CBSNews with possible Bombshell on Benghazi

[petegz28]

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).


"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."


Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.


The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.


Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.


CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the US military and the Justice Department.


As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."


Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior US counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."


Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM -- the military's Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany -- were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use.


"Forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it," the military source told CBS News.


"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack
Admin. rejects new claim about Libya attack
Military response to Benghazi attack questioned

The official says a protocol set forth in a classified presidential directive calls for the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) to be convened in the event of a possible terrorist attack. According to a public military document, the directive was designed to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism."




The Administration also didn't call on the only interagency, on-call, short notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide: the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST). FEST's seasoned experts leave within four hours of notification and can provide "the fastest assistance possible."


FEST Teams deployed immediately after al Qaeda bombings of US embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000, but were not used for Benghazi, to the chagrin of some insiders. It's likely that the CSG task force, if contacted, would have recommended FEST aid.


"First a tactical response was needed," says a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, "and while that was being implemented, the holistic response could have been developed and deployed within hours" which could have allowed the FBI investigate safely on site well ahead of the "24 days it took."


When asked why the FEST wasn't utilized, a State Department official said it was used previously in East Africa because of damage sustained to a US embassy "to help restore communications and other infrastructure support. In this case, that was unnecessary at Embassy Tripoli."


A White House official told us that at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies." He also said a "small group of reinforcements" was sent from Tripoli to Benghazi, but declined to say how many or what time they arrived. The Pentagon moved a team of special operators from central Europe to Sigonella, Italy but gave no other details.

Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans died in a protracted battle over the course of eight hours. It's believed two of the victims, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in a mortar attack some six or seven hours after the US Mission was first overrun by a terrorist mob that burned buildings and used AK-47 rifles, bombs, and mortars.

In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration's unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.



Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. "I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying," says one. "The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds."



A White House official says President Obama immediately acknowledged the assault was a terrorist attack. However, there was confusion as White House spokesman Jay Carney said three days later, "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."

On Sept.16, US Ambassador Susan Rice told CBS' "Face the Nation" and other talk shows that the assault appeared to have grown from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.

CBS' Bob Schieffer asked Rice whether she thought "that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?" Rice answered, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

In an interview last week, President Obama said "the minute" he became aware of the Benghazi attack, he directed his staff to "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...Num=1&tag=page

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

A land line phone can be used to convey real-time info. Point is, Ronnie failed to protect those folks, and failed to seek any justice on the terrorists. Just asking you to consider applying your ridiclous Obama standard.

Oh I’m sure they had access to some sort of super high tech, for then, satellite phone to make contact but that doesn’t make comparing talking on a phone to live video any less ridiculous.

[headsnap]

Originally Posted by Donger

One is a terrorist attack from a "decimated" AQ group.

The other is not.

I shouldn't have waited so long to press enter... dang work!!!!

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Ronald Reagan didn't spend two weeks misleading the country and making excuses for Hezbollah.

Factually, not subject to conjecture or partisan glasses here is what we know about that time:

On April 18, 1983 U.S. Embassy in Beirut suffered an attack where 17 Americans lost their lives.

Military response: none

Six months later on October 23, 1983 Marine barracks in Beirut attacked and 241 Marines killed, 100 more wounded.

Miltary repsonse: none (although supposedly the National Security Team was called together to make a planned response. They wanted to target the Iranian Revolutionary Guards they believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. The plan was scrapped because it was feared it may hurt relations with other Arab nations. Instead, Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed in the region).

Less than a year later on September 20, 1984 Embassy in Beirut attacked again killing 24.

Military response: none

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think Reagan intentionally kept security from being what it should be to keep those men safe, and I don't think that was the case in Libya. If that turns out differently I would be outraged as well.

[jettio]

Seems to me that the obvious truth in this situation is that there was not enough security in place to resist the terrorist attack that happened and 4 americans and others died at the hand of the terrorists.

That blood is on the hands of the terrorists who did the killing.

That is not the first time that Americans abroad have been killed in terrorist attacks.

However this is the first time that a political party was shamelessly happy that Americans were killed because they thought they could cynically exploit it to boost Romney's chances in the election.

Romney looked awful by having a press conference on the Egypt situation while the Lybian attack was happening or finishing up.

Looks like the terrorists had serious weapons. It could be the case that a missle from an armed drone could kill people that we were attempting to rescue. It could be the case that sending more people into the situation could have resulted in more deaths without saving the lives of the people already killed by the terrorists. It is not as if you push a button and everything in a combat situation turns out exactly as you wish.

Bob Scheiffer opened the last debate by asking Mitt Romney directly about this terrorist attack and supposed cover-up and Romney did not say anything consistent with the GOP/Fox news propaganda. Maybe that is because Romney gets regular intelligence briefings now.

It is a shame that people who hate our President more than they like our country are glad when terrorists kill Americans because it gives them hope regarding an election.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by jettio

However this is the first time that a political party was shamelessly happy that Americans were killed because they thought they could cynically exploit it to boost Romney's chances in the election.

...and there's the spin. Don't blame the person who was in power for failing to act. Blame the other political party for being so crass as to ask questions about it.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Calling the President out for denying (or ignoring) a request for additional security at a consulate that was overrun within 24 hours, then actively lying about the cause that evening is not expecting perfection.

Do we know exactly what this request for additional security was? Was it a couple of armed Marines? A tank? Would what was requested have even mattered?

I mean, it doesn't seem out of the question that more security and who knows what else is routinely requested at these places. Who wouldn't want more security? Someone evaluates these requests, takes into account resources, etc, and makes a decision. As for advance reports of possible violence--is that really out of the norm considering the area?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by jettio

Seems to me that the obvious truth in this situation is that there was not enough security in place to resist the terrorist attack that happened and 4 americans and others died at the hand of the terrorists.

That blood is on the hands of the terrorists who did the killing.

That is not the first time that Americans abroad have been killed in terrorist attacks.

However this is the first time that a political party was shamelessly happy that Americans were killed because they thought they could cynically exploit it to boost Romney's chances in the election.

Romney looked awful by having a press conference on the Egypt situation while the Lybian attack was happening or finishing up.

Looks like the terrorists had serious weapons. It could be the case that a missle from an armed drone could kill people that we were attempting to rescue. It could be the case that sending more people into the situation could have resulted in more deaths without saving the lives of the people already killed by the terrorists. It is not as if you push a button and everything in a combat situation turns out exactly as you wish.

Bob Scheiffer opened the last debate by asking Mitt Romney directly about this terrorist attack and supposed cover-up and Romney did not say anything consistent with the GOP/Fox news propaganda. Maybe that is because Romney gets regular intelligence briefings now.

It is a shame that people who hate our President more than they like our country are glad when terrorists kill Americans because it gives them hope regarding an election.

Just "bumps in the road."

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Do we know exactly what this request for additional security was? Was it a couple of armed Marines? A tank? Would what was requested have even mattered?

I mean, it doesn't seem out of the question that more security and who knows what else is routinely requested at these places. Who wouldn't want more security? Someone evaluates these requests, takes into account resources, etc, and makes a decision. As for advance reports of possible violence--is that really out of the norm considering the area?

I don't know what those requests entailed and I can't find anything on it. Even a single platoon stationed at the embassy would have made all the difference in the world though.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Donger

One is a terrorist attack from a "decimated" AQ group.

The other is not.

Originally Posted by headsnap

a spontaneous protest and a planned terrorist attack are not even in the same ballpark!!!!

And what facet of the response to the attack or the result of the attack would be different if the attack was planned or if it grew from a protest--protests that were happening all over the Middle East.

Situation 1 - Consulate attacked because people angry about an offensive video became violent

Situation 2- Consulate attacked because people were angry about _____ (whatever it is they were pissed at the US for that week)

What the hell difference does it make? The people are just as dead, and the issues about the response are exactly the same.

[carlos3652]

this goes beyond wanting Romney in office, this is calling out the POTUS on how they handled a situation that happened over a month ago, and feeling that they are hiding something because they want to be re elected...

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by VAChief

Factually, not subject to conjecture or partisan glasses here is what we know about that time:

On April 18, 1983 U.S. Embassy in Beirut suffered an attack where 17 Americans lost their lives.

Military response: none

Six months later on October 23, 1983 Marine barracks in Beirut attacked and 241 Marines killed, 100 more wounded.

Miltary repsonse: none (although supposedly the National Security Team was called together to make a planned response. They wanted to target the Iranian Revolutionary Guards they believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. The plan was scrapped because it was feared it may hurt relations with other Arab nations. Instead, Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed in the region).

Less than a year later on September 20, 1984 Embassy in Beirut attacked again killing 24.

Military response: none

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think Reagan intentionally kept security from being what it should be to keep those men safe, and I don't think that was the case in Libya. If that turns out differently I would be outraged as well.

And this guy is their ****ing saint--the one by whom all others should be measured.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by headsnap

a spontaneous protest and a planned terrorist attack are not even in the same ballpark!!!!

The key items are bolded.

[carlos3652]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

And what facet of the response to the attack or the result of the attack would be different if the attack was planned or if it grew from a protest--protests that were happening all over the Middle East.

Situation 1 - Consulate attacked because people angry about an offensive video became violent

Situation 2- Consulate attacked because people were angry about _____ (whatever it is they were pissed at the US for that week)

What the hell difference does it make? The people are just as dead, and the issues about the response are exactly the same.

Situation 3 - Current Admin tells the truth and is upfront and learns from their mistake.

Nothing changes what played out...

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Do we know exactly what this request for additional security was? Was it a couple of armed Marines? A tank? Would what was requested have even mattered?

I mean, it doesn't seem out of the question that more security and who knows what else is routinely requested at these places. Who wouldn't want more security? Someone evaluates these requests, takes into account resources, etc, and makes a decision. As for advance reports of possible violence--is that really out of the norm considering the area?

So, head in the sand then?

C'mon - the State Department has conceded that it was given information of a specific threat and nobody has even tried to argue that they acted on it. You're willing to start saying that there were evaluations made and conscious decisions to deny based on credible intel, but you've not given that same leeway to people that have tried to argue what the routine procedures would have been here and showed how they clearly weren't followed. You start blasting those folks for not knowing what happened while in the same breath trying to argue about what must have happened.

The man knew this wasn't a rogue insurgency. His administration knew. And he went on television and lied about it. He found a convenient scapegoat, had the guy arrested and lied about the cause.

Evidence of flight.

You can make arguments for him if you'd like. You can sit here and claim that he exercised all due diligence and followed all protocols, but you have no more to base that on then the military correspondents that have said that based on their knowledge of security protocols, this was botched at the highest levels. You're engaging in the same speculation to come to the conclusion you want to reach.

Again - what we know is that he was alerted of increased terrorist activity in the region and that additional security was requested. We know that it wasn't provided. We know that the claims were credible and the consulate was overrun within hours. We know that we had eyes on the scene that established that this was no mere riot and we know that the President got on television and said things completely contrary to the few facts that we had in hand when he said it.

And I know that's a pretty shitty set of facts for the President to have to answer for, especially when he seems so disinterested in speaking to them before next Tuesday.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by jettio

Seems to me that the obvious truth in this situation is that there was not enough security in place to resist the terrorist attack that happened and 4 americans and others died at the hand of the terrorists.

That blood is on the hands of the terrorists who did the killing.

That is not the first time that Americans abroad have been killed in terrorist attacks.

However this is the first time that a political party was shamelessly happy that Americans were killed because they thought they could cynically exploit it to boost Romney's chances in the election.

Romney looked awful by having a press conference on the Egypt situation while the Lybian attack was happening or finishing up.

Looks like the terrorists had serious weapons. It could be the case that a missle from an armed drone could kill people that we were attempting to rescue. It could be the case that sending more people into the situation could have resulted in more deaths without saving the lives of the people already killed by the terrorists. It is not as if you push a button and everything in a combat situation turns out exactly as you wish.

Bob Scheiffer opened the last debate by asking Mitt Romney directly about this terrorist attack and supposed cover-up and Romney did not say anything consistent with the GOP/Fox news propaganda. Maybe that is because Romney gets regular intelligence briefings now.

It is a shame that people who hate our President more than they like our country are glad when terrorists kill Americans because it gives them hope regarding an election.

Pretty much ****ing nailed it.