Paul Wolfowitz weighs in on Petraeus; “Forget the gossip: focus on Benghazi.”

[Purveyor]

Former deputy secretary of defense and World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, now at the American Enterprise Institute, is worried that everyone’s having too much fun with the increasingly bizarre Paula Broadwell/Jill Kelly/David Petraeus soap opera and losing sight of serious matters.

But he forgets that people are still exhausted from the endless, bitter presidential campaign. L’affaire Petraeus is like a peach sorbet, a palate-cleanser, after a very heavy meal.

Wolfowitz, writing on the AEI policy blog, says “Forget the gossip: focus on Benghazi.”

He argues that “fascination with the general’s personal story must not divert attention from the very significant policy failures that helped produce a chaotic security situation in Libya.”

MORE...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/wolfowitz-weighs-in-on-petraeus/2012/11/15/3c14611e-2f4a-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_blog.html

[potone]

1. This from the man who helped to lie us into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

He would do well to keep his mouth shut.

[SunSeeker]

2. Why is that war criminal not in jail? nt

[Purveyor]

3. Excellent question but I'm sure his is still busy counting the millions of 'palleted dollars' air

dropped into Iraq and mysteriously disappeared.

[hifiguy]

10. That sick fk should be breaking rocks

for the rest of his life. Or dancing at the end of a rope after his conviction for crimes against humanity.

[JHB]

4. What did Rachel Maddow dub him? Oh, yeah, "Mr. Wrong"

http://tonightsforecastdark.blogspot.com/2011/10/rachel-maddow-paul-wolfowitz-shut-your.html

[BlueStreak]

5. Focus on WHAT about Benghazi?

What is the problem here? I still haven't heard a single Republicans offer a simple cogent explanation of what is the big problem with Benghazi.

If somebody breaks into the other party's campaign HQ and steals documents, I understand that.

If somebody claims there were WMDs and then starts a war killing over 100,000 people, and it turns out the WMD thing was a lie, I understand that.

But what, exactly, is the issue with Benghazi? As far as I can tell, it all boils dome to a very pedantic, semantic argument about exactly what role the Youtube video played. WTF does that matter? It obviously played SOME role, and it probably wasn't the whole story. But how does arguing about the PRECISE impact the movie had do anything to improve our security or any other aspect of our foreign service?

What am I missing? There must be more to it than this.

The Republicans have turned into "The Boy That Cried Wolf." If there ever really is a serious issue, we'll probably just ignore them. "Oh it is just those Republicans whining about some stupid nonsense again.".

[amandabeech]

14. Amb. Rice's claim that the YouTube video may have caused the attack

is the least important problem with "Benghazi", at least IMHO.

Here are some other questions:

1. Why was security so light at the diplomatic compound that has been called the consulate? There have been credible reports that the Libyans told us that the security situation was deteriorating in the few days prior to 9/11. Was it realistic to expect the CIA folks from the Annex to travel through 1.5 miles of Benghazi city to defend the diplomatic compound?

2. There have been reports that there were calls from the Embassy in Tripoli asking for increased security. Those requests were turned down. Why?

3. At the beginning of the attack on the diplomatic compound, the security officer called the Embassy in Tripoli, the extraction team (maybe the one in Tripoli) and Washington. The only help was a delayed deployment from Tripoli without enough evac space for everyone from the diplomatic compound and the CIA annex.

4. About 30 people showed up for evac from the CIA Annex. For me, the biggest question is what was the CIA doing in Benghazi? I'm old enough to have seen the CIA, our various intelligence services and the DOD go rogue. Is that happening now? Does the President really know everything that the DOD/intelligence folks, and maybe SOS folks, are doing? Or is the President allowing special ops and covert operations to do too many secret missions? Is the CIA/DOD/intelligence operations endangering State Department operations.

I really hate to even think these things about the current administration, but these things cannot be ruled out. They've happened before, and perhaps the President has been distracted by the campaign or has not been getting good advice.

A lot of the inquiry may be in closed hearings, hopefully in the Senate where people still act a bit more rationally than they do in the House and where Democrats control the committees. Right now, Sen. Feinstein is holding hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. I hope that the Intelligence Committee, perhaps with Sen. Kerrey, gets into the act as well.

I wasn't impressed by Rice's statements that apparently came from the CIA. If she'd just stuck with the first part of her statement, which was that the matter was under investigation, and not speculated about the effect of the video, there wouldn't be a problem. Someone's judgment was off, and it looked bad in as much as there were quite a few stories out there, particularly in the UK media, that the video was not the cause and that there wasn't a protest--just an attack.

Anyway, there is a lot to think about here. I'm afraid that folks here at DU who are whooping it up over the pubbies jumping on Rice are missing the real issues which need to be reviewed and resolved.

[BlueStreak]

15. I agree those are more substantive questions, and I have hears a single Rep raise them

But let's look at them:

1. Why was security so light at the diplomatic compound that has been called the consulate? There have been credible reports that the Libyans told us that the security situation was deteriorating in the few days prior to 9/11. Was it realistic to expect the CIA folks from the Annex to travel through 1.5 miles of Benghazi city to defend the diplomatic compound?

It is my understanding the building was not a consulate. The implication is that the building might have been a CIA station. If that is the case, why was the ambassador hanging out there. Regardless, the CIA personnel probably weren't in the vicinity for security. They were probably there to do what the CIA does -- collect intelligence and try to manipulate the course of events in ways that don't involve shootouts.

2. There have been reports that there were calls from the Embassy in Tripoli asking for increased security. Those requests were turned down. Why?

What difference would that make, even if it were true (and I haven't seen any evidence of that)? Adding security in Tripoli would not have affected Benghazi.

3. At the beginning of the attack on the diplomatic compound, the security officer called the Embassy in Tripoli, the extraction team (maybe the one in Tripoli) and Washington. The only help was a delayed deployment from Tripoli without enough evac space for everyone from the diplomatic compound and the CIA annex.

Again, what difference would it have made? It would have taken several hours at minimum to stage such a mission and get to Benghazi. By then everybody was dead already? What is your point?

4. About 30 people showed up for evac from the CIA Annex. For me, the biggest question is what was the CIA doing in Benghazi? I'm old enough to have seen the CIA, our various intelligence services and the DOD go rogue. Is that happening now? Does the President really know everything that the DOD/intelligence folks, and maybe SOS folks, are doing? Or is the President allowing special ops and covert operations to do too many secret missions? Is the CIA/DOD/intelligence operations endangering State Department operations.

It is a fair question, but obviously not one that will be discussed in public. The broader question is "What is the CIA doing, in general?" They are mostly beyond anybody's control. But I don't see anything particularly unusual in there being CIA people on the ground in Benghazi. The country just came through an armed overthrow of its dictator. Undoubtedly the CIA played a major role in that, and we kept some staff on scene to try to push the new Libya in a direction that we think will be most stable. al Qaeda presumably has the opposite interests and they won this skirmish. Of course the various Congressional committees should have briefing on all the activities of the CIA. But I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about Benghazi, compared to all the other places where fires embers are burning.

[sabrina 1]

6. Why is that war criminal not in jail?

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I once saw Allen Keyes in the airport in New Orleans

I ignored him.

If I saw this motherfucker in an airport, I think the result would be different. I'd have a word with Mr. Wolfowitz.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Brave Warmonger Wolfowitz loved going to Iraq

Until a couple of rockets hit his hotel while he was there.

he never went back.

There is not a lower piece of coward shit on Earth than Paul Wolfowitz.

[lonestarnot]

9. OMG! The comb licker old moldy ass!

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. Those assholes have absolutely no shame.

And they obviously think we are brainless idiots with no memory or ability to process what is before our very eyes. They pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

[cherish44]

12. They're gonna keep on fucking that chicken.

They're desperate and it's all they have.

[marmar]

13. Ugh. Who loosened the sewer grate and let him out?

nt

[treestar]

16. Piss off

This jerk