In Benghazi timeline, CIA errors but no evidence of conspiracy

The Washington Post ^ | 11/01/2012 | David Ignatius

[Calpublican]

A detailed CIA timeline of the assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi paints an anguishing picture of embattled Americans waiting for Libyan local security forces that didn’t come and courageous CIA officers who died on a rooftop without the heavy weapons they needed, trying to protect their colleagues below.

It’s a story of individual bravery, but also of a CIA misjudgment in relying on Libyan militias and a newly formed Libyan intelligence organization to keep Americans safe in Benghazi. While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.

[kabar]

This story with the timeline will set off a firestorm. Anyone who knows what the proper response is to an event like this will tear it to pieces.

The title, "In Benghazi timeline, CIA errors but no evidence of conspiracy," will not tamp down the controversy but rather add gasoline to the fire. Ignatius may not understand what he has provided, but I will bet a million dollars that there will be plenty of former WH, intel, and military officials will go ballistic when reading this. The fire has been started and it will spread to the WH by tomorrow. This article raises so many questions, it is impossible to list them all.

[Son House]

Okay, Mr Ignatius, your in the situation room, when the initial phone call came, Obama gave an order to “secure those Americans”, how long do you watch video from the drones before you figure out the orders aren’t being followed?

a. 1 hour
b. 2 hours
c. 4 hours
d. 7 hours

Obama says when the initial phone call came, he gave an order to “secure those Americans”;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/transcript-presidential-debate-on-foreign-policy-at-lynn-university/

Obama “Now with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way;”

[Gator113]

“.......there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.”

Do their dead bodies count as evidence??

“Delayed” vs Denied—Truth vs Lied—25 minutes vs 6 to 7 hours of battle.... it all seems like such small and insignificant differences, huh.

[Fitzy_888]

Question: Will a CBS story be enough impetus for the other sycophants (ABC and NBC) to pick up what’s left of their dignity and cover the story...?

[RummyChick]

So the Navy Seals can extract a hostage from SOMALIA but we can’t extract people under fire in Libya???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CattX4r0swc

[kristinn]

Every administration since Jimmy Carter has worked from the fear of another Iranian hostage-style kidnapping of diplomatic personnel--except the Obama administration it would seem.

Obama is lucky the terrorists killed instead of took hostages. He'd be lucky to carry Chicago on Tuesday.

[SeattleBruce]

"our Seals were painting a mortar with a laser" This CIA interview/interpretation/article disputes that. Here's the source of Ignatius article: "The CIA timeline was described to me Thursday by a senior intelligence official." Do we have independent validation that the Seals were painting the target? I'm putting together my own LibyaGate file: ●5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

[TigersEye]

...The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport...

That is nothing less than an admission of craven cowardliness and a complete absence of leadership. In a back-handed and dishonest way WaPo has nailed it.

[GSAonce]

Good an official timeline, close. The holes in the story show up in the time line. Delay at the airport, hospital surrounded? Holes to cover the time needed to negotiate for the return of Stevens body? Time to secure what was left of weapons in the warehouses.

[Girlene]

I call BS on this.

I'll second that.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Ignatius back to his coverup mode. Gee, his honest reporting lasted about two paragraphs.

Guess the Wash. Post is now the DC edition of the Al Qaeda Gazette and Goat-Humping Herald

[Girlene]

From the article: ....."●11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., "........

then this:

●5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are the mortars observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

First question....I'm assuming RPG's are different than mortars?

Second question - how would Libyan attackers know laser sights were on them in order to be warned off?

Third question - Regardless of whether the Libyan attackers had RPG's or mortars, why wouldn't we want to take them out if we could? We knew where they were, had them painted, but can't take them out because we have no air support, right?

Just trying to understand this latest "official" intelligence version vs. the damning story that Jennifer Griffin gave based on source(s?) who were actually on the ground in Benghazi.

[Calpublican]

Your screen name is what I wanted to do when I read this story. It is so weak and full of holes as pointed out by you and others here.

[eggman]

The simple explanation for that would be the whole operation was a CIA weapons deal gone bad. That's why they needed the video/protest cover story that fell apart. It's the only thing that would make any sense. Why else would Ambassador Stephens be in Benghazi with minimal security and only the CIA to step in and help when things got out of hand.

[berdie]

Well, I guess if the first three or four or nine stories don’t work...run another one up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.

This is sad.

[Gene Eric]

>> but also of a CIA misjudgment

ESAD/s, Ignatus. Your scapegoating is no more believable than the ruse that involved defecating on the 1st Amenment.

[Gene Eric]

>> >> The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire

>> 2nd question .... warning???

Agreed

[Godwin1]

The Obamunists using a bought columnist to carry their water. No surprise here.

[Dan Cooper]

The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack.

This makes it sound like the kidnapping hypothesis may be right. Perhaps Ansar al-Sharia took him to the hospital after recovering him from the room as seen in the video. They were supposed to capture him alive, hence the celebration, they took him to the hospital and waited to see if he would survive in order to kidnap him.

[petitfour]

No, no, no. Those were nice people who took him to the hospital. Hillary said so. The Libyans love us and loved Ambassador Stevens. It was that durn video . . .