Len,

Wow. What a dud Benghazi-gate has turned out to be. It's blown up in the face of McCain, Romney & Co. Susan Rice is the odds-on favorite for next SoS.

It's too bad. I was hoping that Benghazi-Style Scrutiny would become the new standard for evaluating the official stories of these events, these terrorist attacks.

Imagine if Benghazi-Style Scrutiny had been in effect on 11/22/63!

Imagine if Robert Kennedy had called a press conference the afternoon of 11/22/63 and blasted Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon for the failure of the Secret Service to protect JFK. Imagine RFK blasting CIA chief Jone McCone because Oswald was "one of his guys."

Imagine Eric Sevareid going on CBS night after night asking pointed questions about the backgrounds of Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby, wondering aloud how Oswald was able to return from the Soviet Union, and how Ruby was able to gain access to the DPD basement.

Imagine newspaper editorials dropping dark hints about possible LBJ involvement.

...Naw, I can't imagine all that, either...

My comments below in blood burgundy

I'll vote reluctantly for Obama but find this episode distressing, requests for additional security were denied by the State Dept and people with in the administration made misleading comments about what happen for about 2 weeks. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were part of the plot?

Len,

If the death of four in Benghazi qualifies as a distressing episode certainly a case can be made that the episode(s) on 9/11/01 were at least as distressing. No?

Compare the coverage of the Benghazi attack with the attacks of 9/11 -- there was no serious effort to affix official blame for the security breakdowns which allowed the success of those attacks.

In fact, those who failed in their duties prospered the most.

http://www.nytimes.c...nings.html?_r=0

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Cheney/Rumsfeld got their "Pearl Harbor" without a fraction of the scrutiny Benghazi has received.

Hey Cliff,

Since I was not living in the US at the time of either 9/11attack it’s hard for me to judge the comparative scrutiny of either POTUSs failure to act.

It was all rah! rah! USA! USA! after the 2001 attacks. Bush got off to a shaky start with his Pet Goat moment, but he recovered with his megaphone improv on the rubble at Ground Zero a few days later. Initially, no one pointed fingers for the failures that resulted in the attacks' success -- not for many months.

But the notion that the former escaped scrutiny is not accurate.

But the scrutiny was belated and toothless. The GOP won the 2002 mid-terms largely on the issue of national security. Romney, Rove & Co did their best to beat Obama on the issue of national security, even though the intelligence failures behind 9/11/01 were far more distressing than those of 9/11/12.

America was traumatized by 9/11/01, while we certainly wouldn't say the same of Benghazi. .

2001: 3000 dead, attack on American soil, it's most important cities

2012: 4 dead, attack on a consulate in a far off country most American's don't care about

There were headlines like the one below and truther sites are filled with MSM accounts of the warnings. The 1^st happened about 9 months after inauguration and the 2^nd less than 2 months before an extremely tight election, thus greater scrutiny is expected.

I don't know that greater scrutiny would be expected, even in an election year. The earlier attacks resulted in the loss of 3,000 lives on American soil, as opposed to 4 on foreign soil.

I would think the attacks of 2001 would receive a lot more scrutiny, given the greater gravity of the matter.

Of course, that's not how it worked out.

Also the Dems, true to forum wimped out on pressing the issue. In 2012 there was actionable intelligence that was not acted on, requests for added security in 2001 it was less obvious what specifically what Bush & Co. could have done to prevent the attacks but of course the earlier disaster was far more catastrophic.

I think Bush & Co. could have tightened airport security over the summer of '01, just as the Israelis and some European countries did. I think they could have enforced a greater degree of co-operation between the FBI and CIA, to share what they each had on possible in-country terrorist cells.

Box cutters were permitted by rules in place at the time. greater cooperation is easier said than done and "the Wall" between law enforcement intel and intel intel was statutory.

I think they could have listened to the intel coming in about AQ -- instead of steadfastly ignoring it.

That's true but little of that intel was actionable

The information Tom posted about the CIA “talking points” was interesting, was that a ‘cockup’ or did the CIA do that intentionally to undermine Obama? The latter would be a risky option because as Tom suggested if Obama squeaks by on Nov. 6 some heads could roll.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did it to undermine him, some heads have rolled, coincidence?

PS - The notion that PNAC called for a “new Pearl Harbor” is a myth.

To have overtly "called for" a new Pearl Harbor would be treasonous, no?

I think it was more of a case of "pining for a new Pearl Harbor."

After all -- it worked out that way, didn't it?

I wouldn't even call it pining, have read the actual chapter or just 'truther' summaries? And they didn't really get what they called for in it. Not at least anymore than they could have without 9/11.