[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-26, 07:50, said:

Because, of course, the Muslims don't have their own radio shows, television broadcasts, etc
And no one would ever cover the widespread rioting in Egypt... no siree bob

You are completely detached from reality

the video had been out for months prior to cairo

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-26, 11:20, said:

the video had been out for months prior to cairo

Yes, and it had very little effect until the producers decided to redub it into Arabic and re-release it at which point it went viral.

[luke warm]

more news of the refusal of help from Fox

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-26, 14:03, said:

more news of the refusal of help from Fox

Quote

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Who was that guy that Obama selected to head the CIA? He's got some explaining to do for sure! Obama should have listened to the republican warnings about that guy for sure...

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-26, 14:16, said:

Who was that guy that Obama selected to head the CIA? He's got some explaining to do for sure! Obama should have listened to the republican warnings about that guy for sure...

everybody is subject to the pressures brought to bear by politicians, even generals... i know i am, almost daily

[kenrexford]

Bay of Pigs.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-26, 15:25, said:

everybody is subject to the pressures brought to bear by politicians, even generals...

If you are suggesting that the CIA stood down to protect a key informant among the attackers, I doubt that we'll learn about that for quite some time.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-26, 18:40, said:

If you are suggesting that the CIA stood down to protect a key informant among the attackers, I doubt that we'll learn about that for quite some time.

i'm actually not convinced the stand down order came from cia... i think it came from either panetta or clinton (defense or state)... but it did come from someone, and whoever that is has a lot to answer for

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-28, 06:36, said:

i'm actually not convinced the stand down order came from cia... i think it came from either panetta or clinton (defense or state)... but it did come from someone, and whoever that is has a lot to answer for

The Fox news article you referenced said that the order came from the CIA, and it was the CIA standing down. If that part of the article is wrong, is any of it right?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-28, 06:52, said:

The Fox news article you referenced said that the order came from the CIA, and it was the CIA standing down. If that part of the article is wrong, is any of it right?

it was the cia ops on the ground who rcv'd the order to stand down... i simply said i'm not sure from where the order came, just that they rcv'd the order... probably state or defense, but maybe cia

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-28, 12:00, said:

it was the cia ops on the ground who rcv'd the order to stand down... i simply said i'm not sure from where the order came, just that they rcv'd the order... probably state or defense, but maybe cia

Here is the relevant quote from the article that you cited:

Quote

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

In your world view, Fox news might be blaming General David Petraeus to cover for Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta -- but not in the real world.

I'm sure also that those who work for General Petraeus have a good understanding of the words "chain of command."

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-28, 13:10, said:

Here is the relevant quote from the article that you cited:

In your world view, Fox news might be blaming General David Petraeus to cover for Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta -- but not in the real world.

I'm sure also that those who work for General Petraeus have a good understanding of the words "chain of command."

i don't know what you're talking about... i've said twice already that i personally was not convinced from where the order came, not that i completely believed the article's perspective... the important thing, to me, is that such an order came from somebody in authority... who that was can be determine later, if it in fact was not cia (which it may well have been)

[Zelandakh]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-28, 13:10, said:

a good understanding of the words "chain of command."

The words "chain of command" mean "President Obama" for Republicans at this stage of an election campaign. These kinds of opportunity during election campaigns are not about the truth, they are about trying to smear someone regardless of what the truth might be. If even a few voters are put off by the possibilities being suggested, regardless of how unlikely they are in reality, this is a victory for the campaign managers in a comparatively close race.

[Flem72]

I'm getting confused again. Pres watching from the situation room; CIA, Pentagon and WH all deny giving any order refusing help. What am I missing?

[Zelandakh]

The (new) official line is this: Obama told Panetta to do "whatever it takes" to secure the consulate. Panetta and the chiefs of staff decide collectively that the intel is insufficient to send in troops and wait. Situation on the ground deteriorates and now they decide that it is too late to send in troops as they cannot arrive in time. This is a pretty bungled response from the administration imho and seems to be designed to set up either Panetta or, more likely, one of the Generals to take the can. There are rumours Ham already has but he has gone on record with an apparently contradictory statement about the events. In any case, this new line from the Democrats seems to have given the story a new lease of life. It now seems certain that at least some mud will stick before polling day which was the object of the exercise; better yet for the Republicans, a fair bit of Democrat air time is going to be wasted on this in the next days which is going to inhibit their ability to usefully keep up in the spending battle with the Republican sources. Reps have reached Panetta - can they make the final push to genuinely taint Obama...?

[luke warm]

Flem72, on 2012-October-29, 07:12, said:

I'm getting confused again. Pres watching from the situation room; CIA, Pentagon and WH all deny giving any order refusing help. What am I missing?

the cia ops on the ground requested help... someone said "no" to the request... patreas said it wasn't him or anyone else at cia who denied help, in effect moving the refusal up the chain... panetta said it was he who did it... others have said it was obama... clinton is supposed to have requested more security (unconfirmed but floated this weekend, some say by her lawyers) but the request was denied by obama

we don't yet know the full truth of this and probably won't till after the election

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on 2012-October-29, 08:01, said:

the cia ops on the ground requested help... someone said "no" to the request...

My understanding is that the cia ops on the ground asked for permission to go and help, and were told to stand down. I'd like to know who they asked. Someone at Langley? Someone else in the CIA hierarchy? Someone outside CIA? The problem is that if it was someone in CIA but not at Langley, there are likely to be security issues in identifying that person or position.

[phil_20686]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-25, 19:13, said:

That having been said, protesting around the world about a video made by one guy somewhere is not the behaviour of rational people. Yet masses of some sort of people went out to demonstrations. I suspect terrorists/extremists of lighting a fire under these people.

So I had a friend who lived in the Philippines, and he told me that at the the (fairly regular) protests, it was like a carnival. People get dressed up, companies put out stalls and give away stuff. There is free food etc. And, basically, its just a nice day out.

I know nothing about protesting in Islamic countries, but in the UK, where the weather is miserable and virtually everyone has a full time job, a large protest usually represents serious anger. Not all other countries are the same. In places with depressed economies, or where much of the economy is casual day labour, going to a vaguely anti-american protest and chanting a few slogans may well be what passes for fun. From time to time people get agitated about something and the protest turns angry, and suddenly its all over the news. Does anyone have any idea how regular protests are in Libya? Or how seriously one should even take them?

[luke warm]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-29, 10:36, said:

Does anyone have any idea how regular protests are in Libya? Or how seriously one should even take them?

i think your embassy personnel took them seriously, since they left

[Flem72]

One-on-one interview with the Pres, and no softball questions:

http://www.9news.com...on-Libya-attack

He's astoundingly vague.