Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:34 PM Sep 2012

Intelligence office says it got Libya attack wrong, not White House

WASHINGTON — Extremists from groups linked to al Qaida struck the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” the top U.S. intelligence agency said Friday, as it took responsibility for the Obama administration’s initial claims that the deadly assault grew from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video.

The unusual statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared to have two goals: updating the public on the latest findings of the investigation into the assault, and shielding the White House from a political backlash over its original accounts.

“In the immediate aftermath (of the assault), there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” spokesman Sean Turner said in the statement. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates and sets policies for the 16 other U.S. intelligence agencies, is led by retired Air Force Gen. James Clapper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in August 2010.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/28/170078/intelligence-office-says-it-got.html#storylink=cpy

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Intelligence office says it got Libya attack wrong, not White House (Original Post) dkf Sep 2012 OP
Then someone needs to lose their job former-republican Sep 2012 #1
Why, so rethug hacks and whiners can be appeased? speedoo Sep 2012 #4
When people die for getting wrong former-republican Sep 2012 #7
Huh? no one "died for getting it wrong". speedoo Sep 2012 #10
How about this atreides1 Sep 2012 #13
NO one died because of the assessment the agency made. bluestate10 Sep 2012 #15
I will admit I haven't been following this as close as some former-republican Sep 2012 #16
Agreed kurt_cagle Sep 2012 #19
The assessment was made after the fact. No one died "for getting wrong" MADem Sep 2012 #20
Even John Kerry says questions need to be answered davidn3600 Sep 2012 #8
Disagree. An investigation likely has started into how the mishap happened. bluestate10 Sep 2012 #11
I'm not talking about firing people for the initial report after it happened former-republican Sep 2012 #17
Peter King needs to be fired for making up shit about our ambassador to the UN. MADem Sep 2012 #21
Seriously Vietnameravet Sep 2012 #2
Got. It. Wrong. should = Lost. Your. Job. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #3
Peter King should resign. See downthread. nt MADem Sep 2012 #6
Are you serious ? former-republican Sep 2012 #9
Considering that many people working INTEL were hired by Bush, they'd better watch their six. MADem Sep 2012 #22
You'd think Congressman King would have ASKED FOR A BRIEFING instead of being a blowhard on CNN!! MADem Sep 2012 #5
He's an asshole. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #14
I'm not seeing the problem ProSense Sep 2012 #12
Jesus Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #18
Peter King is calling for Rice's head because she took a briefing. That's horseshit, if you ask me. MADem Sep 2012 #23
It not easy to publicly admit that the Salafists took out a CIA station. FarCenter Sep 2012 #24
 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
7. When people die for getting wrong
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:48 PM
Sep 2012

When all the evidence was there not to get it wrong.

Someone needs to lose their job.


speedoo

(11,229 posts)
10. Huh? no one "died for getting it wrong".
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:59 PM
Sep 2012

And you have no idea what evidence the intel folks had when they made their initial assessment.

atreides1

(16,017 posts)
13. How about this
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:00 PM
Sep 2012

They fix the problem so it doesn't happen again...and I'm pretty sure the people who got it wrong are feeling like shit already!

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
15. NO one died because of the assessment the agency made.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:05 PM
Sep 2012

The assessment was on what caused the attack and killing of four americans. The agency got it wrong, but I can see how that could have happened. I suggest that you sit a the point in a fast moving situation, attempting to piece together any shred of information that you can latch on to, it is not a good place or good feeling. In a world where people are always attempting to cover their asses, the agency admitting that it got information wrong is a refreshing bit of candor.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
16. I will admit I haven't been following this as close as some
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:27 PM
Sep 2012

but wasn't there evidence and indication that the Ambassador was being targeted by Al Qaeda?
That he had reported he didn't feel safe.

kurt_cagle

(534 posts)
19. Agreed
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:38 PM
Sep 2012

Intelligence is a hard game to play, especially in a country that's overthrown a dictator only months before. The government in place is still learning to govern, you have dozens of factions each looking to take advantage of the situation, and most of the intelligence assets that had been on the ground were evacuated. In an environment like that, you're limited to intelligent guessing, and it is usually only some time afterwards that enough information emerges to connect the dots.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. The assessment was made after the fact. No one died "for getting wrong"
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:44 PM
Sep 2012

This entire imbroglio is a made-up load of horseshit courtesy of Loudmouth Peter King--who is being shown to be a politicizing asshole who doesn't know how to use a phone to get a briefing, and who instead goes on CNN and falsely accuses a UN ambassador of stuff she didn't do.

He had the info at his fingertips--a phone call away. Apparently, he's the only Homeland Security Chair in the world who doesn't know how to use a telephone and the power of his office to garner information from other branches of government.

Instead, he grandstanded for his little pal Mittsy. Pretty fucking sleazy. Point at him and mock his dumb ass.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
8. Even John Kerry says questions need to be answered
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:50 PM
Sep 2012

If mistakes were made and are not fixed, this will happen again, resulting in more lives lost.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
11. Disagree. An investigation likely has started into how the mishap happened.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:00 PM
Sep 2012

Firing people isn't always the right solution.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
17. I'm not talking about firing people for the initial report after it happened
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:30 PM
Sep 2012

I'm saying if there was credible evidence that there might be a attacked planned and someone missed it.
They or he should lose their job.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
21. Peter King needs to be fired for making up shit about our ambassador to the UN.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:47 PM
Sep 2012

Peter King is politicizing the death of the Libyan ambassador -- and telling lies while so doing -- to help his buddy Mittsy.

Peter KING needs to RESIGN or be FIRED. He doesn't even know how to use the power of his office to check his "facts" before he shoots off his loud mouth. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
22. Considering that many people working INTEL were hired by Bush, they'd better watch their six.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:49 PM
Sep 2012

All those "Liberty University" type analysts could find themselves out of a job if Obama decides to use this as a reason to clean house...in DECEMBER.

And he just might. It would serve 'em right.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
5. You'd think Congressman King would have ASKED FOR A BRIEFING instead of being a blowhard on CNN!!
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:46 PM
Sep 2012

Fucking DUMBASS tool--we should ask for HIS resignation. He clearly doesn't have the chops to handle that chairmanship he bandies about like a cudgel! What an ASSHOLE he is!

For anyone who doesn't know what I am referencing (and because I'm not oblique or demand that everyone know everything all the time) here's a link to what I am talking about:

Rep. Peter King called for the resignation Friday of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for initially saying that the deadly Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was spontaneous.
“I believe that this was such a failure of foreign policy messag[ing] and leadership, such a misstatement of facts as was known at the time … for her to go on all of those shows and in effect be our spokesman for the world and be misinforming the American people and our allies and countries around the world, to me, somebody has to pay the price for this,” the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee told CNN.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81808.html#ixzz27opd3gmi



RESIGN, Peter King--how can you call yourself a "Chairman" of the Homeland Security Committee in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES if you CAN'T EVEN BOTHER TO CHECK THE INTEL BEFORE YOU SHOOT YOUR FAT MOUTH OFF!!!

He can ask for a briefing--he can pick up the secure phone and get DETAILS. He HAS a fucking clearance....but what does he do? He goes on CNN and stumps for RMoney-Warmongering with a load of BULLSHIT. He should RESIGN or Bonehead should fucking fire his ass!!! Say it loud! Repeat it often--PETER KING SHOULD RESIGN--he clearly doesn't know how to GET THE BASIC INFORMATION from the government he works in to DO HIS JOB. All he knows how to do is talk trash on Wolf Blitzer's gabfest!

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. I'm not seeing the problem
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:00 PM
Sep 2012
“In the immediate aftermath (of the assault), there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” spokesman Sean Turner said in the statement. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”


All these reports are about what they learned in the "aftermath." Why are people surprised that initial reports change as more information becomes available?

Fact is, this is completely different from what the RW/Republican were initially pushing, which was that there was intelligence before hand. That is still not the case.

Canuckistanian

(42,290 posts)
18. Jesus
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:35 PM
Sep 2012

Even Al-Jazeera had it figured out even before Susan Rice made her "no planned attack" statement.

C'mon guys, get your shit together.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
23. Peter King is calling for Rice's head because she took a briefing. That's horseshit, if you ask me.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:54 PM
Sep 2012

He could have picked up the phone and found out that the error lay with the intel crew (we're talking careerists, many hired by BUSH, now) and not the Ambassador to the UN....but instead, he tried to blame her. On TV. And this asshole is the Chair of Homeland Security Committee? I'd say we have PLENTY to worry about with a moron like that making the legislative decisions on HS. He doesn't even know how to dial a phone, apparently.

This is NOT about Susan Rice--she is an AMBASSADOR who took a briefing, not an intel analyst.

Jesus, indeed.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Intelligence office says ...