US planning to attack terror networks in Benghazi?

posted at 9:21 am on October 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Now that the Obama administration has belatedly admitted that the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and not, as they claimed for nearly two weeks, a particularly lively movie review — now what?  The New York Times reports this morning that the US has begun preparing for a military attack on the “militants” involved in the terrorist attack, but that may run into some complications:

The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday, as the weak Libyan government appears unable to arrest or even question fighters involved in the assault.

The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, the officials said. Working with the Pentagon and the C.I.A., the command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama to take action against those determined to have played a role in the attack on a diplomatic mission in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three colleagues three weeks ago.

Let’s pause for a moment here.  If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it?  Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation.  The Obama administration has discovered what happens when the White House lies, and lies badly, about terrorist attacks and their preparation for those attempts, and now they want to undo some of the damage by looking tough.

That’s going to be hard to do, however:

But any American military action on Libyan soil would risk casualties and almost certainly set off a popular backlash at a moment when gratitude for American support in the revolt against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has created a measure of appreciation for the United States in the region.

Reflecting a surge in nationalism, the Libyan government has opposed any unilateral American military action in Libya against the attackers. “We will not accept anyone entering inside Libya,” Mustafa Abu Shagur, Libya’s new prime minister, told the Al Jazeera television network. “That would infringe on sovereignty and we will refuse.”

At the same time, the Libyan government still depends almost entirely on autonomous local militias to act as the police, complicating any effort to detain the most obvious suspects. Libyan and American officials acknowledge the possibility that some of the perpetrators may have fled the country, perhaps across the porous southern border.

In other words, don’t expect any cooperation from Tripoli on drone strikes or Special Forces operations.  We may not need them anyway to pinpoint terrorist havens, but if we don’t, that raises more questions about what we knew before the attacks that might have prevented the loss of four Americans, including our Ambassador.

Furthermore, if we don’t know much now, we’re not likely to find it out later, either.  The article offers a number of references to the lack of interest in pursuing the terrorists involved on the part of Libyan authorities (such as they are), and we’re not able to send the FBI in to do any better.  Besides, it seems as though more people treat this like a crime than an act of war, which is what an attack on a diplomatic mission is.  Even the Times has this problem; it features the picture I used for the front-page graphic with this caption:

This widely published photograph, taken in the aftermath of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left the American envoy and three others dead, appears to capture one potential witness.

A “potential witness“? That’s not a bunch of flowers in the man’s left hand — it’s an assault rifle.  He looks a lot more like a potential suspect than a potential witness.

The problem with leaking this story is that it sets expectations for a quick strike of retribution on the terrorists responsible for the attack.  Without any eyes on the ground and with at least one of the major terror networks on the move (Ansar al-Sharia has pulled out of Benghazi for the moment), it’s more likely that we’ll still be talking rather than striking for the next few months.  Given our lack of attention to the threats in that region before the sacking of our consulate, it may be longer than that before we have a clear idea who to hit.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Doesn’t matter

ANYTHING. to make dear leader good….

cmsinaz on October 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

NEWS FLASH! This administration cared more about the election than just about anything else.

IlikedAUH2O on October 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Ooohh, maybe they can kill some more innocents like they have in Pakistan. Of course they haven’t acknowledged those extra kills.

Zaggs on October 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

We’re coming in!!
So all you bad guys…
Find somewhere else to go for a while..

Thank you for your attention.

Electrongod on October 3, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Let’s pause for a moment here. If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it?

The NYT is one of the top Obama Presstitute Organs.

Steve Eggleston on October 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

CODE PINK, CODE PINK, where are you? Heck, Anti-War Left, where are you?

You seemed more active during the Bush years for some reason.

sentinelrules on October 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

+1 EG and Steve

cmsinaz on October 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Blow up an aspirin factory, maybe?

michaelo on October 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

A “potential witness“? That’s not a bunch of flowers in the man’s left hand — it’s an assault rifle. He looks a lot more like a potential suspect than a potential witness.

One nit to pick. He’s not a potential suspect, he’s a potential terrorist.

If the attack on our consulate was terrorism – and it was – then those who took part in the attack are terrorists.

Washington Nearsider on October 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

How are they ever going to track down spontaneous movie rioters?

The Count on October 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Do they have good intelligence to strike those Western B-movie trailer watch parties?

mwbri on October 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

It appears Obama can spell ‘October Surprise,’ after all.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Sounds to me as if we are going to finish that which Khaddafi threatened to start in the first place.
Remember ? He said he wanted to get to Behngazi to root out the pests.

Jabberwock on October 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Benghazi terrorists, you might want to avoid your mailboxes for a while since President Bark will be sending some STRONGLY worded letters your way. In fact I hear he will use the words “condemn” and “abhor” more than once. *shudder*

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.” – George W. Bush

Obama in charge now. Camel’s take note.

rhombus on October 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

“Which one of you guys made that movie???”

–Obama’s interrogators

search4truth on October 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

“I said that America’s role would be limited, that we would not put ground troops into Libya, that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners.”

Another broken promise. Imagine that.

Flora Duh on October 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The problem with leaking this story is that it sets expectations for a quick strike of retribution on the terrorists responsible for the attack.

Yep, and that nasty leak will be all the cover they need to not go forward with an attack.

cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Has he even admitted it was a terrorist attack yet?

rubberneck on October 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

You probably had to convince Obama that it’s a way to eliminate witnesses.

RBMN on October 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Now that the Obama administration has belatedly admitted that the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and not, as they claimed for nearly two weeks, a particularly lively movie review — now what?

Dare I say, a kinetic movie review?

tom on October 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

What a F’in joke! Calling Bubba Clinton for targeting guidance.

dmann on October 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

We’ll wake up some Oct morning to a big announcement from the empty chair that he has killed all the bad guys in Libya. He’s trying to reassemble his foreign policy from the bits and pieces he started out with that has been poorly managed by the former first lady/first term senator/smartest woman in the world. These people are a joke. We live in and some die in a real world that is affected by their money/power grubbing/ego pumping mindless policies.

Kissmygrits on October 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Hmmm, have less than standard security in a highly unstable part of the world, leading inevitably to an incident of some type. Then plan a military counter strike right before the election to bolster your foreign policy credibility and get some voters to switch in a patriotic fervor.

And all based upon a movie nobody had seen, made by a criminal who had money troubles to begin with.

The White House’s narrative doesn’t add up.

rbj on October 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

A metrosexual terrorist? I mean come on, look at that guy.

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

If I had to guess, they will likely stage the op toward the end of the last week of October when the last jobs and unemployment reports are published.

TXUS on October 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

A “potential witness“? That’s not a bunch of flowers in the man’s left hand — it’s an assault rifle. He looks a lot more like a potential suspect than a potential witness.

I laugh at the media instence on referring to Johnny Lewis, the actor who murdered his elderly landlady last week as “allegedly” killing her. Do they really think the dismembered cat did it?

Blake on October 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Blow up an aspirin factory, maybe?

michaelo on October 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

…does that mean someone’s getting a B J again?

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

..will be sending a cruise missile into the infamous movie’s production studio..

PatriotRider on October 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

US planning to attack terror networks in Benghazi?

This reminds me of when Clinton started operation desert shield me from impeachment…

Gatsu on October 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Is there a reason nothing has been moved over to Top Picks since noon yesterday, despite the fact that several threads are in the high hundreds of comments?

MadisonConservative on October 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it? Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation.

Here’s hoping that no American troops will be put in harm’s way because a rat-eared coward is trying to do political damage control after weeks of lying to the American public.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I had the same reaction when I heard this on the early morning ABC News.

Gosh but I’m confused. First, the White House won’t comment because the consulate is a “crime scene” and the FBI will investigate it as such as soon as possible.

Now the military? Is anybody in the MSM going to point out the obvious contradiction here?

Drained Brain on October 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

October surprise. Make up for inattention to our diplomats’ security by kicking some ass just before the election. If you’re a Democrat, you can get away with it, no problem, even if a few troops get killed. THAT will be blamed on the terrorists, not on feckless leadership in the White House and the State Department!

drunyan8315 on October 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I laugh at the media instence on referring to Johnny Lewis, the actor who murdered his elderly landlady last week as “allegedly” killing her. Do they really think the dismembered cat did it?

Blake on October 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I’m actually okay with ‘allegedly’ and ‘potential’ as descriptors.

There has been no conviction, and we are innocent until proven guilty. That a guilty verdict seems a foregone conclusion doesn’t change the fact that he hasn’t been convicted yet.

Washington Nearsider on October 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

“I never bluff”–Barack “I bluff all the time” Obama

eyedoc on October 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

This reminds me of when Clinton started operation desert shield me from impeachment…

Gatsu on October 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I remember that complete with claiming that he couldn’t be impeached because as CINC he was covered by the Soldiers & Sailors Relief Act which prohibits lawsuits of military personnel while engaged in combat.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Look for it right before the election.

profitsbeard on October 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Tomahawks into baby formula and aspirin factories!!!

Attack! Attack!!1

ted c on October 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Waitasec…Isn’t everything fine now that they arrested that dirty, rotten, film maker?///

I mean…Obama apologized at the UN and everything…

What’s the next step? Buy the world some a coke and go sing on a hillside?

kingsjester on October 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Well sure, don’t they always send in Super Hornets and SEAL teams at your local crime scenes? Why just yesterday I saw a dude get pulled over for speeding and then the trooper called in an alpha strike on the poor guy.

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM

A metrosexual terrorist? I mean come on, look at that guy.

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

I don’t know, he looks more like he could be a member of the Village People to me.

TXUS on October 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

what better way to show that you are tough on jihadis than to leave your peeps defenseless in Benghazi, then roll on up in there strong and vaporize all of them that took advantage of their defenselessness. I guess that’s one way to show yourself a hero. A little contrived, but heroic nonetheless……/

ted c on October 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Top Secret to Obama means “Get it on the front page of the NY Times to make me look good, damn it!”

So without any presence in Benghazi, no investigations, and no activity for 2 weeks, we’re supposed to believe the WH knows who the terrorists were specifically to target them for death? This is not going to end well.

smfic on October 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Ed I think you are just sometimes not cynical enough to get this current administration.

Obama does not need to actually get the people responsible, all he needs is to make it look like he did. To that end a quick strike that kills any Lybians can be called a success, Obama can easily lie long enough to get the newspapers to push the narrative that he was successful in seeking revenge just prior to the election. Win the election and then worry about covering up the deception after he has secured power.

Skwor on October 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Uh, there is no way that obama will launch an attack against his muslim comrades.

Pork-Chop on October 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

October surprise. Make up for inattention to our diplomats’ security by kicking some ass just before the election. If you’re a Democrat, you can get away with it, no problem, even if a few troops get killed. THAT will be blamed on the terrorists, not on feckless leadership in the White House and the State Department!

drunyan8315 on October 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Took the words right out of mouth.

goflyers on October 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Win the election and then worry about covering up the deception after he has secured power.

Skwor on October 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Or.

Just own it. “In the weeks after the election, our Administration has learned that there are additional individuals who were involved with the cowardly assassination of Ambassador Stevens. At my instruction, and with my explicit guidance, the military of the United States is undertaking operations to bring them to justice.”

Who in the media would even blink?

Washington Nearsider on October 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

How are they ever going to track down spontaneous movie rioters?

The Count on October 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

this

congma on October 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM

“The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, the officials said. Working with the Pentagon and the C.I.A., the command is preparing the dossiers ….”

JSOC working not just with the CIA but with the Pentagon, too? Obama must be relly serial about damage control for his failures and lying if he’s ordered JSOC to work with the Pentagon.

Is this a NYT idiocy or was that in Obama’s top secret, “for NYT eyes only” press release?

Dusty on October 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

…does that mean someone’s getting a B J again?

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Whoever they are at the giving end, I hope they are keeping the dress :)…

jimver on October 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

When will this amount of attention be given to the Mexican drug gangs who are killing our officers with guns we provided.

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

You say we are tracking down “terror networks”?

Somebody should let Susan Rice in on the news. And Jay Carney.

And for God’s sake, can we let Winston Smith, errrr Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, know that his thought crime prosecution is over and he is free to go.

The Mostly Scumbag Media (MSM) have a lot to answer for, but allowing an American government to imprison a man for putting up a TouTube political clip is right up there with the worst of it.

MTF on October 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I’m more than ready to be all over this one. But ain’t you jumping the gun just a little bit?

We don’t even know if the shooter was considerate enough to leave his weapon this time.

cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

…does that mean someone’s getting a B J again?

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Whoever they are at the giving end, I hope they are keeping the dress :)…

jimver on October 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

wait…I am alerting myself to my own gender bias here….what with the TFGP preezy, one never knows, there might not bea y dressesaftef all…

jimver on October 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

‘There might not be any dress after all’…..siri refuses to take my dictation :)…and my fingers to type correctly :)…

jimver on October 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I’m more than ready to be all over this one. But ain’t you jumping the gun just a little bit?

We don’t even know if the shooter was considerate enough to leave his weapon this time.

cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Good point, and there is reason to believe that our border patrol guy might have fired beanbags at his assailants first and they were simply defending themselves.

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Why is there a photo of ‘Bowzer’ of ‘Sha Na Na’ headlining this story?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on October 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Lybians better stock up on aspirin, there is about to be a shortage of aspirin making factories!

geramy2012 on October 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM

…and there is reason to believe that our border patrol guy might have fired beanbags at his assailants first and they were simply defending themselves.

Bishop on October 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

That’s one more reason I’m ready to be all over this. I want to know what kind of firepower our side had.

cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

With the numerous previous attacks that were ignored as an indicator of attention paid and concern for American life, I would say the next B S “leak” fron the WH will suggest a Possible strike after the election, maybe. O & his band of clowns do’t want American Special Ops casualties right before an election. A force that has automatic weapons, mortars, and RPG’s is formidable in street fighting,

arand on October 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Osama’s ghost is baaaaack!

albill on October 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

A “potential witness“? That’s not a bunch of flowers in the man’s left hand — it’s an assault rifle. He looks a lot more like a potential suspect than a potential witness.

Dunno, man — first thing I do when I hear gunshots outside is pop a 40-rounder in my AK and run out to see what’s going on…

affenhauer on October 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

That’s one more reason I’m ready to be all over this. I want to know what kind of firepower our side had.

cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

@adamhousley

My contacts in Mexico say two people have been detained in the Ivie case. U.S. authorities have heard the same & are trying to confirm

Flora Duh on October 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Oh, no! Not the STRONGLY WORDED LETTER!!

CurtZHP on October 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Given our lack of attention to the threats in that region before the sacking of our consulate, it may be longer than that before we have a clear idea who to hit.

I wouldn’t be all too adamant in thinking that Obama’s, Clinton’s, and Clapper’s lack of attention to the threats translates into the Pentagon’s, or the CIA’s, for that matter, lack of attention to them.

If there is any long delay in responding as implied in the story, I’d suggest it will be have everything to do with Barry’s renowned ability to think everything through thoughtfully and wisely.

Dusty on October 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it? Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Being “back on top” assumes that the administration ever was on top.

bofh on October 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Great, now they are leaking more intelligence information on potential targets and using JSOC as a pawn in political games.

Right now, the rats are scrambling for sewers.

Funny thing about “Top Secret” is that it is so for a reason.

I suppose the NYT didn’t realize there are already investigations going on regarding the leaking of Top Secret intelligence from the Executive Branch. This type of data can only come from someone at that level.

When will the leaking that endangers our military from Mr. Obama’s administration stop?

Marcus Traianus on October 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM

What time is tonight’s debate and how does that translate to local time in Libya? Is the press pool already in the air?

cozmo on October 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM

wag…….the……dog.

PappyD61 on October 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Did everyone stay up late last night? Well let me be the first on this one; SQUIRREL!!!!!!!

D-fusit on October 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM

“There you go again moment” for Mitt to take advantage of–warning terrorists of our intentions…

hillsoftx on October 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Blow up an aspirin factory, maybe?

michaelo on October 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

…does that mean someone’s getting a B J again?

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Every time I see one of those “When Clinton Lied Nobody Died” bumper stickers, I think of those Sudanese factory workers who apparently don’t count.

SoFlaCon on October 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Reminds me of how the Obama Adm bragged about getting the militants responsible for shooting down that helicopter in Afghanistan with all those SEALs on board.

Shortly after all of the SEALs were killed somehow the WH knew exactly who was responsible, found them hiding in the mountains, and blew them away.

Can’t you imagine the same thing happening soon?
Not sure the Afghan president will go along with more WH lies, but we know the MSMedia will.

bailey24 on October 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Let’s pause for a moment here. If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it? Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation.

If you think this leak is bad, take a gander at this cat Obama let out of the bag:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Small teams of special operations forces arrived at American embassies throughout North Africa in the months before militants launched the fiery attack that killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya. The soldiers’ mission: Set up a network that could quickly strike a terrorist target or rescue a hostage.

Seriously, there are major problems with publishing this, both diplomatically and for reasons of security.

Dusty on October 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it? Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation.

Don’t you see what they are doing here? Now they can say the reason they have “misled” us all this time was to have a better chance to go after terrorists in Libya and not to spook them. Their lies, err, misrepresentations, were simply REQUIRED to keep unsuspecting terrorists in the dark, so no, WH did not lie, really.

riddick on October 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM

If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it?

Gee, it’s not like this administration has ever leaked any other national security secrets to make the Preezy look tough and decisive.

July 24, 2012:
Attorney General Eric Holder has launched an investigation looking into the leaks that revealed cyber-attacks against Iran and a plot by al Qaida to bomb an airliner. Republicans have been critical of the White House over recent leaks, blaming the administration for playing politics with national security.

I wonder how that investigation is coming along…

Hill60 on October 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM

There seems to be a common denominator in all of the incidents that have killed our people in Libya!What if the plan was to eliminate our people in the embassy and let all of the secret documents be taken by our country’s enemies? What information was lost and why was it so important that we let four citizens die for loosing it? We armed these terrorists and let them freely attack our embassy and take all of our secret documents. Sure sounds like a planned attack by both sides to me. Our prez is a mudslum and is supporting them every chance he gets while our congress people look the other way. Smells like a Kenyan in the woodpile to me!
If America is to remain free Odumba has to be removed from the oval office. A huge vote against this mudslum domestic terrorist would be a vote for our freedom and the proper way to remove him since the news media and congress will not do their jobs and impeach and imprison him for treason and impersonating an American citizen.

harvey1 on October 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

We’re coming in!!
So all you bad guys…
Find somewhere else to go for a while..

Thank you for your attention.

Electrongod on October 3, 2012 at 9:27 AM

.
Huh … that was my first thought, as well.

listens2glenn on October 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Yes, this is smart. Why don’t we just email them & let them know to get out of the way? How about a Facebook post or some Twitter messages to tell the terrorists. No the “Clown Show” administration is screaming our military intentions to the New Treason Times. Have no fear, they’ll let the terrorists know what’s about to happen! What’s that old saying about a dog that barks, doesn’t bite? So, if we’re lucky, this clown will pull a Clinton & blow up a Baby Food Factory! Great… I’m sure the families of the 4 dead will be most grateful for that…
For those following,How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Wag The Dog II

Will little Barry move from the chair in the corner to the head
of the conference table in the situation room photo op?

Amjean on October 3, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Oh, no! Not the STRONGLY WORDED LETTER!!

CurtZHP on October 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

.
And after that, the “soft cushions”.

And after that . . . . . (you know the rest).

listens2glenn on October 3, 2012 at 11:20 AM

CODE PINK, CODE PINK, where are you? Heck, Anti-War Left, where are you?

You seemed more active during the Bush years for some reason.

sentinelrules on October 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Don’t worry, as soon as Romney is taking his Oath of Office, Code Pink and company will be back protesting with a vengeance!

PrettyD_Vicious on October 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Nothing will happen before the election.

A Carter-style desert SNAFU would cement the meme.

Bruno Strozek on October 3, 2012 at 11:30 AM

So let me get this straight- the administration is getting ready to kill a bunch of people implicated in the attacks- but the FBI are still 400 miles away from the crime scene and can’t investigate to find out who did what.

So either they don’t know what happened and can’t comment because the investigation is ongoing- or else they know precisely who did what and are getting ready to kill them.

Which is it?

Jay Mac on October 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM

“I never bluff”–Barack “I bluff all the time” Obama

eyedoc on October 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

“Don’t call my bluff”……dude.

Solaratov on October 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM

If this is so “top-secret,” then how can the NYT be reporting on it? Simple: the administration is leaking this in the desperate attempt to look like they’re back on top of this situation.

Or what about to feign outrage and do some saber rattling because that is what would be expected? The administration insisted the consulate remain defenseless in spite of all the glaring evidence of impending violence, aaand…. in spite of the pleas of the whistle-blowers, still would not do anything to protect American citizens (and U.S. intelligence).
No attempt to impede an attack at Benghazi was made. Why would the White House and State suddenly be concerned that terrorists actually took advantage of the situation? The decision was made to leave the door open for aggression and hostilities. The only thing missing is the engraved invitation.

lynncgb on October 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Send in our elite Seal Teams to ‘settle down the worst’, then follow them up with a few platoons of Marines to mop up whatever is left…

elihu on October 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Whatever happened to COVERT operations? Do it in the dark and don’t tell anyone, WTF, it’s like these clowns forgot junior high school.

FineasFinn on October 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM