U.S. Diplomats Killed in Libya

Warmonger.

 

Will this latest tidbit quell the Left's rabid love affair with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?

Assange: Obama exploiting Arab Spring in campaign

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accused President Barack Obama on Thursday of seeking to exploit the Arab uprisings for personal political gain, as he addressed a sideline meeting of the U.N. General Assembly via videolink from his hideout at a London embassy.
The Australian activist has sheltered inside Ecuador's embassy in London — beyond the reach of British police — since June 19, when he sought refuge after he exhausted all legal routes to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crimes allegations.
Assange and his supporters claim that the Swedish sex case is part of a Washington-orchestrated plot to make him stand trial in the United States over his work with WikiLeaks, which has published thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables and other documents. Both Sweden and the U.S. reject that claim.
At a sideline meeting organized by Ecuador, the activist attempted to draw parallels between himself and the instigators of the Arab Spring — claiming that they had all been let down by Obama.
"It must come as a surprise to Tunisians for Barack Obama to say the U.S. supported the forces of change in Tunisia," Assange said, speaking from Ecuador's tiny apartment-sized London mission.
He claimed that uprisings across the Arab world had been inspired, in part, by his organization's disclosures about despotic rulers, including Tunisia's deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Assange claimed that Obama — whose administration he accuses of building a criminal case against WikiLeaks and of harassing its staff — was seeking to exploit the reforms of the Arab Spring during his reelection campaign.
"Mohamed Bouazizi did not set himself on fire so that Barack Obama could get reelected," Assange told the meeting, referring to the 2011 self-immolation by a Tunisian fruit vendor which sparked the uprising that toppled Ben Ali.
Assange, who made no reference to the Swedish sexual misconduct case as he addressed diplomats, also accused Britain and Sweden of failing to provide guarantees that he would not face extradition to the U.S. to help preserve close military and intelligence links with Washington.
Both European nations insist that Assange must be sent to Sweden under international and European law, and that they cannot legally offer any pledges to refuse a possible future U.S. extradition request.
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has granted Assange asylum, but if he steps outside the country's London embassy he will be arrested by police who surround the building.
The case has left Britain, Ecuador and Sweden at a diplomatic impasse. Foreign ministers from Quito and London will meet Thursday in New York, as Assange marks 100 days holed up in the embassy.
Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patino told the meeting that he believed there were "many ways to achieve a solution," without specifying potential routes. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Tuesday that he saw "no sign of any break through" in the saga.
Britain's foreign ministry said it was "committed to seeking a diplomatic solution" with Ecuador, but insisted that it was legally obliged to send Assange to Sweden.
http://news.yahoo.com/assange-obama-exploiting-arab-spring-campaign-005656566.html

 

This is a good op-ed article that says what needs to be said about Hillary and her lack of leadership in the State Department concerning the deaths of our consulate members in Libya:

It's time for Hillary Clinton to resign

"This is Libya’s moment. This is Libya’s victory and the future belongs to you.”​

--Hillary Clinton, October 17, 2011​

​

That was our Secretary of State on a visit to Libya almost a year ago, when administration was touting the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi as its biggest foreign policy triumph after killing Usama Bin Laden–and the success of “leading from behind.” Well, now we know that leading from behind was just the excuse for a policy of weakness and passivity–and the cost of that weakness in American prestige and lives, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.​

​

Remember that Hillary Clinton ad in the 2008 presidential campaign, about who we would want answering that phone call to the Oval Office at 3 a.m.? Now we can assume she would answer the same way she’s handled this Libyan debacle: with weakness, prevarication, and stunning misjudgment. ​

​

As details leak out about the events leading up to the brutal murder of Stevens and three other Americans, it’s becoming obvious the State Department knowingly put Stevens in danger of his life, and Secretary Clinton needs to take the lion’s share of the blame.​

​

After all, Benghazi was no remote tropical post. Clinton was the first cabinet-level visitor to Libya back in October after Qaddafi’s fall. Libya has been a major focus of the administration’s policy on the Arab Spring, which has been to get the US out of the way and let the locals run wild. All the talk has been about the success of America’s hands off policy in Libya, even as armed militias were not only roaming the streets but taking over security, including supposedly protecting our consulate in Benghazi.The British knew better. A rocket-propelled grenade attack on an embassy motor convoy on June 11 in Benghazi led them to close their consulate there, but ours stayed open even after someone exploded a bomb nearby five days before. ​

​

Then as the September 11 anniversary loomed, nervous Libyan officials issued a warning to the American embassy three days beforehand about the danger of an attack–a warning Clinton and the State Department ignored.​

​

Ambassador Stevens himself was worried. Pages from his diary found by CNN note his fears about security threats, a rise in Islamic extremism in Libya, and even that he might be on a Islamist “hit list.” Yet the State Department still gave him no security detail for his visit to Benghazi–and the two Navy SEALs who died at his side had volunteered to help, since no one from the State Department was stepping up.​

​

Finally, diplomatic sources say forty-eight hours before the attack State Department officials got “credible intelligence” that there might be attacks on US diplomatic missions on the 9/11 anniversary: yet did nothing to alert anyone in Libya, Cairo, or anywhere else. ​

​

Then Secretary Clinton compounded her failure by insisting, even after the Libyan president said there was no doubt the Benghazi attack was “coordinated” and “preplanned, ” that the deaths were the result of spontaneous demonstrations caused by a six-month old You Tube video, not by our failed policy and State’s crass negligence. ​

​

Almost a week after our government's head of the Counterterrorism Center admitted to Congress it was a “terror attack,” she’s said nothing to correct her version of events. In fact, the weekend after the murders, as that version was steadily unraveling, she let UN ambassador Susan take the flack-and perpetuate the lie.​

​

So what’s Hillary been doing lately? Appearing on Pakistani TV in a groveling apology for that same video–even as Pakistanis were rioting in the streets, killing 14 and wounding 70; the Al Qaeda flag has been raised over the US embassy in Cairo; and Libya is racing closer to chaos and civil war.​

​

The Secretary of State is the person most responsible for how the United States presents itself to other nations–and protecting those who do that job for us. ​

​

In normal times, under a normal president, Hillary Clinton’s performance on both would be enough to force her to step down. But these aren’t normal times. So for now, she’s still at the helm at State-- to our nation’s shame.​

​

Historian Arthur Herman is the author of the just released "Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II" (Random House May 2012) and the Pulitzer Prize finalist book "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age" (Bantam, 2008).​

​

​

View attachment 613 ​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/24/it-time-for-hillary-clinton-to-resign/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz27g3Oo3nt​

 

Just released;

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/print#ixzz27gDkILTk​

 

And just in case you expected to hear this on the lame street media;

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ryan-robertson/2012/09/26/morning-news-ignore-new-evidence-suspected-terrorist-activity-libya-#ixzz27gEKvsFd

 

View attachment 615

US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm​

​

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault.

The account that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.

"I think we should have answers right away. ... I think they're reluctant to tell us what this event really was probably because it's an election year. But the American people deserve to know answers about what happened at our embassy in Libya," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., told Fox News.

One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.

"It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.

Curiously, Obama referred to "acts of terror" in his first public remarks about the attack. But from there, administration officials went on to blame the anti-Islam film. Rice was the most explicit in that explanation, insisting on a slew of Sunday shows that the attack was not pre-planned and was tied to the film.

Obama still has not publicly and specifically described the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

But top administration officials have gradually walked back Rice's version of events.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly suggested Wednesday to foreign leaders visiting the United Nations summit in New York that the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa was involved.

"Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions," Clinton told the group, according to The New York Times. "And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."
She was referring to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Clinton earlier this week called the attack terrorism, two weeks after the fact. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also said that Obama now believes it is terrorism as well.

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/#ixzz27gbVMzYt​

 

I have no problem going to War when it's proven necessary, coward. My beliefs are in line with how Hitler was removed from power. Yours is that of a sniveling coward, attacking what it can't understand.

 

Now that it is out that they absolutely were purposely lying, I will repeat my question for Teddy - WHY?

 

The 'time frame' will 'slip' is what I really mean. In other words, 2014 is a fantasy date for whoever is the President at the time. Unless Afghanistan, like Iraq, actually kicks up out.

 

Agreed, and we both know some of our troops will stay...but I doubt the Afghans will stand for it. I'm also betting that the country reverts back to pre invasion nastiness towards us, and will likely begin to attack any and all our people, including ambassadors, which may force a retaliation from us.

At this point, for the reasons above, I agree with you on this country....that we leave absolutely no assets* behind (not even an embassy) when we do make up our mind to pull out. It's likely the Afghans will demand that more and more as that point approaches.

*(not including those already there...the weapons and materials we've given them are theirs now.)

 

You wanted to bomb the Libyans. Who's next? The Syrians? The Iranians? Anyone you don't like? You're pathetic.

 

I think a lot will depend upon the status of that sham president Karzai. He just so happens to be up for 're-election' in 2014. Karzai sometimes talks a good game against us but I think he is at least smart enough to know that he is a dead man if we leave.

BTW: I am no pacifist. I fully believe we were justified in going into Afghanistan in the first place. I am just against the occupation and people thinking that we have some kind of moral commitment to rebuild a nation that we were justified in unbuilding in the first place. Not to mention, Afghanistan wasn't really a nation when we took them out so any expectation of a nation after we leave is a pipe dream no matter when we leave.

I also believe that when another country is invaded, that we can be fully justified in ousting the invading force like we did in Iraq the first go around. And also to then take out the invading country if it is necessary. Call it the Hitler Clause if you want.

What I don't believe in is nation building, democracy by force, attacking countries that are not a direct threat to us, occupations, using our country as a proxy or mercenary army for other countries, using force to 'fix' the internal affairs and conflicts of sovereign nations, etc.

 

Yep. His attempts to placate the Taliban will fail. They will not tolerate him once the cash flow (from the US, which he abuses) begins to dwindle.

Understood.

I'm guilty of that somewhat, more so in the early stages than now though. Now that I have more information to work with I have a better understanding of what's likely to occur. It's becoming clear to me that I was wrong earlier on when I had the "we broke it, we gotta fix it" attitude.

The problem earlier on was that Bin Laden's status was unknown. Until his death, it was easier to justify the need to continue the hunt for him, requiring our presence in Afghanistan. With his death, and the likelihood that the Taliban will regain power there no matter what we do, my mood has changed to one of withdrawal.

We fulfilled the original mission's goal while improving the lives of the people there, if only temporarily. I still hate to leave their women there...they have little to no appreciation for them.

Well then, aren't you the party-pooper! But seriously, the nation building and strong-arm tactics we use against other countries to make them compliant to our wishes really really angers me too.

 

Well, as we've now found out, that wasn't the case at all. This was a pre-planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 and the movie was a coincidental scapegoat. I believe what we should all be asking now is, "Why didn't the State Department and/or Obama take additional steps to secure our consulate after they had received intelligence reports indicating that an attack was imminent?"

 

You must be very very blissful. Our intelligence services receive information, tons of it daily, but it's typically vague as to specifics. As I understand it though, the field officers in Libya did inform the State Department (or whatever) that they believed they may be becoming targets by local al Qaeda or it's sympathizers. That would be expected now wouldn't it? To be targets? Anyway, they apparently noticed an increase in agitation from such groups towards them and took the steps they could to secure themselves in a War-torn country that has a fragile government in place, and it also appears they followed their escape plan when they came under attack. What more do you want?

Our government, Republican-led or Democrat-led, isn't in the habit of not protecting it's ambassadors to the fullest extent possible for the area they are assigned. It's a shame that some even question that fact, that they would even attempt to turn the tragic loss of a well-liked ambassador (the people of Libya apparently thought very much of him) into a political attack here at home.

Yet another reason to limit Republican's power.

 

On that account, I would agree with you 100%

Therein lies the crux of my argument. On the anniversaries of 9/11, all agencies are on higher alert than normal. However, in this case, the State Department was informed that a specific consulate "may become targets by local al Qaeda" by specific "field officers in Libya". Now, if you were in charge of the State Department and you received information from your field officer that a SPECIFIC consulate may become a target (especially in a region your government had recently bombed and killed its leader) would you increase security at that consulate?

Certainly on the anniversaries of 9/11 (or any other time for that matter), any American assets are targets.

Exactly. An increase in agitation. Then they reported it to the State Department. But, what did the State Department do in response?

What steps did they take after they reported it to the State Department?

Their "escape plan" obviously didn't work. Was that "escape plan" devised before or after the threat of increased agitation was reported to the State Department?

What more do I want? Are you joking? What I want is for the State Department to take the lives of our consulate members seriously. Had an increase in security been sent to the area it may have saved their lives. Or it may not have. We'll never know. But, additional security should have been sent.

Apparently not enough in this case...

Someone killed our ambassador and his aides. I want to know who and I want to know why. I want to know if our government could have done more to protect them. I want to know if someone was asleep at the wheel. We can't bring back the dead, but we can certainly do our best to see that it doesn't happen again. In this instance, our government failed and it cost lives and that's something I'll question forever.

Do you really have to be so partisan? If your government makes mistakes, admit it.

 

Remember when Bush was in office and people were saying "Bush lied, people died"?

People will now say "People died, Obama lied.

 

First off, thank you for keeping this civil.

In Libya, I would have the maximum protection that was possible. It's highly probable the proper necessary structures to house and protect an ambassador were being planned, but not finalized. Even so, when a large enough group of people want you dead, you die...no matter the protection.

I'm assuming they did little. From my perspective, there was little they could do, minus an immediate evacuation...and abandonment of the post...which would have been an over-reaction, IMO. That said, the ambassador made the decision to stay (ordered or not, you can always quit).

I am not privy to that information, but I'd say little...but I'd support that decision, given the info I do have.

Before. That it failed is an indication of the attacker's intentions, their determination. They either followed him as he fled or had known about the safe house he had fled to prior to that. There is some evidence that this was so. I would expect they would know any and all buildings their enemies used. I'd know theirs.

I disagree, but acknowledge that I don't have the necessary information to properly access the situation before the attack. No one here does though, so this is more an exercise of what we each would have done, and not what the country did.

My argument is more about what could reasonably be done. More or less can always be done. IMO, it was reasonable.

Yep, I do. IMO, Republican politicians are in dire need of being removed from power, and I've been providing my reasons the entire time I've been here.

I admit it. I disagree with you that this was handled improperly though. IMO, it was unavoidable...pending more info, of course.

 

I want to go further with this.

If McCain was currently President, you would certainly be defending him and the State department from any Democrat that questioned whether or not enough was done to protect our people. I sincerely doubt that many (if any) Democrat would resort to such nonsense.

This isn't the first time we've been attacked, and it isn't going to be the last. In the past, when American lives were lost, this type of nonsense was unthinkable, regardless of the political power in office. Reagan was never questioned this way. Or Bush Sr. Or Clinton. Or Bush Jr.

This is clearly an unwarranted attack based on partisanship, on election year politics, and it's coming from the party that is fluent in unwarranted attacks.

 

View attachment 617