Home » Admin » Interview: What Happened in Benghazi?

Interview: What Happened in Benghazi?

by · February 19, 2013 · Posted In: Admin
Interview: What Happened in Benghazi?
Check out the Leonard Lopate interview with Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb on WNYC.org, as they give an account of what happened during the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of four Americans on September 12, 2012. Glen Doherty was killed alongside Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, and Ty Woods when the U.S. State Department and CIA headquarters in Benghazi, Libya, were attacked by terrorists.

Benghazi: The Definitive Report is the result of Murphy and Webb’s investigation to understand exactly what happened, as well as the role played by the Obama Administration, State Department, and CIA.

 

(Featured Image Courtesy: Bloomberg)

Follow Sofrep on:
OR  rss
86 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
FrankOrlandoWilson
FrankOrlandoWilson

You ladies can put your trowels down now and stop working the "pour". The mixture set up months ago and was cured a long time ago. How do I know this? Jake Carney! (Holds up SARCASM sign for Sheldon)

dmbrowns24
dmbrowns24

@SEALFIT @sofrep It's pretty obvious @LeonardLopate main concern was to exonerate Obama & Hilary of any Benghazi responsibility.

Txazz
Txazz

To address the Leonard Lopate interview (which was really great).

Jack, Leonard asked you what part "Abu Katala" played and you either didn't know or weren't sure exactly who he was referring to (couldn't tell for sure).  I went back and listened to get that name for you.  It is Ahmed abu Katala and without a doubt you know who this ringleader is.  Just in case this helps.

Switzerland
Switzerland like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

I have seen and heard Brandon speak in interviews etc before and he is good at it, but Jack, man, you seem right at home doing this. I was impressed. I am sure we will see you on the national circuit (circus) soon.

 

You will have to clean up the beard, though. {sarcasm}

vmi112
vmi112

Brennan's lack of communications/cooperation with other sectors of the government gets too little attention.  I'm glad you guys shed some light on it.Not saying I dont think we need to be more proactive...but communications and cooperation are integral to success.

Naimbh
Naimbh like.author.displayName 1 Like

Great interview. Thanks for this!

 

ColonelProp
ColonelProp

@JackMurphyRGR Dude - this radio interview is impressive to say the least. You guys got it wrapped tight with your answers and flow...

hjw1dr
hjw1dr like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

Great job!

I enjoyed this interview the most out of all you've done so far. I am especially interested in the larger picture you paint of the overarching policy (or lack thereof) regarding the threat to the US and the players involved. That may have been beyond the scope of your book, but it is certainly something that is of great interest.

Your book gives a very good discussion of the possible motivations between the various players, and suggests some conflict between the various entities. It also paints a picture of possible goals of covert operations to collect loose weapons--- I'm looking forward to more as you continue writing! Keep it up! 

 

Thank you for posting! This interview provides a chance to understand in depth and dense material you cover in the book.

 

seiseman
seiseman like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @hjw1dr This was the best interview I've heard so far, too. Thanks for all your hard work!

Jaycel Adkins
Jaycel Adkins like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

I thought it was a great interview, glad to see both of you guys able to talk at some length. Pretty pleased that this interview took place on WNYC as I am a huge fan of RadioLab.

 

Hopefully an interview like this can be a stepping stone to the national shows that are on NPR. Having you guys talking on both Hannity radio show and a show on NPR says alot about how you guys are about telling the truth to everyone, and letting 'the chips fall where they may.' 

 

Cheers!

majrod
majrod like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Good interview but unfortunately Ty’s role wasn’t highlighted as it should have been and is likely the greatest strength of the book. 

 

I differ when halfway through the interview Brandon calls the attack "blowback".  For our foreign policy, for kicking AQ out of Afghanistan, for killing Bin Laden?  Yes.  For weapons running?  For an unspecified JSOC raid?  No.

 

Gun running/a JSOC raid doesn't explain the long record of attacks against American interests in Benghazi.  They don't explain why the attack happened on 911.  It doesn't address the involvement of AQ in the attack.  If gun running was the cause wouldn't an attack against the annex or a simultaneous attack make more sense?  Then there are the attacks against the Brits and the Red Cross that drove them from Benghazi.  Where they gun running and conducting raids also?

 

Jack in another thread stated he felt gun running was one of many factors.  I'm not a fan of portraying gun running/a JSOC raid as THE reason behind the attack.  Doesn't make sense.  Gun running is sexy for the conspiracy theorists.  I don't doubt it was an aggravating factor but it was nowhere near the primary one and pursuing guns as the cause is as distracting to the real issues as blaming the video for causing the attack.

 

I also don’t agree with Brandon’s theory that since the consulate wasn’t an “official” consulate it wasn’t secured as it should have been.  This has never been cited as reasoning behind the lack of security in any documentation including the initial hearing where Ms. Lamb specifically stated money wasn’t an issue or the subsequent investigation where “below consulate status” doesn’t require the minimal security standards cited in State Dep’t regs.  The simple fact is State didn’t respond to repeated requests for more security because that didn’t jive with the foreign policy message or that AQ was on the run.  State Dep’t regulations are clear on how diplomatic posts are to be secured.  They were simply ignored here and no one is being held accountable for that decision.

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

 @majrod I thought I cleared this up for you but I guess I was mistaken.  The trafficking of weapons may or may not have played a contributing factor.  I highly doubt it and do not recall writing otherwise.  Your claim that the "consulate" and its designation as a Temporary Mission Facility did not contribute to its poor security is simply false.  Because it was not a consulate it did not have DSS agents permanently assigned to it but rather they rotated through, sometimes with a turnover as quickly as 24 hours meaning that there was little continuity between those in charge of security and no one was there long enough to improve security measures to where they should have been.  This is in the State Dept's documents and is described in our book.

 

If you choose to believe that US combat operations against the militia which attacked the "consulate" in Benghazi over the summer was not one of the main driving forces for what happened on 9/11/12 then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

majrod
majrod like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR  Permanent DSS agents is a small part of the equation.  State didn't assign more security because Ms. Lamb didn't think it was necessary despite the repeated requests.  There is NOTHING in the record that says Benghazi had lower security because it wasn't officially a consulate.  Permanent assignment of DSS agents wouldn't have made a difference.  As I understand it all but two of the assigned embassy DSS  agents assigned to security were present at Benghazi.

 

The safe room was substandard.  The wall offset from the building was substandard.  Bulletproof glass, hardened doors etc. were not installed.

 

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12 - Diplomatic Security

a. All new embassy compounds (NECs), new office buildings (NOBs), and newly acquired buildings (NABs), or commercial office space, intended for the conduct of diplomacy, whether acquired by purchase or lease, must conform to the collocation and setback requirements set forth in the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 ("SECCA") (22 U.S.C. 4865) with an effective date of November 29, 1999.

 

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88382.pdf

 

I don't discount gun running/unspecified JSOC raids had an impact  but there are plenty of other factors to be considered as to why the attack happened and even more to explain why the enemy was so successful.

 

Again, I point to the attacks on the British Amb and Red Cross which occured before the consulate was hit.  Were they also running arms and launching raids?

majrod
majrod

 @ConsummateCanuck  "The whole point is that there were many contributing factors that causes the  attack...."

 

Agree.  I just had issue with your metaphor.  @majrod

 

ConsummateCanuck
ConsummateCanuck

@majrod lol groupthink is an entirely different scenario FYI (re: any pysch or management textbook) The whole point is that there were many contributing factors that causes the attack....if you keep hitting a bees nest eventually you're going to get stung

majrod
majrod

 @ConsummateCanuck  BTW, I think you've taken the "gang" metaphor as far as possible.  I won't be using it anymore.

 

majrod
majrod

 @ConsummateCanuck I served a couple of decades in that "gang".  I understand gang mentality.  "if they perceive a threat or feel as if they have been harmed, all common sense  goes out the window" isn't an apt description.  I think you might be talking about "groupthink" which can be evident in any organization.

 

Getting back to Benghazi.  It didn't happen in a vacuum.  There was a record of attacks including the Brits and Red Cross.  A knee jerk retaliation doesn't explain 911 timing, AQ involvement, sequential attacks with well employed mortar fire. 

 

 

ConsummateCanuck
ConsummateCanuck

@majrod lol well its been said the US military is the largest and most well funded gang in the world LAPD considers themselves the biggest gang in LA You're taking the meaning far too literally...its the mentality of groups of people ....gang mentality

majrod
majrod

  @ConsummateCanuck  I was born and raised in Brooklyn.  My neighborhood looked like Berlin 1944 with the highest arson rate in the city.  When I went home on leave in uniform the cops pulled over and asked me if I was lost. 

 

I know gangs.  The dumb ones don't last very long let alone defeat Army units or overthrow gov'ts.

ConsummateCanuck
ConsummateCanuck

@majrod @JackMurphyRGR I think where majrod may be missing the mark is that these people do not follow any sort of actual logic....if they perceive a threat or feel as if they have been harmed, all common sense goes out the window....suffice to say that there are many reasons why the attacked happened when and where it did An analogy can be made in reference to when a new gang comes into an existing gangs territory....likely the existing gang wont be too pleased....they might attack without provocation. BUT, if the new gang makes any move against the existing one, (JSOC raids) it is almost a certainty that retribution will take place

majrod
majrod like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR  I don't doubt the bad guys may not be able to tell the difference between Brit and US SOF (or CIA for that matter). 

 

My point remains that there were numerous attacks over a long period of time.  Gaddafi died less than a year before.  Islamic radicals were filling the void, the establishment of a very poorly protected consulate alone could explain Benghazi.  JSOC raids may have stirred the pot but the above, US foreign policy, and the selection of the date imply there was more than just JSOC raids.

 

If I were the terrorists and was targeting JSOC I would have launched a simultaneous attack on the two locations or at least an ambush outside the CIA annex.

 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @majrod You are assuming that the militia could distinguish between American and British Special Operations personnel in the middle of a night time DA operation.  The militia does not know, or care, about the difference.  They were simply striking out against Western targets.  I will not respond to your question about running arms as I can only dispel your misunderstanding about my position so many times.

 

If we were to assign a new soldier to protect and improve security on a ammo dump every day I would think that anyone can understand that there is little continuity between security elements and that this constant shift in personnel disrupts improvements to security.  If you disagree then you are welcome to do so.

IS1FiveO
IS1FiveO

@majrod I read the ebook and found it to be informative. I agree that U.S. activity in Libya is an aggravating factor rather than THE reason for the attack. If I were to accept the as fact that the attack was in retaliation for kill/capture missions or weapons facilitations then I would have to also believe that absent those activities, the U.S. facilities would not have been attacked. I believe that we in the West must take AQ and associated movements at their word. Their goal is to either convert us to Islam or subjugate us or exterminate us. There is no peaceful coexistence with people from such a belief structure. There will be no negotiated settlement with such people. And finally, there will be no moderation or pacification with such people. The only solution to the conflict it to kill or capture and forever imprison those of such an extremist ideology while also bringing about a different world view amongst the youth in cultures where such radicalism flourishes. This is no easy task and could only be accomplished from within. The West could influence and assist such change but we should not be so audacious as to think we could bring about such change. AQ has a one hundred year plan and we have a series of four year plans which have no strategy which extends beyond our political timeframe. The disunity in the U.S. and other Western nations is the greatest enabling factor for AQ to persist in asymmetrical conflict with us. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @IS1FiveO  @majrod The CIA had a presence in Benghazi for decades and was not attacked until 9/11/12.  You must ask the question of why then?  What led to that attack.  If you believe that it happened because of an over arching war between Christendom and Islam, this war between civilizations thesis in which one side must slaughter the other in a modern day crusade then I really have nothing further to say here. 

AUNITEDPEOPLE
AUNITEDPEOPLE

 @majrod  @JackMurphyRGR  @IS1FiveO When I blamed this on the DOS, I was assuming that they are a proxy of the President's, thus taking on his policy stance.

 

I have, in fact, watched 2016, but it's been long enough that I believe I need to re-watch it in lieu of recent events, just to see how closely our current situation follows that narrative.

 

You'll have to forgive me, as I was using logic and reason when discussing these events, not taking into consideration that our current world situation has been twisted around by the current Admin.

majrod
majrod

 @AUNITEDPEOPLE  DOS didn't let this happen (not that they are innocent).  They follow the President's policy.

 

We got involved in Libya because the admin thought it would be easy and they bought into the Arab Spring BS.

 

Very similar thought process in Egypt but add that the admin actually believed the Muslim Brotherhood was secular.

 

If you want to understand more watch 2016 or better yet buy the book.  It will explain why we move in a direction that makes America less of a player on the world stage while simultaneously weakening us in every measure. 

 

  @JackMurphyRGR  @IS1FiveO

 

AUNITEDPEOPLE
AUNITEDPEOPLE

 @majrod  @JackMurphyRGR  @IS1FiveO "What changed over the decades of CIA presence in Benghazi?  Quadaffi of course. His absence created an environment where AQ and friends could thrive."

 

In retrospect, I tend to agree that this was the catalyst for all that has transpired in Libya since his fall. Even though Quadaffi was a quote, unquote dictator, his cooperation with the US on middle eastern affairs was not too bad, considering.

 

With that said, I really question why we let the Quadaffi regime fall; thrown to the wolves really. Was he the best guy in the world, no... But looking at what we have now, he seems like a good ally.

 

The same thing applies with regards to Egypt; another quiet, but willing ally in the battle for the hearts and minds in the middle east, brokering many deals with regards to Israeli relations with the Palestinians. 

 

For many years, these two nations have been relatively quiet in the GWOT, but since the Arab Spring and the fact that we really abandoned both regimes, the area has now become a hotbed for Islamic terrorist activity.

 

So my question is, why would DOS let this happen?

 

It's funny that, in a lot of cases, people will say it's none of our business, but in light of recent events, I would have to respectfully disagree.

majrod
majrod

 @JackMurphyRGR  Thanks for engaging.  It did clarify some of my misperceptions about the book and increased the importance of JSOC raids in the calculus.

 

 @IS1FiveO

 

majrod
majrod like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR  I'm familiar and have mentioned the phenomena myself.

 

Interesting theory.  Would the absence of a raid(s) mean the terrorists wouldn't have attacked?  The Benghazi consulate wasn't in place a year earlier months after Bin Laden died.  Sometimes events don't cause an attack without an opportunity and vice versa.  Then sometimes, only an event or an opportunity is necessary.

 

Your analysis hasn't addressed how the Brit and Red Cross attacks fall into the mix or even if they are related.  The Red Cross is especially important because they were not a threat to the terrorists.

 

I'm reassessing and the raids take on more importance but not knowing the frequency and results of the raids it's hard to judge their impact and even knowing that info we aren't in the terrorists minds. 

 

I don't think you'd definitively say if the there weren't JSOC raids there wouldn't have been a consulate attack.  There's a lot neither of us know.

 

In the grand scheme this is important but it doesn't address how poorly the consulate was secured, how the military did not lean forward, how the administration failed to act/supervise during the attack, why there was a coverup afterwards and the facts have yet to be exposed, the systemic failures addressed and folks held accountable.  

 

  @IS1FiveO

 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @majrod  @IS1FiveO This is not some new phenomena as it happens in Afghanistan all the time.  JSOC hits a HVT in the middle of the night pissing off the Taliban/AQ.  They in turn retaliate by ambushing and IED'ing roads as conventional forces drive along them.  JSOC conducts operations and CF pays the price in Afghanistan, this is a legitimate critique of Special Operations.  There is more to the story of course, I'm not implying that you should not conduct raids against the enemy just as I have not expressed that the counter-terrorist operations in Libya should not have been executed.  If you talk to some Company Commanders you know in Afghanistan it shouldn't be long before you turn up some examples of this effect for yourself.

 

And so, I have written that Special Operations missions in Libya were a contributing factor, according to my information the largest contributing factor, that motivated the militias, augmented by AQ foreign fighters, to attack the consulate.

majrod
majrod

 @JackMurphyRGR  Ref gun running, I think we are talking past each other.  It contributed to the attack.  It wasn't the sole cause.

 

I'm thinking where we disagree are the importance of the JSOC raids. 

 

 

@IS1FiveO

 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator

 @majrod  @IS1FiveO "You yourself stated that gun running wasn't the sole cause of Benghazi."  I can throw quotes from one post above back at you too.  You clearly implied that I believe that gun running was a cause behind the attack.

 

I can identify the first week of September to you for an operation directed against the militias.  There were others over the course of the summer, corresponding to the escalating attacks in Benghazi against US interests.

majrod
majrod

 @JackMurphyRGR  "When did I state that it was a cause at all?"  I didn't say you did.  My understanding is that you believe there were multiple factors leading up to the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

 

Are you saying the unspecified JSOC raid was the primary cause for Benghazi?

 

If so, can you share a date?

 

I'm pretty sure you don't ascribe to the school of thought that the enemy only attacks us after we attack them.

 

 @IS1FiveO

 

majrod
majrod like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @JackMurphyRGR  What changed over the decades of CIA presence in Benghazi?  Quadaffi of course.   His absence created an environment where AQ and friends could thrive.  State provided a nice juicy target and attacking on 911 was a message...

 

You yourself stated that gun running wasn't the sole cause of Benghazi.  Has that changed?

 

 @IS1FiveO

 

IS1FiveO
IS1FiveO

@JackMurphyRGR @majrod I think you misread my comment. I am referring to "radicals" such as those associated with AQ or similar movements. They will not be rehabilitated and to prevent future followers there must be a significant movement from within.

Txazz
Txazz like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

Leonard was quite good and kept the flow going at a relaxed rate.  Most clips do seem rushed - hyped.  One of the best interviews by far.

StormR
StormR like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

I thought this was an outstanding interview, with a knowledgeable interviewer who was able to establish Jack and Brandon's credibility by framing the context of what occurred.  Jack and Brandon really shined in this one, and got their core message out there.

dmalert
dmalert like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

 @StormR Agreed on Jack/Brandon getting out the message, but I think the interviewer interrupted them a few times when they were making interesting points and he shouldn't have.  Just would love to see them on something like Charlie Rose or other longer program.  By the time the interview was ending I felt like I wanted another hour. 

 

This said hopefully this prompts more to read the book.  So perhaps a good thing.

 

Also think Brandon's point that one wishes different orgs could put aside their turf war enough to make sure the right thing is done was spot on.  This unfortunately goes on way too much.

Jaycel Adkins
Jaycel Adkins like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @dmalert  @StormR Got a problem with them getting interrupted, but then suggest they get on Charlie Rose?!? :P

hjw1dr
hjw1dr like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

 @Jaycel Adkins  @dmalert  @StormR  

It is funny!  I've never heard anyone argue over Charlie Rose.  And no insult intended... but people who watch Charlie Rose are a thin slice of the population. A mostly intelligent group... well, at least we like to think we're intelligent, right?  LOL

dmalert
dmalert like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @Jaycel Adkins  @hjw1dr  @StormR He had some shows on Afghanistan that I liked.  I look don't crucify me.  If one is trying to reach an audience not in the know - it's a good format - that's all I'm saying.

Jaycel Adkins
Jaycel Adkins like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @hjw1dr  @dmalert  @StormR He is the best on television when he is on his show, for sure. But he is pretty notable for cutting people off at times. 

 

I agree, an hour long with Charlie Rose creates a tremendous amount of space to got into an idea. My favorite Charlie Rose episodes have been one hour ones: 

 

Sofia Loren

Kirk Varnedoe (a few of them, I never understood 'modern art' painting until the show on Jackson Pollack)

Bruce Springsteen

Vincent Van Gogh exhibit

Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, & Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu - together at one time. 

Christopher Hitchens - in his home, while dying of cancer. 

Ehud Barak - not an hour, but just after 9/11 explaining how the US is going to destroy the Taliban, no doubt. 

Christmas Special on Jesus

 

 

dmalert
dmalert like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @hjw1dr  @Jaycel Adkins  @StormR LOL.  Again.  I've seen some very good interviews on his show.  He's liberal, but nevertheless some good interviews.

dmalert
dmalert like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @Jaycel Adkins  @StormR LOL.  I've seen some pretty good interviews where he let's people talk though.  Plus no ads and 1 hour.

 

Good interviewers are few and far in between.  A good interviewer makes all the difference in the world.  I was listening to some talk radio the other day and the guest was making some really interesting points and the host just cut her off in mid sentence.