Jump to content

Menu

Can someone please point me to vetted news stories about the Benghazi incident?


Recommended Posts

Please, let's not talk about this. I am just asking to be sent to some good information and links about the Benghazi incident and how it was managed. I am having a very hard time sorting fact from fiction on this issue, and I figure that someone in the ever brilliant Hive has already done so. PM me if you prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, let's not talk about this. I am just asking to be sent to some good information and links about the Benghazi incident and how it was managed. I am having a very hard time sorting fact from fiction on this issue, and I figure that someone in the ever brilliant Hive has already done so. PM me if you prefer.

 

I'm am trying to figure this out, too. No need to discuss. Just trying to sort it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who is supposed to be vetting, but I've been following this story mostly through The Guardian and Al Jazeera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there is an investigation into it, I don't think we'll hear/know the unbiased facts of what happened. One thing does seem clear - the youtube video had nothing to do with it.

 

:iagree:

 

I also agree that everything that's been brought to light so far would lead to a political discussion. And what hasn't been brought to light yet would also lead to a political discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to add to factcheck.org link, there is a video, from an overhead drone, that taped the entire attack, that the administration refuses to declassify. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA_SURVEILLANCE_VIDEO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-26-20-18-22

 

I don't think this is a political issue at all. It has nothing to do with dems or republicans or our differences. This is an issue of right and wrong; good and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBS has also had some reporting. CNN got the Ambassador's journal which detailed that he had asked several times for increased security and that the situation in Benghazi wasn't good. But lately, Fox and specifically Jennifer Griffin at Fox, have been getting revelation after revelation. She is a longtime Defense reporter with them and probably people who are upset about this are talking with her.

 

Another source for some of the news are the British papers. I have been reading a lot about various topics in American news in a much deeper way by reading Daily Mail, Telegraph, and other papers from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only network that has been following the incident daily since it happened 30 some odd days ago is Fox news.

 

The incident is so wrapped up in politics can't really discuss it here.

 

I think the only reason Fox has been reporting on it so much is for political reasons, not because it necessitated that much coverage.

 

OP, the BBC tends to be fairly neutral, and their website has articles if you search for them.

 

BBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Fox is getting the news because that is what their viewers want. Yes, there is political coverage of the story on O'Reilly and Hannity. But the News Hour with Brett Baier or the following news hour with Shephard Smith are non political. Also, Gretta Van Susteren's coverage is much more balanced with her program On the Record.

 

I also wouldn't call BBC unbiased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to add to factcheck.org link, there is a video, from an overhead drone, that taped the entire attack, that the administration refuses to declassify. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA_SURVEILLANCE_VIDEO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-26-20-18-22

 

From a military perspective, why would we declassify something like that?

 

eta: To the question in general? I don't think even a "vetted" news organization is going to get solid information on something like this. Reporters tend to take a fact, a couple of facts floating around that actually happened during another indecent, some rumors and a handful of undocumented "statements" from random "government officials" and put together news stories. They are cobbled together and tend to be more fiction than fact. The factcheck timeline is good, if you want to know who said what and when, but if you're trying to get to the bottom of it? I don't think you're going to be able to do that.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Fox is getting the news because that is what their viewers want. Yes, there is political coverage of the story on O'Reilly and Hannity. But the News Hour with Brett Baier or the following news hour with Shephard Smith are non political. Also, Gretta Van Susteren's coverage is much more balanced with her program On the Record.

 

I also wouldn't call BBC unbiased.

 

Well, imo, any news network, liberal or conservative, that frames the news the way their viewers want it- and I think we can both agree that Fox and MSNBC fit that category- isn't exactly going to be a reliable news source if someone is looking for more facts and less spin.

 

And none of them are unbiased, but the BBC is certainly less biased than many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Fox is getting the news because that is what their viewers want. Yes, there is political coverage of the story on O'Reilly and Hannity. But the News Hour with Brett Baier or the following news hour with Shephard Smith are non political. Also, Gretta Van Susteren's coverage is much more balanced with her program On the Record.

 

I also wouldn't call BBC unbiased.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation is really not complicated. A coordinated attack was lead by a small and violent Salifist group called Ansar al-Sharia. They have political philosophy very much in sympathy with al Qaeda, while the exact nature of direct ties are somewhat murkier.

 

There were protests that started the day previous in Egypt where the YouTube video was a factor. Like many "pretexts" the video was in part a "pretext" in Egypt and was used to inflame passions. It was very offensive to Muslims. No one should discount the fact that this video really did cause outrage fueled by the outrage "echo chamber" that exists in the Muslim world, just as we have an outrage "echo chamber" that incites hate and unreason here in the USA. and there were other video related protests in the Muslim world, including Pakistan.

 

But the Benghazi attack was a coordinated attack, not a crowd gone wild. The intelligence was slow getting to the true nature of the attack. The administration and the media were both caught in an initial analysis that this was a "video" reaction story, when it was a premeditated attack.

 

To the credit of the Libyan people they moved against Ansar al-Sharia and forced them out of a fortified military instillation and push them to the run. Leaders have been attested and/or killed, and the administration has actively participated in pursuing the killers, and the President has committed to hunting down the rest.

 

The killings were tragic. Ambassador Stevens was by all accounts a great man and one dedicated to securing the freedom of the Libyan people. He and the others did a noble service. We should honor that service, and not turn this into a political sideshow fueled by conspiracy theories and false accusations.

 

We are Americans first.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were protests that started the day previous in Egypt where the YouTube video was a factor. Like many "pretexts" the video was in part a "pretext" in Egypt and was used to inflame passions. It was very offensive to Muslims. No one should discount the fact that this video really did cause outrage fueled by the outrage "echo chamber" that exists in the Muslim world, just as we have an outrage "echo chamber" that incites hate and unreason here in the USA. and there were other video related protests in the Muslim world, including Pakistan.

 

And there are other pieces of this idea that become hard to translate from one culture to another. Government control of information in some countries is *huge*. You really cannot understand how this looks in some of these cultures unless you've seen it. They don't understand that any yahoo in the US can put out a youtube video. They don't understand that our government has no vested interest in insulting Islam. They don't have a firm grip on how to sift out the truth or that information they receive is purposely filled with misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there are other pieces of this idea that become hard to translate from one culture to another. Government control of information in some countries is *huge*. You really cannot understand how this looks in some of these cultures unless you've seen it. They don't understand that any yahoo in the US can put out a youtube video. They don't understand that our government has no vested interest in insulting Islam. They don't have a firm grip on how to sift out the truth or that information they receive is purposely filled with misinformation.

 

Right. Some (many) do not understand the freedom Americans have to publish deeply insulting material—and might fail to appreciate the arguments in favor of such things. Others are more than happy to exploit things like this video for their own purposes.

 

Unfortunately our society is also tearing at the seams due to the antics of those who purposefully spread paranoia, hatred, and misinformation and try to create anger in our country in a very similar way to what hate-mongers are doing in the Middle East. It is a shame.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation is really not complicated. A coordinated attack was lead by a small and violent Salifist group called Ansar al-Sharia. They have political philosophy very much in sympathy with al Qaeda, while the exact nature of direct ties are somewhat murkier.

 

There were protests that started the day previous in Egypt where the YouTube video was a factor. Like many "pretexts" the video was in part a "pretext" in Egypt and was used to inflame passions. It was very offensive to Muslims. No one should discount the fact that this video really did cause outrage fueled by the outrage "echo chamber" that exists in the Muslim world, just as we have an outrage "echo chamber" that incites hate and unreason here in the USA. and there were other video related protests in the Muslim world, including Pakistan.

 

But the Benghazi attack was a coordinated attack, not a crowd gone wild. The intelligence was slow getting to the true nature of the attack. The administration and the media were both caught in an initial analysis that this was a "video" reaction story, when it was a premeditated attack.

 

To the credit of the Libyan people they moved against Ansar al-Sharia and forced them out of a fortified military instillation and push them to the run. Leaders have been attested and/or killed, and the administration has actively participated in pursuing the killers, and the President has committed to hunting down the rest.

 

The killings were tragic. Ambassador Stevens was by all accounts a great man and one dedicated to securing the freedom of the Libyan people. He and the others did a noble service. We should honor that service, and not turn this into a political sideshow fueled by conspiracy theories and false accusations.

 

We are Americans first.

 

Bill

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New information suggests those in charge were watching the events as they unfolded, repeated requests for assistance were refused, and those under attack were in continuous radio contact. Pretty unfoggy.

 

Eta: One of the leaders of the attack just gave an interview to a NYT reporter while sitting in a cafe, sipping a strawberry frappe and openly mocking the fact that he is very much alive and free.

Edited by *Michelle*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd how much we as westerners were blamed at the beginning for the attack, all of the talk was on "the video." How blasphemous the west can be, etc. :glare: We listen mainly to NPR.

 

It is not odd. The video did play a big factor in the protest in Egypt. It also played a role in protests that spread throughout the Muslim world. The video was deeply offensive to Muslims—and that would include ordinary and decent Muslims, not just anti-Western "jihadists."

 

It was easy to jump to the (wrong) conclusion that the Benghazi attack was part of the reaction, when in fact it was a premeditated attack. Sometimes people make mistakes. This one was not difficult to understand.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Daily Mail is a very conservative tabloid of low journalist repute that is aimed at the British lower middle class. It is not the sort of publication one out look to for serious analysis.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seven emails were sent from the ambassador requesting assistance from an ongoing attack which lasted overnight. I have read that the CIA denied assistance. I don't find this political at all. It was an attack on American soil and we should all be very concerned about what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not odd. The video did play a big factor in the protest in Egypt. It also played a role in protests that spread throughout the Muslim world. The video was deeply offensive to Muslims—and that would include ordinary and decent Muslims, not just anti-Western "jihadists."

 

It was easy to jump to the (wrong) conclusion that the Benghazi attack was part of the reaction, when in fact it was a premeditated attack. Sometimes people make mistakes. This one was not difficult to understand.

 

Bill

 

 

You are right. Anyone who disagrees with this assessment is apparently --what's a nice word for dumb?, that we could not even understand this situation, even though it was so very simple.

 

Bill, you need to go eat some sugar. Break it out of it's hermetically sealed container and give that block a big 'ole lick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Anyone who disagrees with this assessment is apparently --what's a nice word for dumb?, that we could not even understand this situation, even though it was so very simple.

 

Bill, you need to go eat some sugar. Break it out of it's hermetically sealed container and give that block a big 'ole lick.

 

One can either look at the situation with bright clear eyes and see that there were mistakes about what precipitated the attack and some failures of security, or one can confabulate what was a tragic event into a grand conspiracy that has no resemblance to the truth.

 

I would rather not live in a society were we act based on unreason, anger, and lies. It is bad enough we lost countrymen.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seven emails were sent from the ambassador requesting assistance from an ongoing attack which lasted overnight. I have read that the CIA denied assistance. I don't find this political at all. It was an attack on American soil and we should all be very concerned about what happened.

 

CIA says it wasn't them.

 

 

 

CIA spox: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail is a very conservative tabloid of low journalist repute that is aimed at the British lower middle class. It is not the sort of publication one out look to for serious analysis.

 

Bill

 

 

Nothing really to do with the OP but,I agree with the DM being a tabloid and not to be taken seriously anyways, but it is conservative? It has always come across as being highly liberal IMO. Unless you are talking about the British definition of conservative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can either look at the situation with bright clear eyes and see that there were mistakes about what precipitated the attack and some failures of security, or one can confabulate what was a tragic event into a grand conspiracy that has no resemblance to the truth.

 

I would rather not live in a society were we act based on unreason, anger, and lies. It is bad enough we lost countrymen.

 

Bill

 

Spare me the lecture, please. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Behold, our eyes are dull, wan, and rheumy. ;)

 

Right. Because it is not looking at the situation with "clear eyes" to think that people should take responsibility and/or be held accountable for their freaking own violent actions. It's our fault. :glare::glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Because it is not looking at the situation with "clear eyes" to think that people should take responsibility and/or be held accountable for their freaking own violent actions. It's our fault. :glare::glare:

 

I don't think there is a soul who thinks the people who were responsible for these violent actions should not be held accountable. They will be tracked down and killed. This is already happening. The American government is committed to this as are the mass of the Libyan people and the Libyan government.

 

Unfortunately when we get involved in civil wars and areas of unrest we put brave Americans in harms way. This was not the first terrorist attack we have suffered, nor will it be the last. Turning on ourselves and ascribing false motives does not honor the sacrifice.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a soul who thinks the people who were responsible for these violent actions should not be held accountable. They will be tracked down and killed. This is already happening. The American government is committed to this as are the mass of the Libyan people and the Libyan government.

 

Unfortunately when we get involved in civil wars and areas of unrest we put brave Americans in harms way. This was not the first terrorist attack we have suffered, nor will it be the last. Turning on ourselves and ascribing false motives does not honor the sacrifice.

 

Bill

 

Bill, this makes more sense to me. I think the motives were terrorism and to kill Americans. Plain and simple. That's all I was saying- it wasn't about a movie and it's not our fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, this makes more sense to me. I think the motives were terrorism and to kill Americans. Plain and simple. That's all I was saying- it wasn't about a movie and it's not our fault.

 

I don't think there is any question at this stage that you are correct. This was a coordinated attack designed to kill Americans. I do think there was a great deal of confusion, and understandable confusion given the events in Egypt next door, about what role the video played in Benghazi.

 

The Administration and the media got it wrong. The assumptions they made were in error. It is now crystal clear. Hindsight is perfect. What we can do now is go after Ansar al-Sharia with the coordinated support of the Libyan people and the Libyan government. We should also look at whatever intelligence failures may have occured in Benghazi with an eye toward preventing similar incidents in the future.

 

We also need to know that when we involve ourselves militarily in areas where people are willing to die in order to kill Americans that we will lose people. That is why it takes brave people to take up these jobs. And we have a duty to them to maximize their safety. But one can not engage in real diplomacy from behind a fortress and barbed wire. Chris Stevens knew this. He was famous for going out into the thick of things because he knew an American presence on the ground and with the people made a difference.

 

And the people of Libya consider him a hero in their cause. It is very sad that he and others in the embassy staff perished.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any question at this stage that you are correct. This was a coordinated attack designed to kill Americans. I do think there was a great deal of confusion, and understandable confusion given the events in Egypt next door, about what role the video played in Benghazi.

 

The Administration and the media got it wrong. The assumptions they made were in error. It is now crystal clear. Hindsight is perfect. What we can do now is go after Ansar al-Sharia with the coordinated support of the Libian people and the Libyan government. We should also look at whatever intelligence failures may have occured in Benghazi with an eye toward preventing similar incidents in the future.

 

We also need to know that when we involve ourselves militarily in areas where people are willing to die in order to kill Americans that we will lose people. That is why it takes brave people to take up these jobs. And we have a duty to them to maximize their safety. But one can not engage in real diplomacy from behind a fortress and barbed wire. Chris Stevens knew this. He was famous for going out into the thick of things because he knew an American presence on the ground and with the people made a difference.

 

And the people of Libya consider him a hero in their cause. It is very sad that he and others in the embassy staff perished.

 

Bill

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

I don't think this is political. This is American, and this should be on every flipping news channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

 

 

I don't think this is political. This is American, and this should be on every flipping news channel.

 

I think it is on MOST news channels. But there is one notable exception (assuming one considers this outlet "news," or not).

 

Mistakes happen. There is a term for it, it is "the fog of war." anytime we put people in harms mistakes happen. We lose people to so-called "friendly-fire," or we build barracks in indefensible positions. It does not ease the loss of loved ones to know tragic deaths happen due to mistakes.

 

In my family we lost a war-hero, a Medal of Honor recipient as a matter of fact, who was killed in action in the Pacific when he tried to join up with a squadron and was shot down by his own men. It was a terrible loss to my father (also a pilot in the Pacific in WWII) and far from the only death he knew of caused by friendly fire.

 

This does not excuse lapses. If people made mistakes they should take responsibility, and that is all the way to the top. We just need to know we don't take on missions like this without risking loss of American lives.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...