Why has the US not retaliated for that attack in Benghazi?

[Comrade Grumpy]

Kerfluffles about the Rice talking points notwithstanding, don't we know who did that? Our government was able to say it was "terrorists" early on. I assume that with their vaunted intelligence-gathering capabilities, they have some idea which "terrorists" it was.

But nothing has happened. I think maybe one guy was detained in Tunisia for awhile.

We drone strike people whose identities we don't even know in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. Yet there has been no action like that taken against the Benghazi attackers.

I really don't get it. Can anybody explain?

[B2G]

1. I cannot

And I understand they know who some of them are.

[treestar]

2. Yeah that is really curious

seeing as Obama is just like Bush.

[WestStar]

3. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is in federal prison

Doesn't get out until September.

He's the guy behind the YouTube video that set the whole kerfunkle off.

(Puttin' the funk in kerfunkle since 2012)

[Bluenorthwest]

4. He did not do that attack, is not thusly charged, is in prison for other crimes.

Also, the Beatles did not make Manson murder and that dog did not tell Son of Sam to kill.

[Recursion]

5. Presumably the powers that be concluded that attacking Ansar al Sharia would be counterproductive

at this point in time.

FWIW the group seems to have gone into hiding, anyways.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. We can find some guy in hut in Pakistan or in the desert in Yemen...

...but we can't find the guys who killed out ambassador?

Maybe the powers that be have their reasons, but this is just weird.

Could it have anything to do with what our CIA guys were up to there? Whatever it is they were up to...sending arms to the Syrian rebels, maybe?

[Recursion]

8. If they are no longer a real threat (I have no idea; just saying "if") ...

... then doing something potentially destabilizing to Libya makes little sense right now.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. I hear you, but...

This inaction seems to be a real break with previous responses to terrorist attacks. If what you're suggesting is actually the case, that would be a pretty enlightened response. But we don't know if that's the case.

[DevonRex]

6. I think you can come up with part of it

on your own. I'll get you started.

Obviously someone knew exactly when the Ambassador would be in Benghazi. They also knew the location of the CIA safe house.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Oh, yeah, the CIA safe house. What was the CIA doing there, anyway?

If it was keeping an eye on the militants, that didn't seem to work out too well.

I think it's a shame that the FOX/GOP Benghazi offensive has diverted attention from what was really going on, whatever it was.

[DevonRex]

11. Well

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

There was a leak at the CIA itself. A leak that informed a very well trained, very well armed, highly efficient team to assassinate the Ambassador and murder everyone else in short order. And to disappear just as quickly as they came.

All these leaks are related.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Huh?

Are you being sarcastic?

If not, do you have a source?

[DevonRex]

14. I'm sorry. I didn't pay enough attention to your last sentence.

I'm sick today, so I'm not my usual more alert self.

What I meant by what I said is that it wasn't militants in the usual way, or terrorists in the usual way. They would have been in the top tier. And even so, they had to have that leak.

When traveling to an unsafe part of a country in the ME, there is a very strict protocol of who knows and when they know. That protocol is followed to the letter. That is proof positive there was a leak.

Another thing. In order to buy time, the CIA decided to run with the demonstration story since there were demonstrations all over the ME that day. Seemed logical that it would divert attention from the issue. But what it did was open a can of worms since somehow the Republicans knew within minutes exactly what had happened. And used it to their advantage, minus the leak part. Romney on television immediately. The endless accusations and hearings thereafter.

Still, they can't reveal the culprits. Either they haven't found all of them yet, as I believe this last leak indicates, or revealing what happened could jeopardize relations with an ally unnecessarily. And perhaps both.

[Rex]

12. They were hoping John McCain would find the criminals.

Since he has this knack for getting completely lost and then mingling with The Enemy. Alas, the poor senator from Arizona was last seen in Bangladesh...mumbling something to a banana...