From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:
State Faulted in Libya Attack
Video Details Security Weakness; Mob Overwhelmed Inadequate Local Forces
By ADAM ENTOUS, SIOBHAN GORMAN, MARGARET COKER and JAY SOLOMONWASHINGTON—The State Department suffered from “systemic failures” in its response to the terrorist threat in Benghazi, Libya, and had insufficient numbers of security on the ground, according to an independent panel investigating the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate there.
The report confirms that intelligence agencies and the White House erred in initial accounts that the assault in Libya sprang from public outrage against a U.S.-made anti-Islamic video, and is likely to rekindle Republican criticism about the administration’s handling of the attack, which was a key issue in the weeks leading into the Nov. 6 presidential election.
The Accountability Review Board study, conducted by a board appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and led by Adm. Mike Mullen, a retired top Pentagon official, and Thomas Pickering, a longtime U.S. diplomat, faulted a “lack of proactive senior leadership” for security in Benghazi, and said physical security was “profoundly weak.”
More at the link. William Teach noted that no one would actually be held accountable:
Who could have seen this coming when no underling wants to indict their superiors?
(The Hill) An independent review of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi made public Tuesday night faults “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department.
The report by the Accountability Review Board says the local mission’s reliance on Libyan guards and militia members was “misplaced” and that the Libyan government’s response was “profoundly lacking.” However it “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”
Surprise!
Further down, he noted:
The report also found fault with Stevens, who was given a long leash because of his professed expertise about Libya and the security situation following Muamar Gadhafi’s overthrow.“Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi,” the report says. It also confirmed that Stevens decided to travel to Benghazi on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks “independently of Washington, per standard practice.”
Ah, so we’re blaming the dead guy. Who asked for increased security many, many times. Which was denied many, many times.
Hey, where’s the report on who gave the stand down orders and refused to send in US military assets to attempt to save our citizens?
Well, of course you blame it on the dead guy. After all, he has already been . . . disciplined . . . for his mistakes. And the Secretary of State, who assumed full responsibility, was already planning to retire, and now, coincidentally enough 
, is unable to testify about the whole thing. But nobody who was actually going to stay in government is going to be held accountable. I guess that we’ll just learn from the incident, and make things better, right?
One wonders what the reaction of the Democrats would have been to this report had John McCain won the 2008 election, and John Bolton had been our Secretary of State.
OK, sorry, that’s a lie: no one wonders about that at all. The Democrats would be up in arms, demanding the resignation of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and perhaps the impeachment of the President, had we stood by and done nothing while the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff been watching the whole thing, in real time, broadcast from an overhead drone.
________________________
Related Articles:
- The Lonely Conservative: No Wonder Hillary Has A Headache
- American Power: Libya Inquiry Sharply Critical of State Department
- Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion: Benghazi Report — No protest, deteriorating security conditions ignored
I fully expected that from you, koolo, since you are a supporter of the power-hungry wealthy elites, and totally out of touch with that which is happening right under your ugly nose.
The talking points happen to be my own. The bore is an organism like yourself, with eyes closed, ears plugged, and head held high in ignorance!
Correction:
ugly nose==> pimpley noseSays the specimen who calls an AR-15 a “WMD.” Bush has been justified!!
It’s preferable to a liver-spotted nose!
WW wrote:
Oh, yes, you are “against abortion,” as you have said, but you are also adamantly opposed to any legal restrictions on abortion, aren’t you? Well, then, I’m opposed to people buying semi-automatic weapons, but I’m opposed to any legal restrictions on them purchasing them. By the standard you just set, I am now absolved of any responsibility for people actually owning semi-automatic weapons, right?
OK, fine, you can call an AR-15 a weapon of mass destruction if you wish. And like I said, you just proved that President Bush was right when he said Iraq had WMD.
The words of the Constitution are the words of the Constitution, period. If you don’t like them, try to change them. But you don’t seem interested in honesty on that, do you, because you know that an amendment such as the one I suggested would fail.
I said that “If you wish to assign responsibility to others, don’t be so cowardly as to duck your own responsibility,” but I see no acceptance of responsibility at all, even when judged by the criteria you set yourself.
It’s time to man up, Perry. If you are going to try to claim that other people have responsibility for acts in which they were in no way involved, because they hold certain policy beliefs, then you should do so yourself.
“Oh, I see now Hoagie, let’s just ignore the 20 children, and their teachers too, gunned down in cold blood by a semi-automatic weapon, because it could have been much worse if sarin gas had been let loose in the school auditorium during a performance of the Christmas Story.”
You are an emotional wreck Wagonwheel, and that stops you from using common sense and reason. I never said “let’s just ignore 20 children” did I? But don’t go off half-cocked ( oh, yes I did say that ) because you allow emotions to blurr your ability to reason. And please, don’t re-name a gun a WMD to suit your own agenda. It is an affront to WMD’s everywhere. You guys just don’t seem to have the capacity to tell an A-bomb from a Glock.
And BTW, The Christmas Story could never be performed in a school auditorium because of the same warped thinking about religion you are displaying about weapons.
Btw Wagonwheel, these kids were not “gunned down in cold blood by a semi-automatic weapon”, they were gunned down by a child murdering lunatic. If a carpenter builds you a house do you thank the hammer? You’re blaming the tool for the act of a man. Your brain has turned into an uncontrolable bowl of emotional oatmeal.
Who said anything about casting people out, Perry? All I’d like to see is the lazy bums who live on the dole actually do something productive with their lives rather than just wait for their next government handout.
No nuance allowed for absolutists, a cardinal rule there!
Your nickname of weasel, Mr Editor, did not arise for no reason!
Yeah, the weapons don’t operate themselves. They don’t fly out cabinets and go after people on their own whims. We need to stop blaming inanimate objects, video games and the like.
Well you are right about that, Hoagie, I am emotional about this.
And when I heard the attitude of LaPierre in his little speech today, I experienced more anger as well. And indeed, it was a little speech, from a small man, undeserving of the title. Right, let’s now arm the teachers, so we can declare war in our schools and classrooms.
The humane solution is to disarm, which is the status of most other developed nation. How is it that they can get by with strict regulations on guns, and low numbers of violent events?
The NRA has become irrelevant, as Wayne LaPierre’s speech today was a total PR Disaster. Look here.
“Your nickname of weasel, Mr Editor, did not arise for no reason!”
No it didn’t. It arose from a vile piece of vermine who through a lack of ability and success has to call everyone he disagrees with names. You do realize, in a typical show of a lack of caring, humility and greatfulness you just called the man who set you up on your own site, a weasel. You’re becomming as classless as your hero.
“No nuance allowed for absolutists, a cardinal rule there!”
And if you want to “nuance” somebody’s rights I suggest you “nuance” your own, not ours.
So the Editor helped set Perry up with his own site? Yeah, if I were in his shoes, I’d show a bit more respect than that.
You are emotional about everything.
“Nuance”. Does Daily Kos issue a vacuous progressive cliche of the day?
WW has destroyed his own argument:
Weasel, huh? Which one of us refuses to apply the standard he enunciated to himself? Which one of us wants to place the responsibility for policies others support on those other people, but refuses, despite being asked, twice, to accept the responsibility for policies he supports?
I am not surprised, of course, because double-standards have long been a pattern of yours. You criticized the deficits and national debt increases under President Bush, but when deficits tripled under President Obama, when the national debt increased more in 2 years and three months under President Obama than in eight years under President Bush, why there was no criticism at all. You criticized the deaths of civilians in the war against the Islamists, but when President Obama authorized drone strikes which kill civilians, not a peep have we heard from you. You have complained, many times, that President Bush “lied” us into war against Iraq, yet when the Obama Administration sent Susan Rice out to lie deliberately to the American people, you adamantly defend her.
I told you to “man up” in my last comment; you haven’t yet.
Time for you righties to “man up”. You have not yet. I rest my case!
And let me respond to this, Mr Editor:
The double standard is in the eye of the beholder, you Mr Editor, who adamantly refuses to recognize the nuance of context while trumpeting his absolutism, and who fibs a little here and there, like your statement just made again about Susan Rice, using hindsight against her as per the Republican Party line. Now your party is supposedly ecstatic over John Kerry, a man you villified/swift-boated in the 2004 campaign. What ever became of your standards?
Hoagie inadvertently reveals his flawed character here:
You are a fine one to criticize calling people names, as you and yours have called me every name in the book on here, because that is what you people do in place of a debate, quite often. But that is not my only point. I have expressed gratitude for our Editor sharing his bandwidth. However, his generosity does not render him immune from criticism, a value of mine which you don’t seem to share. Instead, you suggest it is better to suck up to one’s benefactor. That’s you, Hoagie, not I!
And I might add, that your animosity against PiatoR is politically based, because that is his due, according to you, for not only calling you out on your propagandistic fallacies, but also outsmarting you on salient points of debate. This causes you to go into an outright rage of uncontrolled temper, as you encounter a person you cannot either manipulate nor outsmart.
Sadly, we Americans have lost the ability to get along and respect our differences.
WW wrote:
I have stated, many times, that I do not accept the notion that the meaning of words is dependent upon “the nuance of context.” There are places in the Constitution where definitions can change over time, places where the Constitution uses words like “unusual” or “probable” or “excessive.” But where the Constitution says “shall not” or “shall make no law,” then non, there is no room for interpretation; those words mean exactly what they say.
You once called me an “originalist,” but that isn’t accurate. I would call my self a “textualist” when it comes to the law. If the original intent of the legislators was to do A, but they wrote and passed the law in a form which does B, then their intent to do A is meaningless; what they actually passed did B, and that should be what counts.
As for Senator Kerry being nominated to become Secretary of State, I have already stated my position: he is as acceptable as any other candidate the President could have nominated, but that, regardless of whom becomes the next Secretary of State, he will be hampered by the fact that President Obama’s foreign policy is terrible, and he will be unable to change that. I did object to his potential nomination as Secretary of Defense, because I believed, and stated directly, that such a nomination would be an insult to the men and women in our armed services.
Like I said, Mr Editor, you are one who “adamantly refuses to recognize the nuance of context while trumpeting his absolutism”.
You are not going to change, neither am I, so so be it.
I will note that your stance is typical of religious folks of your kind, because this is exactly what your religion demands of you, absolute faith even when there is no scientifically grounded proof, thus the roots of absolutism, such that said absolutism is above and beyond intellectual challenges, in other words, it is based on a widely accepted myth. Moreover, those not accepting of said mythology are by definition condemned to everlasting life in the mythological place called hell. To me, this is all so silly! But I do say, there might exist some kind of supernatural being, but we don’t really know.
If your faith provides solace and comfort for you, then of course, so be it!
How many just read that and spit out their coffee laughing their asses off? Who calls those w/whom he disagrees “racist?” “Unpatriotic?” “Un-American?” And worse — threatens those w/whom he disagrees??
Yeah, “sadly.” What a f***ing pathetic hypocrite.
If the law does not mean what it says, how can anybody be responsible for obeying the law? If the law can be interpreted to mean something other than what it says, then the law becomes whatever some judge says it is.
They used the same standards Kerry used against American troops in 1971.
You’re wrong about that Koolo. The Swiftboat Vets told us the truth about what Kerry did in Vietnam, and Kerry lied about what our Vets did in Vietnam. Those are vastly different standards.
Mr Editor, respectfully, the law IS whatever some judge says it is, at some moment in time, in the context of the times, subject to the review of higher courts, judges, and justices.
Koolo, respectively, I speak my piece, calling it as I see it. Disrespectively, you would prefer disallowing me from doing so, with your incessant personal attacks and wishes to have be banned, which is your own disrespectful threat. Fortunately, we have at least one wingnut on here who respects my right to free speech, as a counter to the likes of your disrespectful self. That said, I respect your right to disrespectfully speak!
Correction:
Koolo,
respectivelyrespectfully, I speak my piece, calling it as I see it.DisrespectivelyDisrespectfully, you would prefer disallowing me from doing so, with your incessant personal attacks and wishes to havebeme banned, which is your own disrespectful threat. Fortunately, we have at least one wingnut on here who respects my right to free speech, as a counter to the likes of your disrespectful self. That said, I respect your right to disrespectfully speak!Ropelight, you are wrong, just as the Swift-boaters were wrong, otherwise produce credible documentation to back up your
allegationpartisan lie. Swift-boaters who actually served with John Kerry at the time, have testified to his valor and bravery.Here is the documented history, ropelight. Read it very carefully:
Perry: You and Dictator Obama share one important trait — you’re both children pretending to be men, and you accept responsibility for nothing.
Oh wait, that’s two.
So, which family member have you threatened for disagreeing with you down there in NC?
Which Christmas exactly, did Kerry spend, as he claimed, in Cambodia?
Why not answer on your own blog?
I’ve made no “incessant” personal attacks nor have I threatened to ban you. You cannot prove either of these baseless accusations, so once again Pathetic Perry is lying and making stuff up. Again.
Notice there’s no hyperlink because it probably goes to one of Perry’s ultra-moonbat sites he so frequently copies and pastes from.
As it happens, Perry, science doesn’t have all the answers when it comes to the origins of mankind. It may have many theories, but all we have is speculation and guesswork at present. I believe in God. I don’t see why or how people would’ve pulled this stuff out of nowhere and just declared there was a higher being without having encountered one.
John Kerry made a big public display of tossing his medals and awards over the White House fence to protest the Vietnam War, but those same medals and awards later showed up in his Senate office to serve as false testaments to his imaginary bravery, along with his magic hat.
The man is a two-faced liar and a disgrace to the nation, the Navy, and the Senate. His most noteworthy accomplishments involve marring rich widows and besmirching the integrity of better men.
Ropelight, I await your documentation; I gave you mine. Oh, I know, documentation means nothing to you, as you will believe what you want to believe, which is rather lacking in credibility. I don’t believe one word you just wrote.
Who said science has all the answers, W.A.?
Believe what you wish, but kindly do not impose your beliefs on the rest of us in any way whatsoever. That’s where I have a problem with those folks you.
Correction: … a problem with those folks like you.
Bullsh**. As I wrote above, no hyperlink. A common Perry tactic. CITATION PLEASE!
Where has W.A. or anyone else imposed their beliefs on you, you lying hypocrite? CITATION PLEASE!!
WW wrote:
Perhaps you might clarify what you mean by “in any way whatsoever.”
Yeah, I don’t recall ever trying to force my views on you, Perry. Indeed, it’s not something I go out of my way to do.
Right, that needs clarification, as I should not have chosen an all comprehensive statement like the one I made.
As you already know, I am talking about having a recitation of an audible sectarian prayer given in our public schools or in meetings related to the workings of our government, just to give one example. Silent prayer serves the purpose just fine, in line with the First Amendment.
We have observed very well and often the dangers inherent when Sharia Law rules sovereign nations. We certainly do not need the equivalent in our nation, in my view.
First of all, you don’t have the power to ban me, just as you don’t really have the power to assign yourself to speak for others. Your ego, combined with your paranoia, are what control you, koolo.
Secondly, you are correct, copy and paste is what I did, from Wikipedia, obviously. So my citation is here. Read it carefully!
Says the incoherent dolt who just wrote this above:
I’m the paranoid one, but Perry’s the one who’s “threatened” … because I wish he would be banned! You can’t make this shit up!! I love it! And then he whines about me being “disrespectful”!!! PERRY!! As if the feeble troll has ever earned even the slightest bit of respect around here.
Try again, troll. A 3rd grader knows Wikipedia is hardly reliable. So, CITATION PLEASE!!
Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison writing at Townhall.com want John Kerry’s fitness or Secretary of State examined in light of his record. Following is an excerpt dated 12/23/2012.
John Kerry’s well-established record of lies, deceptions, and double dealing, always in the interest of our nation’s enemies, marks him out as singularly unfit for leadership positions in our federal government.
The voters of Massachusetts inexplicably continue to send this disgraced turncoat to the US Senate and that’s their call and their shame. However, when Kerry was the 2004 Democrat candidate for president he selected the smarmy John Edwards as his running mate demonstrating the rule that birds of a feather stick together and that cads are always ready to better-deal yesterday’s wives when something more appealing comes along.
In the ’04 election a majority of the nation’s voters weighed Kerry and Edwards in the balance and found them wanting, Kerry more so than Edwards, who was later revealed to be even more of an opportunist than Kerry.
Rope, I support John Kerry for Secretary of State. It gets him out of the Senate, it gets him out of office completely in a maximum of four years, and it means that the House can subpoena him to testify on foreign policy matters, where he will almost surely perjure himself.
Then we can send him to jail. 
A perfect solution Mr. Editor, to a traitorous problem!
John Kerry as Secret’ry of State?
Like Hill’ry, he’ll be second rate!
Oh, why should we care?
Look, he’s got great hair!
Bad policy? Now that is our fate.
Eight years after twenty-oh-four
Lurch has his foot in the door
Hill’ry is done,
Now Kerry’s the one,
At State, who will mess up more?
I’m glad that François
Is fin’ly out of Senate;
In four years he’s done.
Now he can OFFICIALLY return to Nam and show how got his three Purple Blood Pumps.
Merry Christmas koolo!
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. Anyone can go and edit it. People misuse it all the time. I don’t know if anyone here has ever heard of the “Essjay controversy” but that was a severe case of someone going in and editing articles to fit their own viewpoints.
Wish you meant it.