Sept 2012: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate

[cupper]

Any more detail on "the analyst"?  It's a pretty amorphous term.....much like some mainstream, hard-copy bloggers calling themselves "journalists."

"Analyst" presupposes analysis.....which requires information -- preferably factual (although not always available) -- upon which to base one's analysis.

You'll forgive me for using the term analyst, the story I was referring to was from the previous Friday, so I couldn't remember the particulars of the person being interviewed.

The "analyst" is in fact Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

Here is the full interview.

Benghazi Attack Raises New Questions About Al-Qaida

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/05/162379015/benghazi-attack-raises-new-questions-about-al-qaida

October 5, 2012

For the past decade, al-Qaida has been a top-down organization.

Letters seized at Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan showed that he was a hands-on manager, approving everything from operations to leadership changes in affiliate groups.

But there's early intelligence that al-Qaida may have had a small role in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, on Sept. 11.

If al-Qaida involvement is confirmed, it may signal that al-Qaida has changed.

The broader investigation is still playing out. The FBI finally visited the consulate this week and was already working with Libyan authorities to find those responsible.

Also, two men believed to be connected to the attack were detained at the airport in Istanbul. U.S. officials say they have an interest in interviewing the two men, but wouldn't say whether they were significant actors in the attack.

Based on what's known so far, Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, thinks the Benghazi attack could signal something significant.

"What we saw in Benghazi was something that was much more atomized, much more disparate and much more opportunistic," he says. "I think it raises potential challenges for how we go about counterterrorism in the next decade of this new al-Qaida."

This new al-Qaida, one without bin Laden, has been battered as an organization. But the group may have found a new role: inspiring local militias.

Intercepted Phone Calls

U.S. intelligence officials intercepted a number of telephone calls between members of a local Libyan group — Ansar al-Sharia — and al-Qaida's affiliate in North Africa.

One call in particular is under scrutiny. It came on the afternoon of Sept. 11, shortly after protesters in Egypt had stormed the American Embassy in Cairo; this was about six hours before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began.

Officials believe al-Qaida told members of the Libyan militia that they should take a cue from the Cairo protests and launch immediately any attack they had been planning for the future.

"You have now almost multiple layers of al-Qaida," Hoffman says. "You see even the [al-Qaida] affiliates actually interfacing with locals on the ground and taking advantage of their capabilities to deploy them on very short notice."

Africa appears to be ground zero for al-Qaida to test this new tactic.

New Islamist Groups In Africa

Over the past 18 months, Islamists who subscribe to some of al-Qaida's ideas have appeared in Nigeria, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and now Libya.

"What we see in Libya right now is a set of individuals who've migrated from North Africa to conflict zones like Iraq and Syria are migrating back," says Christopher Swift, a fellow at the University of Virginia School of Law who used to track terrorist financial networks at the Treasury Department.

"Some of those individuals have drunk the Kool-Aid. They believe in the al-Qaida ideology, but they may not share the same short-term political objectives, and they may be operationally distinct," Swift says.

In other words, they often agree with al-Qaida, but they have their own agenda.

And what intelligence officials are sorting out after Benghazi is whether a militia like Ansar al-Sharia — the group suspected in the attack — is effectively a local arm of al-Qaida, or something more distinct.

Swift thinks what happened in Libya could be the future of al-Qaida.

"I think you're also going to see a relocalization process within al-Qaida. What does that mean? It means the future of global jihad is going to be built through local insurgencies," he says.

That it will make it much harder to prevent attacks, because every local extremist group could provide foot soldiers for al-Qaida.

 

 

[Journeyman]

Thank you. Knowing the source assists in weighing credibility; Bruce Hoffman certainly is a credible analyst.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Thank you. Knowing the source assists in weighing credibility; Bruce Hoffman certainly is a credible analyst.

I would second that.

 

[Haletown]

Transcript of State Department telecon briefing reporters on October 9th.


The State Department has released a transcript of a briefing that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday). I am not certain about this, but I believe the transcript was only made public today. You should read it in its entirety; it is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.

While this is by no means clear, it appears that the State Department may have released the transcript as part of the escalating conflict between Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In their desperation to avoid responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, Obama and Biden have pointed fingers in two directions: at the intelligence community for reporting incorrectly that the incident was a protest over a YouTube video clip, and at the State Department for not providing adequate security for the Ambassador.

Here are some excerpts from the narrative:

A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the [Tactical Operations Center]. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building. …

They turn around immediately and head back – or the two of them, from Building B, turn around immediately with their kit and head back to Villa C, where the Ambassador and his colleagues are. They encounter a large group of armed men between them and Building C. I should say that the agent in Building C with the Ambassador has radioed that they are all in the safe haven and are fine. The agents that encounter the armed group make a tactical decision to turn around and go back to their Building B and barricade themselves in there. So we have people in three locations right now.

And I neglected to mention – I should have mentioned from the top that the attackers, when they came through the gate, immediately torched the barracks. It is aflame, the barracks that was occupied by the 17th February Brigade armed host country security team. I should also have mentioned that at the very first moment when the agent in the TOC seized [sic -- apparently should read "sees"] the people flowing through the gate, he immediately hits an alarm, and so there is a loud alarm. He gets on the public address system as well, yelling, “Attack, attack.” Having said that, the agents – the other agents had heard the noise and were already reacting.

Okay. So we have agents in Building C – or an agent in Building C with the Ambassador and Sean, we have two agents in Building B, and we have two agents in the TOC. All – Building C is – attackers penetrate in Building C. They walk around inside the building into a living area, not the safe haven area. The building is dark. They look through the grill, they see nothing. They try the grill, the locks on the grill; they can’t get through. The agent is, in fact, watching them from the darkness. He has his long gun trained on them and he is ready to shoot if they come any further. They do not go any further.

They have jerry cans. They have jerry cans full of diesel fuel that they’ve picked up at the entrance when they torched the barracks. They have sprinkled the diesel fuel around. They light the furniture in the living room – this big, puffy, Middle Eastern furniture. They light it all on fire, and they have also lit part of the exterior of the building on fire. At the same time, there are other attackers that have penetrated Building B. The two agents in Building B are barricaded in an inner room there. The attackers circulate in Building B but do not get to the agents and eventually leave.

A third group of attackers tried to break into the TOC. They pound away at the door, they throw themselves at the door, they kick the door, they really treat it pretty rough; they are unable to get in, and they withdraw. Back in Building C, where the Ambassador is, the building is rapidly filling with smoke. The attackers have exited. The smoke is extremely thick. It’s diesel smoke, and also, obviously, smoke from – fumes from the furniture that’s burning. And the building inside is getting more and more black. The Ambassador and the two others make a decision that it’s getting – it’s starting to get tough to breathe in there, and so they move to another part of the safe haven, a bathroom that has a window. They open the window. The window is, of course, grilled. They open the window trying to get some air in. That doesn’t help. The building is still very thick in smoke. …

Okay. We’ve got the agent. He’s opening the – he is suffering severely from smoke inhalation at this point. He can barely breathe. He can barely see. He’s got the grill open and he flops out of the window onto a little patio that’s been enclosed by sandbags. He determines that he’s under fire, but he also looks back and sees he doesn’t have his two companions. He goes back in to get them. He can’t find them. He goes in and out several times before smoke overcomes him completely, and he has to stagger up a small ladder to the roof of the building and collapse. He collapses. …

The agent in the TOC, who is in full gear, opens the door, throws a smoke grenade, which lands between the two buildings, to obscure what he is doing, and he moves to Building B, enters Building B. He un-barricades the two agents that are in there, and the three of them emerge and head for Building C. There are, however, plenty of bad guys and plenty of firing still on the compound, and they decide that the safest way for them to move is to go into an armored vehicle, which is parked right there. They get into the armored vehicle and they drive to Building C.

They drive to the part of the building where the agent had emerged. He’s on the roof. They make contact with the agent. Two of them set up as best a perimeter as they can, and the third one, third agent, goes into the building. This goes on for many minutes. Goes into the building, into the choking smoke. When that agent can’t proceed, another agent goes in, and so on. And they take turns going into the building on their hands and knees, feeling their way through the building to try to find their two colleagues. They find Sean. They pull him out of the building. He is deceased. They are unable to find the Ambassador. …

At this point, the quick reaction security team and the Libyans, especially the Libyan forces, are saying, “We cannot stay here. It’s time to leave. We’ve got to leave. We can’t hold the perimeter.” So at that point, they make the decision to evacuate the compound and to head for the annex. The annex is about two kilometers away. My agents pile into an armored vehicle with the body of Sean, and they exit the main gate. …

[T]hey take fire almost as soon as they emerge from the compound. They go a couple of – they go in one direction toward the annex. They don’t like what they’re seeing ahead of them. There are crowds. There are groups of men. They turn around and go the other direction. They don’t like what they’re seeing in that direction either. They make another u-turn. They’re going at a steady pace. There is traffic in the roads around there. This is in Benghazi, after all. Now, they’re going at a steady pace and they’re trying not to attract too much attention, so they’re going maybe 15 miles an hour down the street.

They come up to a knot of men in an adjacent compound, and one of the men signals them to turn into that compound. They agents [sic] at that point smell a rat, and they step on it. They have taken some fire already. At this point, they take very heavy fire as they go by this group of men. They take direct fire from AK-47s from about two feet away. The men also throw hand grenades or gelignite bombs under – at the vehicle and under it. At this point, the armored vehicle is extremely heavily impacted, but it’s still holding. There are two flat tires, but they’re still rolling. …

As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound – to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction – the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound – at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning – sorry, somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning – I have my timeline wrong – somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that’s come from the compound.

At that point, a decision is made at the annex that they are going to have to evacuate the whole enterprise. And the next hours are spent, one, securing the annex, and then two, moving in a significant and large convoy of vehicles everybody to the airport, where they are evacuated on two flights.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, was jetting off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

It was obvious to the reporters on the call that this narrative blows Obama’s evasions sky high:

First question is from the line of Anne Gearan with the Washington Post. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. You said a moment ago that there was nothing unusual outside, on the street, or outside the gates of the main compound. When did the agents inside – what – excuse me, what did the agents inside think was happening when the first group of men gathered there and they first heard those explosions? Did they think it was a protest, or did they think it was something else?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The agent in the TOC heard the noise, heard the firing. Firing is not unusual in Benghazi at 9:40 at night, but he immediately reacted and looked at his cameras and saw people coming in, hit the alarm. And the rest is as I described it. Does that help?

This exchange is priceless:

OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

So Hillary Clinton and the State Department unequivocally reject the account that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have given. It is hard to imagine what “intelligence” reports Obama could have received that blamed the YouTube video. He is lying, evidently.

 

[tomahawk6]

Gen Petraeus should have been out front defending his agency.

 

[a_majoor]

The blowback is now spreading to the White House and the internal workings of the Administration:

http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/10/did-biden-blame-hillary-for-benghazi.html?showComment=1350140645615

Did Biden blame Hillary for Benghazi?

Mickey Kaus thinks so.

Will Hillary now retaliate and protect herself by leaking word that the White House did too know? Will her husband continue to tour the country trying to pull Obama’s bacon out of the fire (as he did at the convention) even as Obama points a finger at his wife? Will they all cut some sort of deal in which Hillary agrees to take the fall and Bill soldiers on … in exchange for, what? Have they already cut a deal?  Is the White House going to try to hang its hat on the idea that Obama and Biden didn’t know, but maybe their staffs knew? Will that really fly? Aren’t they responsible for their staffs? Will the staffs fight back?

That's a lot of internal intrigue to keep under control until the election. What an October surprise!

They October-surprised themselves.

 

[Haletown]

Gen Petraeus should have been out front defending his agency.

Agreed . . .  Seems very strange he has been AWOL on this story.

Something is amiss.

But throwing The Hildabeast under the bus would make two very serious enemies, her and Billy.

Can't see Axlerod going down that path.

Make lots of popcorn.  This is going to be a great movie.

 

[a_majoor]

Agreed . . .  Seems very strange he has been AWOL on this story.

Something is amiss.

But throwing The Hildabeast under the bus would make two very serious enemies, her and Billy.

Can't see Axlerod going down that path.

Make lots of popcorn.  This is going to be a great movie.

The political calculus is pretty complex. Right now if Hillary gets thrown under the bus, it damages any attempt to run in 2016. If Bill does not pull out all the stops, Obama may not be reelected. If Hillary is thrown under the bus, what incentive does Bill have to help the Administration? If Obama is reelected, then he can throw Hillary under the bus with impunity. If Governor Romney is elected, then 2016 may not be achievable for Hillary.

If anyone in the staff is thrown under the bus, they might start leaking nasty, toxic stuff that brings down the administration.

This is like the scene in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" where everyone is facing off in the graveyard....

Edit to add:

The NY Post expands on this thought:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fresh_scapegoats_OFHirGdL4nGBSZKlETgvjK

Fresh scapegoats
White House Libya blame game

By MICHAEL A. WALSH
Last Updated: 11:25 PM, October 14, 2012
Posted: 10:39 PM, October 14, 2012

Michael A. Walsh
How is the Obama White House going to fit the entire State Department and the intelligence community under the bus?

Last month’s Benghazi fiasco saw four Americans — including our ambassador to Libya — murdered by elements of al Qaeda in a military-style assault timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

The weeks afterward saw the administration blaming a video that, even the White House now admits, had nothing to do with it. And the months before the attack saw Washington adamantly reducing security in Benghazi — despite pleas for reinforcements from the folks on the ground.

Blaming the State Department and the intelligence community: Joe Biden used both scapegoats to dodge Paul Ryan’s charges in last week’s debate.
Yet President Obama’s top spokesman — and Vice President Joe Biden, in last week’s debate — have been busy pointing fingers of blame at State and the IC.

It won’t work. Neither Foggy Bottom nor the intel community’s legion of spooks, analysts and secret-keepers is likely to go quietly.

Indeed, State has already started the pushback. It has pointedly released the transcript of an Oct. 9 media briefing in which Brad Klapper of the Associated Press asks what “led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

Someone described only as “Senior State Department Official Two” answers, “That is a question you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.”

Of course, Biden and Obama spokesmen like Jay Carney have been claiming that “the intelligence” the White House received at first had blamed the attack on the video.

This part of the blame game will fail because it just doesn’t make any sense. The American IC is not infallible, but what part of it — the CIA? The National Security Agency? State’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research? — would have leaped to such a ridiculous conclusion?

Mere hours after the attack, the nation’s spooks knew this was terrorism, not amateur movie criticism. There had been ample warning — including an assault on the British ambassador as well as earlier attacks on our consulate — that something was coming.

And yet the White House — which as recently as Oct. 8 was still insisting that a resurgent al Qaeda is “on its heels” — has chosen to stick to another exonerative fairy story: that it was unaware that Ambassador Chris Stevens had begged for more security at the beleaguered Benghazi compound.

The reasons for this denial may be best known to campaign guru David Axelrod. After all, the administration’s only indisputable foreign-policy triumph — the killing of Osama bin Laden — would be in serious jeopardy were Obama and Biden to publicly admit that the Libyan attacks were in part retaliation for bin Laden’s death and the ongoing US drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere.

But it’s simply untrue that the government was unaware of the deteriorating security conditions in Benghazi. In last week’s congressional hearing, security officials testified that Washington repeatedly turned a deaf ear to their urgent requests for beefed-up forces at the Benghazi compound and CIA “safe house.”

Indeed, two separate security teams had recently been withdrawn from Libya after their temporary assignments had expired. And last week’s testimony made it plain that this was according to policy — a policy set by just what higher-ups, we still don’t know.

There’s more bad news to come. It now appears that the CIA “safe house” in Benghazi — which was tasked with tracking down the lethal weapons looted from the collapsed Khadafy regime — was also stripped of valuable information in the Sept. 11 attack.

That intelligence likely included the names of Libyans and others who’d been cooperating with the Americans, as well as possible double agents within Ansar al-Sharia (the al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula branch behind the Benghazi attack) and al Qaeda itself. This may explain why, on Thursday, masked gunmen shot and killed a local security officer in Yemen who’d been working with the US Embassy.

So the Benghazi attacks may well prove to be an intelligence disaster of the highest order, seriously compromising scarce US assets in the region.

Yet the White House response seems to be utterly political — a concerted effort to shift blame, even if it means risking a break with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and payback from husband Bill. (Not to mention the chance of embarrassing blowback from the spooks who keep the secrets).

Maybe Team Obama can manage to dodge all the way to Nov. 6 — but they’re going to need a bigger bus.

 

[tomahawk6]

An inexperienced UK security company proved to be a complete disaster.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html

By Damien McElroy, Richard Spencer and Raf Sanchez

8:24PM BST 14 Oct 2012

Sources have told the Daily Telegraph that just five unarmed locally hired Libyans were placed on duty at the compound on eight-hour shifts under a deal that fell outside the State Department's global security contracting system.

Blue Mountain, the Camarthen firm that won a $387,000 (£241,000) one year contract from the US State Department to protect the compound in May, sent just one British employee, recruited from the celebrity bodyguard circuit, to oversee the work.

The compound was overrun by a mob of Islamic extremists on the morning of September 12 in an apparent planned attack that resulted in the death by asphyxiation of the ambassador, Chris Stevens.

Blue Mountain, which is run by a former member of the SAS, received paper work to operate in Libya last year following the collapse of Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime. It worked on short term contacts to guard an expatriate housing compound and a five-star hotel in Tripoli before landing the prestigious US deal.

Other firms in the security industry expressed surprise that Blue Mountain had won a large, high profile contract from the US government. One industry executive said the level of service Blue Mountain provided did not appear adequate to the risks presented by a lawless city.

"We have visited the consulate in Benghazi a number of times and have an excellent relationship with the Americans. Our assessment was the unarmed Libyan guards were extremely poor calibre," said one security source. "The Libyan Ministry of Interior are generally not happy with Blue Mountain and had them on their close observation/target list."

The New York Times last week reported that major security firms with a track record of guarding US premises elsewhere had made approaches to undertake work in Libya but were rebuffed.

"We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened," a security firm official told the newspaper.

A five man security team from the US diplomatic protection service and three members of a local revolutionary brigade were also on duty on the night of the attacks.

But Blue Mountain's local woes appears to have hampered a coordinated response by the compound's defenders when the late assault kicked off.

Darryl Davies, the manager of the Benghazi contract for Blue Mountain, flew out of the city hours before the attack was launched. The Daily Telegraph has learned that relations between the firm and its Libyan partner had broken down, leading to the withdrawal of Mr Davies.

Abdulaziz Majbiri, a Blue Mountain guard at the compound, told the Daily Telegraph that they were effectively abandoned and incapable of defending themselves on the night of the attack.

"We were in uniform, unarmed except for taser guns and handcuffs, and had been told in the case of attack to muster by the swimming pool," he said. "I was separated from the others and couldn't get anywhere near the swimming pool before I was shot."

US congressional investigators have told the Daily Telegraph that consular staff had reported Blue Mountain guards to the Libyan police on one occasion last year. The diplomats believed that two disgruntled Blue Mountain employees were behind a minor pipe bomb attack on the facility.

However after questioning no action was taken by the police or company over the incident.

Nigel Thomas, the Blue Mountain director, refused to answer any questions about the companies activities in Libya, citing official US inquiries into the incident. He said: "The US State Department investigation is still ongoing at this time. Blue Mountain have no comment to make and all questions should be directed to the US mission."

 

[GAP]

The political calculus is pretty complex. Right now if Hillary gets thrown under the bus, it damages any attempt to run in 2016. If Bill does not pull out all the stops, Obama may not be reelected. If Hillary is thrown under the bus, what incentive does Bill have to help the Administration? If Obama is reelected, then he can throw Hillary under the bus with impunity. If Governor Romney is elected, then 2016 may not be achievable for Hillary.

If anyone in the staff is thrown under the bus, they might start leaking nasty, toxic stuff that brings down the administration.

This is like the scene in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" where everyone is facing off in the graveyard....

Hillary just took one for the team.....this could get ugly in the backrooms for the Dems....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/clinton-takes-responsibility-for-consulate-security-blames-confusion-on-fog-war/

 

[Journeyman]

Hillary just took one for the team.....

How about this perspective: 

How many voters are looking to see any candidate linked with the term 'responsibility'...as in "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility Monday night for any security failures...."?

And by "blaming the 'fog of war' for the Obama administration's shifting explanations for the attack," she's being an Obama team player and not alienating State Dept security, CIA, even international security firms -- playing nice with anyone from whom she may be seeking for future support.

Good political move I'd say, rather than being chucked under the bus.



I just wouldn't want to be the guy wearing 'the blue dress' for her pay-back to Bill if she's the Prez    :-\

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This sounds to me, to be suddenly convenient.

In my opinion this is the Obama team's attempt to put the issue to bed, plausibly in their mind, all wrapped in a nice bow before the next Presidential debate.

They need a pat answer for Romney when he starts poking at Obama's house of cards. Now he can just look at Romney and say "State Dept and Clinton admitted being at fault, not my problem". :

 

[OldSolduer]

I reckon none of those folks ever studied the Principles of Leadership.

Ultimately, is the President of the USA not responsible for the safety of his Ambassadors?

 

[Haletown]

Hillary took responsibility for the security failures.

No mention of who invented the cover story, who coordinated all the Obama administration team who went on TV to blame some obscure YouTube clip.  No names of who in the White House coordinated the story. No mention of Obama flying off to campaign events 12 hours after a US Ambassador is murdered in full knowledge it was likely a terrorist attack and there was no spontaneous mob. 

It is never the crime, it is always the cover up.


Still lots of 'splaining to do.

 

[vonGarvin]

Still lots of 'splaining to do.

I agree.  On the one hand, Mr. Obama takes great credit in taking down Osama bin Laden.  On the other, he (through his team) are downplaying the failure in Benghazi.  Mr. Romney would be wise to remind Mr. Obama that great leaders shirk the laurels, but accept the blame, not the other way around.

 

[GAP]

Hillary Falls On Her Sword Over Benghazi
by Ben Shapiro 15 Oct 2012
Article Link

Late this afternoon, Elise Labott of CNN reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had told her that she “takes responsibility” for security problems at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. Clinton, who is hiding out in Peru while this blows over, took to the microphone to throw herself on the sword. She said “the buck stopped with her” when it came to the embassy, according to Labott. Labott further reported that Clinton stated, “she didn’t want to play any kind of blame game or political gotcha. She understands that the election is coming up and everyone wants to politicize this … She wants to wait for an investigation.” According to Labott, however, Clinton also blamed Congress, as well as other members of government.

Hillary is clearly playing the good soldier on the eve of the crucial second presidential debate between her boss, President Obama, and challenger Mitt Romney. After Vice President Joe Biden threw Clinton under the bus during the vice presidential debate, stating that neither he nor President Obama knew anything about the security situation in Benghazi, Hillary stepped out to the front to take the hit.

There’s a dual purpose for this sudden mea culpa. The first is obvious: Obama wants to end all speculation about his role in the Libyan disaster, and Hillary believes that she can take the hit and keep on trucking due to her personal popularity. The second is more subtle: Obama is losing the female vote now – Romney’s running just a point behind Obama among female likely voters according to Gallup – and he figures he can kill two birds with one stone if he can get Republicans to attack Hillary Clinton, the most popular female politician in the country, over Libya.

If Secretary of State Clinton was responsible for the security situation in Benghazi – as, indeed, we argued she was on the day after the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens – here’s the question, however: was she acting outside the scope of her duties when she failed to provide the ambassador the security he requested? Or was she following the orders of a President who has always attempted to avoid making waves in the Middle East, and saw a strong security presence as a show of force?

The answer seems obvious: Clinton was acting in accordance with President Obama’s general foreign policy. She did not provide Stevens with proper security because she was not supposed to under general Obama foreign policy guidelines. That’s why the Obama administration has spent over a month trying to claim that the obvious terrorist attack in Libya was sparked by a protest; then they blamed intelligence; then they blamed the State Department. The Obama administration never came clean because the State Department was acting under color of authority.

That, at least, must be the supposition pending a full investigation. This scandal will not end merely because the Obama administration has convinced Hillary to take a bullet for President Obama, and in doing so, shore up his female support. President Obama is the person who put Secretary of State Clinton in the unenviable position of enacting a pusillanimous foreign policy. If he didn’t, he should fire her forthwith. If he did, no phony sackcloth and ashes from the Secretary of State will solve the underlying problem: a cowardly Commander in Chief who leads from behind and leaves our people in harm’s way, then throws others under the bus for his failures of leadership.

UPDATE: CNN has now released snippets of video from Clinton. In the video, she says she takes responsibility -- then promptly announces that security arrangements were made by "security professionals." In other words, she took responsibility, then blamed subordinates. Watch for the media to ignore that walkback on responsibility so that they can attempt to quash this scandal.
end

 

[OldSolduer]

It's too bad that the majority of  the MSM will give Obama a free ride on this one.

 

[Journeyman]

No, what I think is too bad is that it will matter very little either way.

I suspect that the voting public falls into two predominant blocs -- those whose minds are made up and will only 'hear' info that supports their beliefs, and the large, disinterested mass for whom this is mindless, irrelevant chatter.  :not-again:

 

[vonGarvin]

Personally, I think you're both right.  And I think it's a shame as well.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Fast & Furious was a harbinger. This administration takes no responsibility for anything untoward and only blames or covers up.

American deaths seem to make have no effect whatsoever to them.

Exceptionally fast to take credit from others to bolster a positive image though, when opportunity presents itself.

They're making Nixon look like a boy scout.

There are no leaders there. Only takers and egotistical freeloaders.