The real questions on Benghazi attack...

[billc]

Here are some of the real questions that aren't being answered about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/asking-the-wrong-questions-about-libya/

When it was apparent that the Benghazi compound was under attack from an overwhelming military force, did they request U.S. military aid?
If they requested assistance, from whom did they request it? Sending in a military force would have required what the Pentagon calls “National Command Authority,” which is a euphemism for the president.
What happened to the requests for help?
We know this much, from the background briefing provided by the Department of State to the news media: “[T]he agent from the top of this incident, or the very beginning of this incident, has been on the phone. He had called the quick reaction security team, he had called the Libyan authorities, he had called the Embassy in Tripoli, and he had called Washington. He had them all going to ask for help.”
Was there a live secure video conference held by the National Security Council (NSC), to evaluate the situation and the options for providing assistance?

That is standard operating procedure when there are serious breaches of diplomatic compounds. The national security system surely would have been on alert earlier in the day, when Egyptian protesters scaled the Cairo embassy’s walls.
If a video conference was held, who chaired it? Was it Tom Donilon, the national security advisor? Did he brief the president? If so, when? And if not, why not?
What did the president know, and when did he know it? What did he know before he prepped for his fundraiser in Las Vegas?
Here is more that we know. The attack commenced at around 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time — 3:40 p.m. Washington time — and Washington was notified immediately. Quoting again from the background briefing by the State Department, “The calls were made to Tripoli at the moment that the — at the same time the agent in the [Tactical Operations Center] sounded the alarm and then proceeded to make calls.” That is, shortly after 3:40 p.m. Washington time, urgent appeals for help were phoned to Washington. Whom did they telephone, what did they request, and who responded to the request? What was the response?

 

[WC_lun]

I can answer a bit if the first. Security in Benghazi was provided by private security and Lybian forces. Even if a call went out for us military support, it would not have arrived in time to do anything. However, Lybian security forces support was called and arrived, eventually driving off the terrorist, which is why more people aren't dead.

There is an investigation going on, but questions like "When did the president know?" is just playing politics with the tragic loss of life. Do you really think the president would not support American's under attack? Even if he was so callous, that would make no sense for him to ignore such request. This is just more bs baseless attack politics. Too bad 4 Americans had to die to give you something to scratch at.

 

[billc]

Why Benghazi is important...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/20/david-frum-why-benghazi-matters/

Yet despite this knowledge, and with very rare exceptions, the administration for almost two weeks mischaracterized the incident.
Again: why?
Here’s why. Libya was fully Obama’s war. He made the decision to intervene to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, and he decided on the nature of the intervention. Afterward, he took credit for the result: a dictator deposed, elections organized, without any long-term American presence in the country. Compared to Afghanistan or Iraq, Libya looked at first like a cheap and easy success.
But events have shaken the Obama narrative about Libya. Despite the elections, there is no effective government in Libya. The eastern half of the country is controlled by armed militia groups imbued with al-Qaeda ideology — to the point where (The New York Times reported Friday) the presumed ringleader of the attack on the Benghazi consulate could hold a press conference on an open-air patio without fear of apprehension or retaliation.
Suddenly, Libya does not look like such a big success. Gaddafi was nasty, but he had long ago ceased to be a nuisance for the United States. If overthrowing him created an al-Qaeda romper room a short boat ride from NATO ally Italy — that would be a very bad and embarrassing result.
The sophisticated criticism of President Obama’s Libya policy is this:
Obama intervened in Libya despite his awareness that the anti-Gaddafi rebels had pro-al-Qaeda leanings. He intervened to support those rebels because he hoped to prove to Islamists everywhere in the Middle East and North Africa that they had more to gain from co-operating with the United States than from fighting the United States. This is the famous “opening to political Islam” that has been so intensely discussed in Washington.
And the opening continues. It continues in the form of the covert aid now reportedly flowing to the Syrian rebels, and in the soft line being taken with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president even after Egyptian police failed to protect the U.S. embassy in Cairo against attack (which also was on 9/11). If the opening failed in Libya, it’s likely to fail even worse in Syria, where the rebel groups are even more saturated with Salafist Islam than the Libyan rebels.

President Obama’s big risky Mideast gambit is failing badly. Four Americans died because of that failure — and many other US interests have been put at risk. Americans need to hear that truth before they vote in November.