CIA Found Terror Links A Day After Libya Attack

 @Love_n_Respect  

 Right! That was what was so weird. They finally release that part of the interview but still have to spin it. I am sure that they got a last minute call during the original editing process from the WH that said to edit that out so the WH could roll out their new narrative.

 @hjw1dr  @majrod  @Contagio

 Oh, I think he thinks he did his job, the description of what he thought was the appropriate response is what is up for grabs - collateral damage, saving face, and all that.

 @Contagio  @majrod

 True, I keep wanting to ignore that these are political appointee positions that roll with who's in office and their agendas. And there is probably weight to both of your statements of croynism and poised to cut defense spending.

 @LauraKinCA  Panetta has always been a political animal which is not uncommon for SECDEF especially when we had generals who had steel for spines.  There was a time when Generals actually threatened to resign when decisions involving the military were being made for politics.

I was actually surprised at how well he did at the CIA because that job typically has some demonstrated experience with the intel world.

He's doing a horrible job when it comes to protecting funding which is why he was hired.

 @Contagio

 @LauraKinCA  @majrod Unless your intent was to hollow out the military from the inside.  I know, that's a political statement but I can see no reason other than him being a favorite of the Clintons for him being SECDEF

 @RVN SF VET  BTW, were even the other players consulted BEFORE the fact?  We don't even  know if the Pres called them together or went to the situation room.  This  might sound like it's even silly to ask but heck, the Pres didn't even  bother to have his security brief till two days after. 

 @RVN SF VET   Tracking on  your potential explanation but you're making one major assumption...

Was there an order immediately during the attack?  Only recently has the Pres said he gave that order immediately.  The first time he said it on the 12th the timing was vague and followed by a description of security measures taken at other embassies that were being attacked/demonstrated at throughout the middle east.

I have a feeling we still haven't gotten to what was said, decided and done as the administration manages the blowback.  It get's complicated when we try and explain who said no to a presidential order.  The first time i've ever heard of such a thing.  If the order wasn't given until the shooting stopped in benghazi it all falls into line.  (Unfortunately it likely means we left folks hanging when they were asking for help) 

 @Rogue1  @hjw1dr

 @Rogue1  @hjw1dr  @majrod Sorry Rogue, you are dead wrong as things have changed. Back in the 1980s are Grenada, the Congress passed the Goldwater Nichols Act:

""Section 162(b) of the Act prescribes that '..CHAIN OF COMMAND.-unless otherwise directed by the President, the chain of command to a unified or specified combatant command runs- “(1) from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and “(2) from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command."

The Chairman is merely an advisor and has zero command authority. The Chiefs merely provide training and support.

So, that vague "order" sounds just like the casual remark he might have made. It does NOT sound like someone engaged or who intended to follow through with subsequent hourly oversight. The next person in the chain was the Secretary of Defense who would then talk with his subordinate commander, General Ham, Commander AFRICOM. The Secretary should have said that AFRICOM could draw upon any asset in the inventory when formulating its plan. General Ham should know, as former JCS J-3, that their are SOPs and plans to follow if a US facility is under attack or overrun or if an Ambassador is threatened, captured, or missing.

The Chairman, as the President's and Secretary's principal military advisor, should have told the President and Secretary that the "order" did not adequately express the Commander-in-Chiefs intent. In addition, what did the Secretary of State say? What had been requested by the Director of the CIA and possibly the Director of National Intelligence.

How did the NSC in the form of the NSA insert itself? Remember, out of all these people, only the Chairman, the Director of National Intelligence (General Clapper) and the Director of the CIA (General Petraeus) have any military expertise. All these men are Army Generals with conventional backgrounds.

How does that work for you? Here's a clue. Panetta thinks that he knows what he is doing, but is likely to lean on the Chairman heavily. And there are people who wonder how this could get fucked-up? Just ask Donilon the NSA and Brennan, his CT chief.

 @majrod  @LauraKinCA  @Rogue1 

Hmm,. I wonder what the delay is that prevents US from "talking" with them.

As an aside, does Tunisia have diplomatic relationship with Iran or Syria? Why did Turkey turn them over to Tunisia so quickly? And how did they end up identified as Tunisian if they had fake passports? 

Curiouser and curiouser....

 @majrod  @hjw1dr  @Rogue1

 Sorry, you mentioned that. I was thinking back to the statement by someone else that we had captured 3 during the attack and that the Libyans took custody, presumably before we questioned them. I wonder why Tunisians are stone walling? And how/why if they used fake passports in Turkey did they get to Tunis?

 @LauraKinCA  @hjw1dr  @Rogue1  FYI, they are in Tunisian custody.

 @majrod  @hjw1dr  @Rogue1

 Well, how can you keep up the premise of a spontaneous demonstration hijacked by a violent element if you actually question some of them and find out they are AQ affiliated. I don't get why the Libyans won't let us question them. What are they trying to hide. They were out there with the message it was a terrorist attack the next day.

 @hjw1dr  @LauraKinCA  @Rogue1  Just reported that the guys being held in Tunisia (for using fake passports in turkey) have been positively identified from video taken at the consulate as being there during the attack.  It's been two weeks and we haven't even been allowed to see them.  

 @LauraKinCA  @Rogue1  @majrod 

Strange. What timing! Someone just sent me a link to that video. 

Caddell is telling the truth! 

 @hjw1dr  @Rogue1  @majrod

 You know there is a MSM problem when Pat Caddell (former Carter advisor) is about stuttering he is so mad at the media's failure to cover the cover up and ask the nation's questions....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIqTlYBhUug

 @Rogue1  @hjw1dr  @majrod

@majrodRogue1 wrote:  

”Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.   

Bravo!

and the dance of avoidance continues. 

What is amazing to me is that I happened to ask an aquaintance at lunch what her opinion was about the Benghazi affair, and she just gave me a blank stare. "What, was someone having an affair?"

Seems  it isn't even registering on her radar. If this was about any other president, i believe it would be a 30 day wonder and the press would be blowing a blood vessel over this.

 <sigh>

@hjw1dr @majrod Hmm, works for me. Here is the relevant portion: The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t. It is also not clear whether the SecDef countermanded the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the direct military adviser to the president. Did the president as commander-in-chief issue an unequivocal order that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs received but chose not to execute? Or did the chairman reply that he would do nothing? Yet the general in charge of the Africa region has allegedly said he received no directive from Washington to dispatch military aid. Members of the mutual protective society of generals are offering the bizarre defense that our Africa Command could do nothing because it has no military assets; it’s some sort of ghost command. Even if that is true, the most powerful nation in the world has sufficient forces and flexibility to send fighter aircraft over a consulate in flames, or to land some troops at the secure airport east of Benghazi. After all, our embassy in Tripoli, 400 miles away, sent an aircraft with six Americans to fight in Benghazi. But our base in Sigonella, 480 miles away, sent no help. If General Dempsey had concluded that the U.S. military should do nothing, he would have reported his decision not to act back to his commander-in-chief before the latter went to bed to rest up for his campaign trip to Las Vegas the next day. After all, the ambassador was still missing. And brave Tyrone Woods was to die in a mortar attack five hours later. President Obama would naturally be more than a bit interested in why the military and the CIA did nothing after he explicitly ordered them “to make sure we are securing our personnel.” Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up. 

@StormR @Recon6 Storm's on fire tonight!... Love it girl!

 @engelbrad  @Recon6  @StormR " I'm glad you found that thing from Wally!"   He got his thing from Wally?? Poor Wally :(      <clasps hands over mouth while breaking into junior high school girly giggles?   

@Recon6 @StormR I'm glad you found that thing from Wally! Stay safe!

@majrod @Love_n_Respect Great intel Majrod!

 @majrod Yeah, that seems very strange, but even that decision seems like its was extremely delayed considering this all started b/w 8 pm (if you believe the Libyans) or 9:40 pm (our estimate) and the QRF from embassy Tripoli wasn’t on site until well after midnight.  

Another odd part in the whole timeline is something I mentioned yesterday that a lot people seem to have forgotten, which is the WH put out a press release before 8 pm EDT on 9/11/12 that says the POTUS had an hour long telephone call w/ Netanyahu that night.  That seems to indicate that POTUS was not engaged in what was happening in Libya for at least an hour during a key part of the battle.  That is just bizarre.   

 @Love_n_Respect Glad i could be a little helpful.

 In a nutshell, yes we could have used C130s.

Spectre wouldn't have had a bigger problem than when it was actually used when we took Libya down. (Ask yourself why some want to make the threat seem greater now?).

We also could have landed troops at Benghazi airport and commandeered or brought our own transport or even airdropped it.

I'm still trying to deal with the logic that says it was too dangerous to deploy heavily armed special forces combat troops but it wasn't too dangerous to send relatively armed/protected security forlks from Tripoli.

 @LauraKinCA  @Contagio Try The Jamestown.org site:

http://imm.io/JGuF