Posted by Tina
One of the more troubling revelations to fall out of the Benghazi investigation was the terrible state of readiness that was evident prior to and during the attack. Now a new report confirms what many of us have been saying. PJ Media has the link to the report and a summary:
The committee summed up its investigation to date in six findings:
I. In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region. Official public statements seem to have exaggerated the extent and rigor of the security assessment conducted at the time.
II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.
III. Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.
IV. The U.S. military’s response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to prepare for a more extended operation.
V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.
VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.
It isn’t that Leon Panetta and others left in charge did nothing on that September 11 anniversary, it is that they were not prepared to adequately and effectively respond due to a lack of preparedness and a lack of engagement or concern by those tasked with making certain our military and security response is top drawer!
Defense of the nation is job #1 at the federal level. The report indicates that little has been done to improve the situation. We need new leadership.
“New leadership” wouldn’t necessarily prevent this. Remember, even Reagan had comparable security failures under his leadership, one of which resulted in over 200 people dead at an embassy.
There is plenty of reason to criticize Obama for the lack of preparedness here, but let’s not act like this is unprecedented.
It’s also important to acknowledge that this report debunks many lies that have been told by conservative critics about Benghazi. It says quite clearly that there was no “stand down” order given, despite claims made by numerous Republican politicians and bloggers. It also shows that once the attack began, the military couldn’t have responded in time to save the people killed.
Panetta needs to be subpoenaed and brought back to answer a boat load of questions!
Chris What do you think was the security failure in the Reagan incident? Can’t wait to hear it.
Here’s Reagan’s explanation from the NYT:
Screaming Headline: “REAGAN CONCEDES EMBASSY SECURITY WAS NOT COMPLETE”
I don’t believe you will find requests for security that went unmet or a president that was not fully engaged in the decision making. You won’t find a man who sent a woman out to spin a cover story or a state department official that didn’t respond appropriately.
“the military couldn’t have responded in time to save the people killed.”
Don’t you get it…they should have been able to respond! There wasn’t enough security and there wasn’t a unit close by in case of trouble. As more than one person has said a flyover might have been enough to scare them off.
Sadly, there are no Boy Scouts in this administration.
“Don’t you get it…they should have been able to respond!”
Don’t you get it? The nearest sizeable force was in Italy, and a thousand miles takes some getting across.
You are irrational on the subject, and apprarently, you always will be.
Sans the inflammatory embellishments, all the facts are known, and have been known for some time. We were not on our toes, so to speak; we know this; steps have been taken.
But this will never be enough for you … cause you’s crazy.
Libby: “Don’t you get it? The nearest sizeable force was in Italy…”
Exactly!
You DON’T get it!
Tina, we’re not going to deploy militiary contingents every 200 miles, globally. An unwillingness to live with this restriction is … irrational.
In fact, I’ll bet the Italians wish we would leave. But they have not quite yet lived down Mussolini.
Libby, “…militiary contingents every 200 miles, globally” isn’t what was required. Nice try, though. Seems you are just as savy as the President when it comes to dangerous situations and readiness:
Seatle Times:
So the military had a presence there and the State Department could have sent American security teams and chose to use the locals instead…dumb, dumb, dumb given the black flags and danger that they KNEW defined very dangerous conditions in Benghazi.
Readiness! Preparedness! An administration that is engaged in the operations it has initiated!!!
Tina: “Chris What do you think was the security failure in the Reagan incident? Can’t wait to hear it.”
But you’ve heard it before. Several times, in fact. (I’m curious, do you get a little voice in your head saying “DOES NOT COMPUTE” upon reading anything even slightly negative about Ronald Reagan?)
“Aide: Reagan left Marines vulnerable in 1983 Beirut
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.
“I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission,” Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.
Recollections of an initial 25 Reagan aides were released this week by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Altogether, scholars interviewed 45 Cabinet members, White House staffers and campaign advisers in a project begun in 2001, when Reagan was secluded with advanced stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Reagan died in June 2004 at the age of 93.
Transcripts offer largely admiring portraits by Reagan’s chief loyalists and Weinberger is no exception, crediting the president with restoring U.S. power and outfoxing the Soviet Union. (Related site: Ronald Reagan oral history)
But he said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that ‘”Marines don’t cut and run,’ and ‘We can’t leave because we’re there'” before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force.
“They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull’s-eye,” Weinberger said. “I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position.” ”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-reagan-histories_x.htm
Again: The point of this is not to bash Reagan or say he’s worse than Obama. The point is that these things happen under every president. Until Obama, they were not considered impeachable offenses.
Yes, Tina, we know all this. “We should have, but we didn’t.” Now … you tell us where the grand conspiracy is in all this?
You seem intent on holding your government to some irrational standard of perfection. Don’t hold yer breath waitin’ around for that.
And, fer Pete’s sake, stop panting after boogies under the bed. There aren’t any.
Okay Chris, point well taken. A few points:
I have not called for impeachment.
Reagan made a bad decision and I’m sure he regretted it. His overall record of engagement was better. His explanation didn’t attempt to deceive.
Obama has sided against allies and with enemies making his overall commitment appear to be at odds with our own interests. The danger signals in Benghazi were clear and specific, rather than general and vague, causing the British to pull their people out.
I don’t think the situation is the same and I don’t think Obama demonstrates that he is committed to any goal or operation by our military. if anything he seems to think it’s an annoyance that gets in the way of his redistribution agenda at home.
Sorry, I have to leave again…back in a bit.
Libby: “you tell us where the grand conspiracy is in all this?”
Conspiracy? Who mentioned conspiracy?
“You seem intent on holding your government to some irrational standard of perfection.”
This is rich coming from a woman that criticized President Bush relentlessly and, hypocritically, has not criticized Obama over similar/same complaints. The refugee problem and the killing of innocents are one example. It’s amazing how positive all of the interference into the af fairs of others is for you now, especially since it has led to such a disaster in terms of human life.
“fer Pete’s sake, stop panting after boogies under the bed.”
Why should I, you seem to enjoy it so much!
Tina:
“Obama has sided against allies and with enemies”
Example, please.
“The danger signals in Benghazi were clear and specific, rather than general and vague,”
You realize that the information you cited in your own article directly contradicts this?
Here’s what the House Report you cited says:
“II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.”
The Senate Report said the same thing.