Jump to content

Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

No acknowledgement

No acknowledgement of the fact that it was proved the Obama administration knew it was a planned terrorist attack, was initially going to report it as such, and then changed their minds? --140.32.16.3 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much consensus on this being "proved". Tedperl (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How about now? http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/24.20.65.149 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Judicial Watch is a partisan source. If you want to use it, it need WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and also include competing analysis of these documents from other sources, and the necessary context for NPOV. Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president." Gimme a break. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The right-wing media is going bonkers with this new "scandal". Their new "smoking gun" has not been reported in any of the main newspapers or other reliable media sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cwobeel, you have reverted my edit due to your belief the source is "partisan." The edit offers no opinion, it is facts that were handed over to Judicial Watch after a (FOIA) lawsuit. Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Read the bloody source. This "smoking gun" is just bogus and no respectable media source has reported on it. The document was prepared the day after the attack (September 12, 2012), and says the attackers had planned it ten days earlier. This is an example of why partisan sources have to be taken cum grano salis. Wikipedia should not be used as an echo chamber of conservative media. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My edit reflects it was prepared Sept 12, and the attack was planned 10 days earlier. I'm not certain what you find "bogus" of the source. Our federal government is anything but. Are you suggesting they doctored these documents more than the typical redactions to protect classified info? Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You also wrote after reverting my section on your talk page: "if you want to have a conversation, fine. But trolling my page is "not" an option."
My apologies if I have offended you in any way. This was not my intention. I will happily have a discussion here. Regards, Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted. And if you read that source and know some of the context, note that other investigations found that BCOAR had zero to do with the attack at all. So this adds to the bogus headline grabbing of "Obama and Hillary knew and lied" of a partisan source. Nothing here my friend. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Believe you me, I have read the source. Why do you keep saying I haven't? And just because "BCOAR had zero to do with the attack," doesn't invalidate the validity of reports prepared by our Defense Intelligence Agency. It still happened, the documents were still delivered. My edit just quoted some of the data.

September 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) sent an information report to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating the attack “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group's intention was "to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings." The DIA report also claimed the attack was planned 10 days prior.[1]

References

  1. ^ 'Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance' Judicial Watch, May 18, 2015


(edit conflict) Context, context, context. The material you added requires context, otherwise is asserting something that is not. You added it at the beginning of the section "Responsibility", but now we know that the group reported in that document had nothing to do with the attack. Get it? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
What we know now is that the attack was carried out by several groups, and individuals identified were Karim el-Azizi, Abu Khatallah and Faraj al-Shibli (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), not by BCOAR. This report was one of many that were proven wrong after the fact. Are we done? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
What "we know" is there was a document prepared on Sept 12. I added and attributed it. BCOAR "claimed responsibility."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/obama-hillary-clinton-benghazi-narrative-rebutted-/?page=all
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/18/military-intel-predicted-rise-isis-in-2012-detailed-arms-shipments/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/06/05/obama-fiddled-while-libya-fell-apart/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/
No, we are far from done. Edit semi-protected (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel, was just thinking to myself and believe there may be a solution. You add back my text and provide your context. Does this sound like good compromise? Edit semi-protected (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Context, if any, is to be given by reputable sources, not by us. Find a reputable source that describe the context of this document, its timing and its relevance (or lack thereof) and we can look at it together and decide if and what to include. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you mean by context. How we came to know about the report? That the report was wrong about the exact culprits, but correct about it being a pre-planned terrorist attack? Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Ask yourself this question: Why is it that no one except right-wing sources have reported on this? Where is the WSJ, NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, and all others report on this document stating its relevancy? Why is it that even Fox News, when reporting on the FOIA request obtained by Judicial Watch only mentions its prediction of rise of ISIS and the arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria, and not the juvenile narrative of Judicial Watch? Ask yourself that question. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Fox News article mentions briefly the BCOAR stuff at the end of their article. If you want to add a summary of the Fox News article, please do so. Here is the source [1], but you have to include the context that they provide and summarize briefly all the aspects and what is prominent, with full attribution to Fox News. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool, I'll take a crack at it. Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

USA Today also ran it [2]. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Hill has also picked it up

The released emails also include several messages from Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton aide, who sent her a memo blaming the 2012 attacks on backlash to an anti-Muslim video. Blumenthal, who had business interests with the Libyan transitional government, followed up the next day to tell Clinton he learned the attacks were instead part of a terrorist attack.

Washington Free Beacon, a right leaning reliable source, also covers this document:

One of the documents from the DOD’s Defense Intelligence Agency dated September 12, 2012, the day after the attacks in Benghazi, lays out the details of the attack on the consulate and assesses that it was carefully planned by the terrorist group “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman.”

Bloomberg has also picked up on this:

A longtime friend of Hillary Clinton told her the deadly attacks on the U.S. mission in Libya had been planned for a month by al-Qaeda affiliates and that the attackers used a nearby protest as a cover for the raid.

Now this source which all these reliable sources are reporting on should not be given undue weight, and the content should be presented neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are additional sources covering this from the NYT, which gives it a different spin, than the WSJ. There is also Politico, and NYP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The NYT, NY Post and WSJ are about a different issue, and unrelated to this discussion which is about the Judicial Watch FOIA. Feel free to start a new thread on the Blumental issue.- Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
NYT is about the day after attack memo from Blumenthal saying it spontaneous demonstrators. Same day memo from DIA had a different take. They aren't independent in the timeline. It make more sense to cover it as events unfolded in time because of the disparate account. Who said what and when is the best way to collate the sources without synthesis. --DHeyward (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this info is with us after FOIA orders, we should place the data in FOIA section? It's difficult to place real facts among proven false narratives. Not that I don't respect the intelligence community. They are slackers, but who on the public dime aren't? Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Lets get consensus on this. Based on the number of reliable sources covering this, it should be given some weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Before doing any of that, please read [3], because it seems that Judicial Review and other sources got it all wrong... - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that any of this factors, but consider the source. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/02/cia-deputy-benghazi-talking-points/7206921/ Edit semi-protected (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The Politico article from Cwobeel is from an involved party, a primary source (more like an opinion/defense piece). However the USA Today article from Edit semi-protected is from a non-involved secondary source. Given the amount of coverage that this content has received in reliable sources, it should receive some weight. But it should be neutrally worded, and where it should go IMHO is up to debate. Perhaps the best place to have it is in a sub-article, on the investigation of the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The FOIA requests section may be best, but we need to be super careful as the Judicial Review "smoking gun" has been thoroughly debunked. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Has it?
The most neutral thing is to state that the emails exist, without spinning it one way or another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal emails

What weight, if any should be given to the Blumenthal emails? Should this go into this article, or a sub-article about the various investigations? I see there was almost, but not quiet, an edit war a couple days ago involving Professor JR, VictoriaGrayson, and Cwobeel.
There is quiet a lot of reliable sources that can be used, from multiple parts of the political spectrum. So it should be given some weight. However, as there are sub-articles, perhaps it is best in a sub-article, where it can be given more weight, than here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

The sentence leading to reference 17 is wrong. She did not take responsibility for the security lapses. Even as the referenced daily news article states in the 7th paragraph, she took responsibility as secretary of state to: "Now, taking responsibility meant not only moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but also to make sure we were protecting our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. It also meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. And it also meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and support emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond. Let me share briefly the lessons we have learned up until now."

Joakano (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)So basically she is taking responsibility to respond to the crisis, launch an independent investigation, and intensify efforts to combat terrorism. Joakano (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

cause of Benghazi Attack 9/11/2012

Off-topic discussion. Adding facts should be stated as questions or as citations, this is not a discussion page

Contrary to what has been stated in Wikipedia the media did not attribute the Attack to a spontaneous result of a anti-Muslim video, this was first stated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice of the Obama Administration on several occasions. --173.77.6.161 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Of course the video had nothing to do with this attack. Everyone knows that. But common sense knowledge and having something accurately written about in Wikipedia are two completely seperate events. The video was cover for imploding US mideast policies, with an election upcoming. Again common sense. Don't expect any articles related to Benghazi to be significantly altered though. These sorts of articles are semi-protected, which really means they are closely monitored against any alterations beyond the preferred narrative. Standard Wiki-land pitifullness. 10stone5 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
It was the video. But it was a planned attack.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(collapse added) 50.136.158.31 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Meaning

In the section US media response, what does the line "The President avoided the question and would not to call the event terrorism" mean please? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone..?

--98.122.20.56 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Done removed the "to" Cannolis (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The President avoided the question and would not call the event terrorism. The exchange was not released until days before the 2012 presidential elections.[228] Journalist Bret Baier, host of Special Report with Bret Baier, noted "Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror."[229][230] Baier also states: "Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack". as well as "Remember this is from a president who has been saying he was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden. Also, remember what he said in the debate and notice the new part. KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
This section does not reveal that all sources are opinion pieces by partisan authors, not factual articles. It is not encyclopedic and should be removed. 50.136.158.31 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation #1 is complete hogwash

Smith, Kyle (10 February 2013). "The secret war behind Benghazi". New York Post. Retrieved 30 May 2015.

This citation is nearly complete fabrication; the authors they're quoting are not good sources, and it labels the attackers as Al Qaeda, which is also incorrect. The Post is quoting someone's boasting as thought it were real, is it really up to encyclopedic standards? 50.136.158.31 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first section just above the table of contents, there is a sentence:

"Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated;[24]"

the footnote cites the following sources,

Rogin, Josh (9 October 2012). "State Department: No Protest at the Benghazi consulate". The Cable. Retrieved 11 November 2014. Herridge, Cathrine (4 December 2013). "CIA witnesses offer more evidence Benghazi attack planned". Fox News. Retrieved 11 November 2014. Ben Shapiro (10 June 2014). The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration. Simon and Schuster. pp. 46–47. ISBN 978-1-4767-6513-6. James W. Ceaser; Andrew E. Busch; John J. Pitney (6 March 2015). After Hope and Change: The 2012 Elections and American Politics, Post 2014 Election Update. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 108–110. ISBN 978-1-4422-4746-8.

Rogins characterization of the State Department's position is inaccurate. The very article he writes states: "But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said Sept. 16 on NBC’s Meet the Press.

"That was not our conclusion," the State Department official said. "We don’t necessarily have a conclusion [about that]."

The Herridge, Fox News article doesn't give any factual information relating to the video in question. It shows the CIA compound was attacked by fighters competent in the use of mortars. Whether the video influenced the attackers is not stated or, more specifically, is not debunked.

The Shapiro book is clearly a partisan exercise as is the Ceasar, Busch and Pitney book — written from a Republican point of view. Descriptions in the books tend to be inflammatory.

A quick example from Shapiro's book: "He (Obama) reemphasized America's new pro-Islamist "lead from behind" strategy that brought about Benghazi in the first place . . . " This is a characterization — a smear — that only a partisan could love.

A quick example from the Ceaser/Busch/Pitney book: ". . . when Obama was cornered, he often swallowed his pride and turned to Clinton for an assist . . . " It's a bad characterization because it lacks any credible evidence that Obama "swallowed his pride" ever, much less often. Partisan spin.

All four citations of proof for the offered analysis fail the test of fair journalism using reliable sources of information. The sentence misrepresents fact and should be stricken from the article.

The New York Times investigation into the causes of Benghazi published December 2013, details links between the video, Innocence of Muslims and the attack on the American Compound.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0 "Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurly (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No US Consulate in Benghazi

I don't understand why this page continues to use the word "consulate." A lot of media sources make this mistake, but it makes Wikipedia look bad when an important article like this can't get this basic fact right. It should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlsusc (talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


As has been widely reported, there was no U.S. Consulate in Benghazi at the time of the attacks. Despite multiple references to a "consulate" in the record, neither the Temporary Mission Facility nor the Annex in Benghazi was ever identified as a "consulate" to the Government of Libya (or whatever passed for one at the time). Suggest all references to "U.S. consulate," "consulate," etc. be corrected to read "Temporary Mission Facility (TMF)." 156.98.118.115 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


I totally agree with the previous statement, in fact, the second compound -- the ANNEX, was the CIA ANNEX, and that facility is where most of the fighting occurred. ONE MORE THING, THE CIA ANNEX THE SECOND FACILITY WAS OWNED BY GEN. DAVID PETRAUS, THE CIA DIRECTOR AT THE TIME -- WHY IS ALL THIS CONTROVERSY ABOUT CLINTON AND NOT ABOUT PETRAUS?? THIS SHOULD DEFINITELY BE ADDRESSED FOR ACCURACY AND TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

Shorten long sentence on Stevens discovery

At present: "Ambassador Stevens was found lying alone on the floor in a dark smoke-filled room with a locked door accessible only by a window by a group of Libyans."

I might propose: "A group of Libyans found Ambassador Stevens lying alone on the floor of a locked, dark smoke-filled room accessible only by a window."

If someone can improve on what I wrote, please update the sentence. I believe mine is at least better than the existing sentence, but perhaps someone can make it even more clear.Fotoguzzi (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please - this change needs to be made in the interest of good grammar and comprehension. The way it currently reads is too awkward. --Rlsusc (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Rape and torture for seven hours?

Anybody know what this tweet is referring to? 

---- redacted link ----

Never heard of rape, torture, cattle-prodding claims before. Where do they come from? And what about that picture? Is that really Stevens? Source?-----2A02:120B:2C76:1510:ECC2:BE15:6680:13D5 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant for discussion of the article, not for general discussion of the topic. It certainly isn't a place to embed links supporting ones agenda. Others might want to look at the rest of that twitter account for the answer to the question. After a quick look I saw mostly Trump-fanboy lies and other anti-Hillary nonsense. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
"supporting one's agenda"? "redacted link"? What THE HELL is wrong with you? How about YOU leave YOUR agenda out of this? You're the reason people abstain from the project. For f*ck's sake, I don't believe this. This is relevant to the article, you genius. People are spouting the stuff I linked (and you REDACTED!) without checking its veracity, so it's certainly worthy of discussion, oh great arbiter and censor. Depending on how wide-spread this is, it even might warrant inclusion in the article, ESPECIALLY if it's false.----2A02:120B:2C76:1510:A994:749A:BF06:C7F1 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your input. Here is the relevant WP policy:
...talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article.
That was my agenda. There are better places for your inquiry. And, this is not an appropriate place to add visibility to that link, what ever your intent. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
In reality, it's a picture of a victim of the Dirty War in Argentina that is being abused by conspiracy theorists and other loonies "seeking the Truth" about Benghazi. For an extensive debunking see e.g. Chris Stevens Torture Photo – Not Chris Stevens or More disgusting, politically-motivated misinformation about the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, and here for the possible origin of the abused picture. Hereticus obstinatus (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

There should be a note in the evacuation section that the CIA personnel, etc. were extracted by the Libyan air force/airline, not by the US.  Yes, they were taken from Tripoli, but the US Air force never arrived in Bengazi to help.  This is no minor omission.

Gavinbill (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Here you go: "At 1130 local, September 12, 2012, the Libyan government-provided C-130 evacuation flight landed in Tripoli with the last U.S. government personnel from Benghazi and the remains of the four Americans killed, who were transported to a local hospital" (ARB p. 27). Aspencork (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit some punctuation

Regarding this: << "I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine. >> It's the very end of a Susan Rice blockquote, and it needs a closing quotation mark. Could somebody who knows how to do that, please do that? Thanks. 71.204.84.210 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Figural use

The term "Benghazi" and the neologistic combining form "-ghazi" are increasingly being used figuratively, in the same way that "Watergate" and "-gate" have been:

  • "the affair was like a mini-Benghazi for the Religious Right, a chance to sink its teeth into a juicy anti-left narrative" [4]
  • "Bruenighazi: How a feisty Bernie blogger's firing explains Democratic politics in 2016" [5]
  • "Republicans turn 'Benghazi' into 'slang word'" [6]
  • "min-Benghazi" again [7]
  • etc.

More often than not these sorts of things seem to relate to scandal, not to anything else "Benghazi" might be referring to (attacks, the local aftermath of them, formal inquiry/investigation, looting, torture, problems of international diplomacy, etc.), though allusion to them might also be the point of some sources with use of "Benghazi" or "-ghazi" in various contexts; the "Republican slang" item, for example, doesn't appear to refer to scandal. I haven't made a study of it, just been noticing it, even in overheard subway conversations ("This is just like another Benghazi, coming from them").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning?

From the article: "The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University described the conclusions of an unpublished study on November 2, 2012. Based on a textual analysis which tallied the occurrence of certain words and phrases in news reports, the study concluded that leading newspapers in the U.S. framed the attack in terms of a spontaneous protest as framed by the Obama administration's version, four times as often as a planned terrorist attack which was the Republican version.[229]"

How can the reliability of a study be assessed if it is unpublished? George Mason has taken $100 million from the Kochs, and it doesn't seem appropriate to cite their press releases as established facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.188.225.20 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Jsa41394 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

Please change "…alleged that the administration was reluctant—x to label the attack as…" to "…alleged that the administration was reluctant to label the attack as…" because the em-dash and x do not seem to make sense in the context of this sentence.


Jaredhowland (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sub-page on political infighting? (We'd have to get a better title.)

The "Benghazi attack" and "Hillary's email server" seems to be prime topics of discussion in the 2016 presidential race. Do we have another article on specifically the US politics of the attack?

If not, what about breaking off the analysis of the political conflict, say everything beneath "In the presidential debate..." of section U.S. government response, to another page with a "main article" template and just leave a paragraph or two into this article? Something like Political reaction to the Benghazi attack in the 2016 presidential elections. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No such protest?

@CFredkin: - Looking at this edit.

The caption at the top of the CNN source reads "The Obama administration initially thought the attack was carried out by an angry mob responding to a video. made in the United States, that mocked the Prophet Mohammed. But the storming of the mission was later determined to have been a terrorist attack".

The line you are using that to cite reads "there was no such protest".

The problem is that there was a protest, it just wasn't the protesters who attacked the mission. The CNN article doesn't refute the existence of a protest (as our lead now does). It simply states that the protesters responding to the video weren't the perpetrators of the attack. This should be clarified, because as the line currently reads it suggests that there was no protest outside the mission at all, which isn't supported.

If you want to keep the line, please point to a source that say "there was no such protest" (i.e. no protest against the video in question), rather than the current source which says which basically says the angry wasn't responsible for the attack. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Plus, it also looks like there is confusion on this point in other sources;
Here's a higher-quality, more recent source which reads, "And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.". NickCT (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you're conflating motive with action. The NYT source you provided references the video as being, at least in part, a motivating factor in the attacks (not protests). Here's a definitive statement from one of the sources provided: "Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today".CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@CFredkin: - Ok. Well I'll look at it a little more to see if I can collect more sources that specifically refer to the protest. But even if the narrative you've presented is accurate (i.e. part of the violence was caused by the video, but not in the form of a protest), then the lede still has to be re-written, because as it reads now, it infers that the violence was not linked to the Innocence of Muslims video. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it infers that, but please feel free to propose some added language.CFredkin (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@CFredkin: - Ok. After reading a bit more, it sounds like the "It was a riot which got infiltrated by pre-meditated attackers" narrative is exactly the wrong way around. It sounds more like it was a pre-meditated attack which was spontaneously joined by rioters angry at the video. Sorta funny really. Paints a picture of a town so lawless that when folks heard shooting, they rushed in to join the party. Wow......
How about "Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated."
-> "Subsequent investigations suggested the incident started as a premeditated attack, which was quickly joined by rioters and looters enraged by the video."
This wording explains that video was at least in some part responsible for the violence. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the following modified version would accurately represent the situation: "Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the the incident started as a premeditated attack, which was quickly joined by rioters and looters enraged by the video."CFredkin (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be better phrasing to say, "Subsequent investigations could find no evidence of a protest continuing into the night, however those who claimed responsibility for the attack said they used the anger at the video to enflame support for their attack." And then move the citations around. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/05/yes-innocence-muslims-video-really-did-play-role-benghazi-attacks 73.170.156.225 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Battle" of Benghazi?

Two sources used this term: Fox News and National Review. I suggest that these used the term for political effect--it was not a battle. "A battle is a combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, or combatants." Avocats (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC).

pathetic writing

Details are confusing, redundant, and no clear timeline exists, who thought this was a well written item? Juror1 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I read a summary of the ninth Congressional investigation that had a timeline and logical presentation of fact. I think the entry needs to rewritten top to bottom. Avocats (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Avocats (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaddafi loyalists "Libyan Military Intelligence" rescued Americans according to investigation.

It seems that "Gaddafi loyalists", a group called "Libyan Military Intelligence", with 50 heavily-armed security vehicles rescued Americans in the incident. This information should be added to the article.

The Daily Caller
Daily Mail
The Hill
The North Africa Post
Breitbart
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FugeeCamp (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Any chance that there's a balanced news outlet to cite for this proposition? The Daily Caller and The Hill are right-wing Republican organs. Breitbart, well is Breitbart. The Mail cites the report itself, so why not cite the report? Avocats (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

were requests for additional security denied?

The introductory paragraph states:

"In the aftermath of the attack, State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack."

Yet, as I read the testimony of the Ambassador cited above, additional security was provided, just not large towers. Should the article reflect the fact (if it is a fact) that the criticism was baseless?

Avocats (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement is supported in the body of the article with a number of reliable source:

U.S. security officer Eric Nordstrom twice requested additional security for the mission in Benghazi from the State Department. His requests were denied and according to Nordstrom, State Department official Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the security presence in Benghazi "artificially low."[63]

On December 30, 2012, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released a report, "Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi," wherein it was determined:

In the months [between February 2011 and September 11, 2012] leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented. ... The RSO [Regional Security Officer] in Libya compiled a list of 234 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.[64]

The desire of the State Department to maintain a low profile in Benghazi has been cited as the reason why the State Department circumvented their own Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards for diplomatic security.[65]:74–75 In the aftermath, Clinton sought to take responsibility for the security lapses at Benghazi and expressed personal regret.[66] In her January 2013 testimony before Congress, Secretary Clinton claimed security decisions at the Benghazi compound had been made by others, stating, "The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi ... were handled by the security professionals in the [State] Department. I didn't see those requests, I didn't approve them, I didn't deny them."[67]

CFredkin (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Scott Strickland or Scott Wickland?

Which is it? I have published evidence that it is Scott Wickland in two books? Because the article says Strickland as his last name. Adamdaley (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

For-profit citations are not good citations

Smith, Kyle (February 10, 2013). "The secret war behind Benghazi". New York Post. Retrieved May 30, 2015. is merely a retelling of a for-profit novel which has no supporting evidence for its statements. This is not a good citation - it turns wikipedia into a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia, repeating rumors from self-aggrandizing profiteers. 73.170.156.225 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The profit motive is irrelevant, but you're right about the source. The Post is not terribly reliable itself, and has this to say about the book: "Their book, which they say is based on interviews with well-placed security types but contains virtually no checkable sourcing, is loaded with explosive allegations." This book is only being used for "approx. 100 Libyan attackers," which has already been questioned in another section on this talk page. So I'm going to take that out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

literally not in the source

>approx. 100 Libyan attackers[1]

the source mentions that cia agents claimed "dozens", their claims weren't supported either. ""arrpox. 100" is taken from the ceiling to show how well american cia agents shoot, lol

also where are the deaths of those lybians who defended americans mentioned? 77.34.101.95 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It actually is in the source: "The authors estimate more than 100 attackers were killed in total." But the source is not WP:RS, and I have removed the statement. I don't see anything about "deaths of those lybians who defended americans" but if you have a source we should put that in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

The attack was to free Libyans illegally held by CIA.

‘I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted. The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus is that in his new position he’s not allowed to communicate with the press so he`s known all of this, they’ve had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.’ Paula Broadwell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.185.68 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Benghazi attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Adding 2-3 excellent/relevant/reliable sources, which were difficult to find and I spent a lot of time searching for them. Add them after this article's sentence, "In her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses."

Please add these sources:

There is a source for her "transcript", but really it's the NY Daily News, which is not a primary source, and of course has bias given the political nature of Clinton's involvement or oversight of State Department security.

1) Review Board ('ARB') initiated by Clinton, the main bipartisan investigation unclassified report from December 2012 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

2) HR 24State Department review a year later, mentioning the actual quote from Clinton and relevant connection "inadequate security" https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113hrpt226/pdf/CRPT-113hrpt226.pdf Including up to all of this quotation about the ARB:
"The ARB report concluded that ‘‘Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,’’ and suggested that future ARBs be empowered to recommend disciplinary action for such leadership and management deficiencies going forward. The ARB also said that security in Benghazi was not viewed as a ‘‘shared responsibility’’ by the bureaus in Washington with the task of supporting the mission, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions that led to an inadequate security posture; problems that H.R. 2848 attempts to mitigate. Additionally, the ARB recommended that more resources be directed to addressing the security needs of the Department. "

3) Transcript including first-hand accounts: (witness testimonies, not verified externally for facts) http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA00/20130918/101317/HHRG-113-FA00-Transcript-20130918.pdf
- "Mr. CHABOT. All right. When former Secretary of State Clinton testified in January, she stated repeatedly and took responsibility for the attacks. In fact, she stated, ‘‘As I have said multiple times, I take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right.’’ Do you believe Secretary Clinton has been held truly accountable for failures under her watch? Ambassador KENNEDY. I think what the ARB did was take from the original intent of the Congress, which established the ARB, because the Congress in the legislative history made it—— Mr. CHABOT. That is not what I asked you. I asked you if you thought that Secretary Clinton has been truly held accountable. Yes or no? Ambassador KENNEDY. She said she was responsible, and I am not going to challenge her statement. Mr. CHABOT. Where is the accountability, though? Ambassador KENNEDY. There is in every organization, every Cabinet department, every agency in effect a line of authority. There are people who set the policy and there are those who then implement that policy or go back up to senior leadership and say the policy cannot be implemented. Mr. CHABOT. All right. Let me move on. "
- "Ambassador KENNEDY. Congressman, except for one request, which I will touch on in a second, all the requests that were filed by our Embassy in Tripoli on behalf of the temporary mission facility in Benghazi were met. They asked for funding for concrete Jersey barriers to increase the perimeter, they asked for four steel drop arms in order to make sure that cars could not crash through the gate, they asked for increased compound lighting, they asked—— Mr. SMITH. Who knew about these requests? That is my only question, not what they asked for, who knew about it? Ambassador KENNEDY. These requests, since they were all met, I believe I was generally aware that they were—— Mr. SMITH. So there was no request that went unanswered you are saying? Ambassador KENNEDY. Except for one. There was a request that was debated about whether or not we should erect massive guard towers."

Thanks!

I think this page with get an enormous number of views, and these additions will inform many people on issues they care about.

I don't think that the following paragraph adds any information to the article--except to demosntrate the political hectoring:

"Mr. CHABOT. All right. When former Secretary of State Clinton testified in January, she stated repeatedly and took responsibility for the attacks. In fact, she stated, ‘‘As I have said multiple times, I take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right.’’ Do you believe Secretary Clinton has been held truly accountable for failures under her watch? Ambassador KENNEDY. I think what the ARB did was take from the original intent of the Congress, which established the ARB, because the Congress in the legislative history made it—— Mr. CHABOT. That is not what I asked you. I asked you if you thought that Secretary Clinton has been truly held accountable. Yes or no? Ambassador KENNEDY. She said she was responsible, and I am not going to challenge her statement. Mr. CHABOT. Where is the accountability, though? Ambassador KENNEDY. There is in every organization, every Cabinet department, every agency in effect a line of authority. There are people who set the policy and there are those who then implement that policy or go back up to senior leadership and say the policy cannot be implemented. Mr. CHABOT. All right. Let me move on. "

Chabot is asking the Ambassador's opinion on whether Clinton has been held accountable. That has no meaning. Avocats (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

While we are at it - not a single mention of being completely CLEARED OF WRONGDOING by the Republican led investigation? Only that she "took responsibility" when those are poor words to use, it was "she stands by her actions." "Took responsibility" just plays into the utterly incoherent and bullshit idea that it was somehow her fault. 71.185.255.122 (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

Remove every reference to the word "Consulate"

There is at least one reference to the compound where Stevens' stayed describing it as a "Consultate". It was not a consulate. I stopped reading at that point....hopefully it isn't referred to as an embassy either (as those only exist in capitol cities). Mitch1j (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It was missiles not video that prompted the attack on Benghazi

My name is KMTitmus. I hold a teaching credential in mathematics and a masters degree in Psychology from San Francisco State. I am retired. I have dial up for my computer system. I am deeply concerned about the misinformation about Benghazi. Just after the Benghazi attack I started reading newspapers from the middle east, Europe, England and the Mediterranean. Much to my horror these papers which corroborated each other told a different story about why Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi. There has been some very short and not followed up reports in the United States but they have not caught on with the general news medium

The United States gave Quadafi 20,000 surface to air missiles. Quadafi was responsible for the bombing of the plane that blew up over Lockerbee. One year to the day of the Lockerbee bombing Quadafi used a missile to blow up another plane.

There is an American newspaper article which shows an email where Hillary Clinton asked Chris Stevens to retrieve the 20,000 surface to air missiles from Libya. Chris Stevens was the American Ambassador to Libya stationed at Tripoli. There was another American ambassador stationed at Benghazi. One article implied that the missiles were cached near Tripoli. Others imply that Benghazi was a port and boats there were used for transportation of the missiles. The missiles were known to a former Alquaeda member who had been arrested by the CIA and the Libya government but released by each. Chris Stevens had to negotiate with this former Alquaeda member to obtain these missiles. There is a ABC article regarding the missiles where the California senator Barbara Boxer states her concern about the missiles and expresses her desire protect American planes that fly in the Libyan area with missile detectors so as to protect them ??? from these surface to air missiles. The article was prompted by a report from Peter Bouckaert emergencies director for Human Rights watch.

Chris Stevens was successful in obtaining the missiles and putting them on ships at the port of Benghazi. The missiles were then shipped ostensibly to Syrian for the Syrian freedom fighters. However some of the missiles were confiscated at a port in Lebanon. There is a picture in one of these articles with Syrian freedom fighters in the background smiling and the surface to air missiles ( which were about the size of a bazooka) the foreground. It was later reported that many of these Syrian Freedom fighters were actually members of ISSIS.

Now such a covert action should have been taken by our marines, special forces, navy seals or any munitions experts. Chris Stevens as can be read from articles on his influence in Libya was a good will ambassador. The Libyan people loved him. He certainly would have been able to get help for this highly serious military action. Other articles indicate that there were Alquaeda camps in areas close to Benghazi. Due to the serious nature of the task and the fact that Alquaeda camps were so close he must have been concerned not only about his well being, but how he would be able to move this amount of munitions. According reports which did surface in American newspapers Chris Stevens contacted Hillary Clinton the woman who asked him if the would take the job over 600 times. It is should be clear that 600 attempts at getting help would have also indicated the seriousness of the task. Yet Chris Stevens received no help.

Since the munitions were successfully sent by ship and transported to Syria and Lebanon it can be deduced that Chris Stevens was successful. When he met with the ambassador stationed in Benghazi that night ( September 11) he must have been able to report his success. The attack on the compound can thus be viewed as an outrage in reaction to his success.

It is also a point of concern of the misinformation regarding how he died. The initial reports stated he was unconscious due to smoke inhalation but alive. His Libyan friend took his to a local hospital where doctors tried in vain to revive him. Later reports stated otherwise but the initial pictures showed that he was not dragged through the streets and poked wit a pole.

Hillary Clinton stated that she did not want a heavy armed guard for Chris Stevens since it would have called attention to Chris Steven presence in Benghazi. A more illumination explanation would have been that she did not want to call attention to the removal of 20,000 surface to air missiles. This point may have been related to the fact that some planes were found missing in flight during the following months and years. Could they have been the victim of a missile attack? What a PR nightmare!

The video explanation would have been part of the cover up. However in a article by the Daily Mail Clinton told her daughter that the attack was done by AlQuaeda.

During the email/Benghazi hearings Bret Baier of Fox news asked Speaker of the House Bahner if he was going to bring up the topic of the missiles. Speaker Bahner said "no" and walked away. This 10 second interview was shown on Fox news but clearly did not receive further investigation.

In one sense Hillary Clinton's actions may be construed as political smarts since she has protected the world from investigating our military weapons sales and thus hides this fact from the American public. However the fact that she did not protect Chris Stevens and the fact that the weapons went from Quadafi to Syrian freedom fights were now shown to be ISSIS should also be problematic for her. It indicates really poor judgement. It is reminiscent of another piece of poor judgment as in Fast and Furious that gave weapons to America's enemies .

God Bless Chris Stevens for his good will ambassadorship.

I hope that some one with better computer access may take some of these references and bring this information to the public. The news report by Bret Baier caught my attention and validated my concerns generated by the other articles. The fact that Clinton did not find a better explanation that a video and the bizarre news reports of how Chris Stevens died indicated to me that this was more than just an attack on an embassy. The fact that so many emails from Hillary were destroyed is also really problematic.

These are my best recollection of the articles that I read and references that I have:


ABC news with contributions of the Associated Press Fox news report by Bret Baier during the Clinton hearings. Linkedin October 26,2015 The truth about Benghazi ( illegal arms trafficking) Reuters News September 11, 2012 Daily Mail January 17, 2016 Kelly MClaughlin: Hillary told her daugter that an Alquaeda like group carried out the Benghazi attack in an email sent the night of the deadly consulate assault. The Financial Times written just after the attack ( I can no longer find this report on the internet) In Front Page Politics 9/08/2014 no author) Finally revealed : What ambassador in Benghazi was really doing.

Please note that there were many other articles by the Financial Times, The KOS and other Mediterranean newspapers that suddenly disappeared after there was a controversy regarding the video explanation that trouble me enough that I would attempt to contact Wikipedia to ask for help for further illumination. Kmt1234 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary caused the deaths of four Americans ...

She is the main cause of the deaths. Ambassador Stevens was there secretly, under the Obama Admin., giving arms illegally to ant- Assad troops(a/k/a al-qaeda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.232.112 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State Clinton's comments regarding Libya during the run for President

That very day I had just seen the movie, "16 Hours," about the attack in Benghazi. Secretary of State Clinton made the following comment:

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton committed her second gaffe in as many days on the campaign trail Monday night, claiming that the U.S. "didn't lose a single person" in Libya during her time as secretary of state...Clinton said "Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn't lose a single person ... We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/15/clinton-commits-benghazi-gaffe-saying-us-didnt-lose-single-person-in-libya.html March 15, 2016

This quotation should be added to the article.Easeltine (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Information missing about preparations for Sept 11, 2012

The main article seems to be missing references to what was apparently done in preparation for the 9//11/2001 anniversary, 9/11/2012. See the transcript of the press briefing, which refers to a press release put out on 9/10/2012. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/18/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-9182012 Beginning with, "Q Jay, I want to go back to Libya. On September 10th, you put out a press release saying that the President had a meeting with senior officials to figure out the security posture around the 9/11 anniversary. And in that press release you said that “steps were taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad. The President reiterated that departments and agencies must do everything possible to protect the American people both at home and abroad.” So in retrospect, given the tragedy, did the administration drop the ball on what you promised on September 10th that you had improved security at these installations?". (end of quote) Here is a press release, which may or may not be the one referred to in the quotation above. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/10/readout-president-s-meeting-senior-administration-officials-our-prepared I do not recall it ever being answered, what steps were actually taken that this referred to. See also: http://www.alreporter.com/2013/10/22/roby-s-benghazi-questions-drawing-attention-in-the-white-house/ See also the book, "Benghazi: Timeline of Truth". https://books.google.com/books?id=B9tfDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=steps+were+taken+to+protect+U.S.+persons+and+facilities+abroad&source=bl&ots=5BXhmM8SbS&sig=3rdTiSUV4il99EJCY5MuS-rfBUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnzLKBs-HTAhWC5lQKHbzNCVEQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=steps%20were%20taken%20to%20protect%20U.S.%20persons%20and%20facilities%20abroad&f=false at Note 20. Evidently, nothing at all was done, despite the press release on Sept 10, 2012. http://www.newsmax.com/US/benghazi-probe-safety-panetta/2013/10/17/id/531721/ 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:F8EE:D81E:D50A:7498 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

CIA Head: 'Analysts Never Said the Video was a Factor in the Benghazi Attacks'

From the Select Committee on Benghzi there are are several references to being caused by terrorism. NOT a 'Part of the Libyan Civil War'. They don't have to be affiliated with al Queda to be a terrorist act. The blog from the committee shows that Hillary Clinton even said this to both Libyan Ambassador and in a personal communication. I request that you change and remove the link to 'Part of the Libyan Civil War' to 'Terrorist Attack'. Even though the participants may have fought in Libya's Civil War, the attack on the compound had nothing to do with the Civil War.

As also stated in the Benghazi Committee Blog: The New York Times is Inexplicably Clinging to These Myths about Benghazi and information contained in this Wikipedia article on the attack is also doing the same thing. It would be good for whomever is writing this article to stick to the facts and not the Democrat or Liberal media propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejack007 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2012 Benghazi attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

Why does Wikipedia completely rewrite history and remove the YouTube lie told three weeks in a row by Obama, Clinton and Susan Rice? How about providing an answer to these three questions on this same page: 1. Who made up the lie about Benghazi being caused by a YouTube video? 2. Who made that lie the official story? 3. Who decided to run with that LIE for three weeks? It was known within hours of the attack that is was a planned terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton informed three different people, three different days in a row, starting two hours after the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Clinton, Obama, and Susan Rice told the lie for three weeks straight. Just enough time for Obama to get elected and his "I beat terrorism/Al Qaeda is on the run" line to be proved false. Sept. 11, 2012 1:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.) Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee. 

Sept. 13, 2012: Libyan Ambassador Apologizes for ‘Terrorist Attack’

Clinton referred to the video in separate remarks while welcoming leaders of Libya and Morocco, while CNN quoted an unnamed State Department official who described the assault as a “clearly planned military-type attack.” THIS INFORMATION WAS ALL OBTAINED FROM HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAIL ACCOUNT! Thuhbadguy (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 Benghazi attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Add link to "Ansar Al-Sharia" in the 4th occurring paragraph (beginning of 4th sentence). Requesting to change standard text to add hyperlink directing users to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Sharia_(Libya) Bradleyhodges129 (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: thank you for your request, but we do not link every occurrence of a word in an article. See WP:OVERLINK. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Horrible article

I have been a constant reader of articles on Wikipedia for more than 15 (?) years and I can say without any doubt this article on the events regarding the attack that killed four Americans is the most disingenuous, most apologetic article I have read on Wikipedia. It reeks of a one sided defense of the actions and, mainly, the non actions of the Obama administration in the hours, days and weeks surrounding this attack. Nobody who lived through those events could fail to note the complete lack of action by the Obama administration except the author of this article. For example, the USA has repeatedly refueled in flight airplanes of all sizes and capabilities such that they could literally fly around the globe or to any spot on the globe and yet on that night of 13 hours no airplane anywhere took to the air to help defend these many Americans. I will not go on. This article is a shameful academic whitewash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:704E:1578:54E4:AC3:9769:CF17 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You ignore that Panetta ordered rescue teams to scramble out of Spain, Italy and Croatia, despite the CIA engagement order prior to deployment warning the guys on the ground there could be no air support for them, because after Qaddafi fell his arms depots were raided and there were thousands of loose MANPADs all over Libya, rendering the airspace extremely dangerous and would place rescuers in danger of being shot down, turning a tragedy of four men killed into a calamity of dozens of men killed, another Mogadishu, and the Pentagon wasn’t gonna repeat that debacle. This was the right call by military professionals, and not some “stand-down order” issued by “someone who hates America and wanted our four brave heroes left behind to die.”
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." soibangla (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Time zone?

What is the point of stating 9:40pm without including a time zone? 24.107.87.27 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Constant blue text of Ansar al-Sharia

Why is Ansar al-Sharia constantly linked in the article? Shouldn't it be blue only once? Or at most once per section? I'm removing three cases of redundant linking in the intro.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Falsehoods in the article

"The attackers stated they were acting in response to Innocence of Muslims.[75]" This is objectively false. There is no actual source quote from the attackers themselves. This is speculative. Please correct the article to state the truth.

The article states “...At the behest of the CIA” the administration blamed the attack on the video. This is factually inaccurate. The source notes do not support that the CIA told the administration to blame the attack on the video. The Washington Post states that the administration blamed the attack on the video for political reasons. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/21/fact-checking-the-benghazi-attacks-2/?utm_term=.f47f2794ad65). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christycramerpreston (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the day after the attack al-Sharia issued a revised statement: "it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West," that is, the video. NYT reported "Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him." And, in fact, a close reading of what Obama/Clinton actually said shows they did not blame the video for Benghazi; rather they blamed it for triggering violent protests outside five American embassies, but Benghazi was not an embassy, nor a consulate, but a "diplomatic post." There were protests against the video in two dozen locations from West Africa to Indonesia, including violent protests outside five American embassies, which typically gets overlooked because the Benghazi deaths received all the attention, leading some to conclude that Obama/Clinton could only be talking about Benghazi, when actually there was more than just Benghazi. soibangla (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"Despite persistent accusations against President Obama,

Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice, ten investigations — six by Republican-controlled congressional committees — did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly" is a 100% accurate statement. If anyone disputes this, please provide evidence.

Otherwise, this edit should be restored.

@IntelligentName: soibangla (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

IMHO this should not be restored, as more information, as well as investigation outcomes can be found out by the reader at the sub-page article about the investigations, some which had criticism of Obama administration officials, others which did not.
Remember WP:NEU, not lets defend the Obama Administration.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no defense of the Obama administration. There is only defense of reality. Fox News lied. Time to move on. soibangla (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am sure there are plenty of sources not yet banned from Wikipedia that will say that a non-left of center source did something wrong. But Wikipedia is not a place to push that narrative.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Soibangla: please see WP:PROVEIT, content removed that is not cited shouldn't be re-added without reference to one or more reliable sources which verify the content being re-added.
There is no reliable source saying there were ten investigations.
There is no reliable source provided saying that there was "did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.". As stated in this document, it found several issues regarding the response of the State Department and Defense Department, and that the Administration "response lacked a sense of urgency", and "lacked leadership".--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: "The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people" is here, and that was the last and most influential investigation before Gowdy launched his witchhunt. It's time to move on. soibangla (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I see that is what the AP reported, but it does not jive with what the above editor calls "his witchhunt", that is the report produced by the select committee. The report from the committe, page 213-230, shows that Rice provided misinformation on many of the Sunday talk shows, and that for nearly half a month, the Administration kept with Rice's statements (page 236) even though it had evidence to the contrary, until it (the Administration) corrected itself.
It's time that we not cherry pick sources to advance a narrative, but rather work together to make a neutral article. Not one that defends or attacks one view point or another, but is inclusive of all view points that can be verified and that should be given due weight.
Including content which is not cited to a reliable source flies in the face of WP:5P2.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The Republican HPSCI, the most important of all the committees, "did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people." Nor did any of the previous four Republican committee investigations. Only the Gowdy committee did, and that committee was formed to smear HRC et al. going into the campaign, after the previous five Republican committees failed to, and the Gowdy committee found nothing on HRC. Rice made incorrect statements from the CIA talking points she was provided, but she didn't lie, there was no intention to deceive. As the HPSCI found, the CIA's initial assessments were wrong, and the CIA changed them after Rice went off the air. The simple fact is that there was lots of conflicting intel coming in and it took time for everyone to sort it out. There was no lying, there was no cover-up, there was no scandal. The real scandal was how Fox News and their fellow travelers (Issa, Gowdy, Jordan, Chaffetz et al.) cynically exploited the deaths of four men to concoct a fake scandal for political purposes. And only the most rabidly hyperpartisan zealots could conclude anything else at this point.

The Republicans’ report, which included interviews with 80 new witnesses and tens of thousands of pages of documents, did not find evidence of wrongdoing. It reaffirmed the finding of previous investigations that security gaps were obvious, and that U.S. military forces stationed elsewhere couldn’t have reached Benghazi in time to save their lives. Like previous reports, it is highly critical of not only the State Department, but also the Defense Department and CIA, for not heeding warnings about the worsening security situation in Libya.

soibangla (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Folk Verse

This appeared several places at the time. I think it’s based on ‘ the battling bastards of bataan’

"THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI"

We're the battling boys of Benghazi, No fame, no glory, no paparazzi. Just a fiery death in a blazing hell, defending our country we loved so well. It wasn't our job, but we answered the call, Fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall. We pulled twenty countrymen from the jaws of fate, led them to safety and stood at the gate. Just the two of us and foes by the score, but we stood fast to bar the door. Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied, so we fought and we fought and we fought 'til we died. We gave our all for our Uncle Sam, but Barack and Hillary didn't give a damn. Just two dead Seals who carried the load, No thanks to us...we were just "Bumps in the Road".

Written by an anonymous Marine.

213.205.241.93 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Delta Force

Apparently, it wasn't public knowledge until recently that members of the Delta Force were present during the attack, including a Marine awarded the Navy Cross and a Soldier awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. If anyone feels like adding it to the article, here's the source. AppliedCharisma (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

sources

some of these are dead links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.195.219 (talk • contribs)

That happens. Sometimes we can add the Internet Archive link. Regardless, we do not delete dead links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It would help if you listed the dead links here. Then we could work on fixing this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten investigations clearing high-ranking officials

IntelligentName, I see that on multiple occasions you have removed correct, long-standing, well-sourced content establishing that none of the ten Benghazi investigations found any wrongdoing by any high-ranking Obama administration officials. I suggest that unless you can find a reliable source that contradicts this, you should stop removing the content. But I can save you the trouble by assuring you that you will not find credible evidence to support your position, because it doesn't exist, because it didn't happen, regardless of this. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hillary lied to the American People

Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks and was caught doing so. If anyone doubts this, take a look at the timeline put together by FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/).

The bottom line is that Hillary lied and got caught.

At 10:00 PM (9/12/2012) Hillary issues a statement that reads "Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

No mention of terrorism and/or terrorist groups.

At 11:12 PM (9/12/2012). Hillary sends her daughter with an email with the truth. “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow."

So she tells her daughter the truth (that terrorists did it) while lying to the American people.

The next day she tells the PM of Egypt that the video did not cause the attack... While pubically saying the reverse.

The bottom line is that Hillary lied and the article is a coverup.

Peter Schaeffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.104.20 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Orwell

There is a quote from Orwell that has considerable bearing on this topic.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"

It would appear that some people can't stand the fact that Hillary was caught lying about Benghazi.

Does it matter that FactCheck.org, the final report of the Congressional committee that investigated Benghazi, and the Washington Post all found the Hillary lied? Apparently not. Hillary is still a sacred cow who can not be criticized even when she is guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschaeffer (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Typical Censorship

It is entirely appalling (but not unexpected) that a talk page with detailed information (including links) about Hillary's misconduct keeps getting deleted. I guess some folks at Wikipedia have sunk to the level of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. You either parrot the party-line or you get censored. Peter Schaeffer peter_schaeffer@yahoo.com Pschaeffer (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

These topics have been exhaustively discussed during and after ten government investigations, but despite what Fox News et al. breathlessly asserted, there was no finding that Hillary lied and got caught, not even by the six Republican investigations. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy

The Hillary Clinton email controversy is not mentioned in this article, while the 2012 Benghazi attack is listed as major reason that the email controversy had begun. According to the New York Times: "The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack." (Link)–Zfish118⋉talk 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the 2012 Benghazi attack is listed as major reason that the email controversy had begun? The controversy began with the fact she was using a private server, irrespective of Benghazi. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The use of the private server started before the attack. The discovery of the server occurred during the Benghazi hearings. This fact is clearly articulated in the email controversy article, which links back here. The issue is the lack of a reciprocal link on this article. –Zfish118⋉talk 22:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That liberal bias yet again

Wikipedia has historically and traditionally been accused of having a liberal bias, and it's perfectly exemplified in this article, my specific concern is the section "US media response", a section which starts by saying that "Fox News massively repeated a narrative of a conspiracy and cover-up" and then goes on to describe the coverage of other news outlets in neutral terms, so it's basically saying that Fox News is a paranoid right-wing conspiracy-promoting propaganda machine while the liberal left-wing outlets are ok. This is shameful and disgusting to be honest. --177.225.172.224 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Fox News is a paranoid right-wing conspiracy-promoting propaganda machine while the liberal left-wing outlets are ok." Correct. That sums up the facts and what RS tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Fox News breathlessly reported on numerous Benghazi conspiracy theories for 2+ years. It was The Benghazi Channel that quite literally patted themselves on the back for obsessing on conspiracies that other outlets correctly ignored, because it was abundantly clear the conspiracies were false from the getgo, which was confirmed by TEN investigations, including the last of six GOP investigations that was specifically created to smear HRC. Time to move on. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I laughed so hard at your reply and attitude: "This article is biased because it's the truth, I can confirm it, so stop complainin and shut up" Haha yeah all right we're all good now... Except not, I will not stand for liberal bias in Wikipedia, it's disgusting and shameful. --177.225.172.224 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Fox News#Benghazi attack and aftermath Bye now. soibangla (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack/Archive_10&oldid=1136718257"