Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on November 21, 2012, 09:20:46 AM
-
Much of this affair (double entendre intended) defies the existing categories of this forum. It is not Libya, but Libya is relevant. It is not Intel Matters, but intel issues are relevant. Apart from and in addition to the titilating qualities, it does seem an insight into how things sometimes work behind the curtain. Anyway, herewith a thread dedicated to the Petraeus affair from this point forward (previous posts on all this can be found in the Libya thread):
Turning Brass Into Gold
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 20, 2012 219 Comments
The New York Times
The flesh is weak but the spirit of commerce is willing.
The sexy part of Washington’s newest sex scandal has waned. The crass part is cranking up.
As The Times’s Scott Shane writes: “The major players have hired high-profile, high-priced representatives to manage the fallout, watch for legal trouble, police the press and massage damaged reputations.”
And, no doubt, pave the way for future book deals, cushy jobs and TV apologias in honeyed light with Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters.
The tears and lip gloss started flowing Tuesday at a press conference at the Ritz-Carlton here featuring a distraught twin, a befuddled press corps and Gloria Allred, the feminist avenger last seen tormenting Herman Cain over sexual harassment charges.
One minute you’re the Boy Scout C.I.A. chief, or the Dudley Do-Right general poised to be the next Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The next you’re in trouble with your wife, your career is a late-night chew toy and you’re headed to Allred’s Wikipedia page to join such headlines as: “Gloria Allred: Tiger Woods’s True Opponent?,” “Roman Polanski Hit by Fresh Sex Allegations,” “Gloria Allred Seeks Rush Limbaugh Prosecution,” “Porn Star Says Representative Weiner Asked Her to Lie,” and “Attorney Gloria Allred Now Connected to Causeway Cannibal Case.”
The news conference with Allred and her latest curvy client, Natalie Khawam, Jill Kelley’s identical saturnine twin, was so weird it was hard to figure out if it was real, a Bravo pilot or a Lifetime Christmas movie in search of a good miracle.
“My sister Jill and I aren’t just twins, we’re best friends, literally inseparable,” said Khawam, wearing a demure navy dress and navy suede 4-inch heels with gold trim. She continued: “We played varsity tennis together. She played net and I served.” (Don’t you have to alternate?)
With tears streaming down her cheeks, she went on: “We also played softball together. She was the catcher and I pitched. We love to cook together. I usually bake and she sautés. We used to study together. I loved math. She loved science, and she excelled in chemistry. We love to play piano and play chess.”
It was not clear why the twin, described by Allred as “a whistle-blower attorney,” was oversharing and then withholding. The two women called a press conference to not comment on the scandal that is the only reason anyone turned up at the press conference.
The soap opera Stephen Colbert calls “General’s Hospital” was sparked by Kelley, who got an F.B.I. friend in Tampa to pursue an investigation of Paula Broadwell’s taunting, jealous, anonymous e-mails, and who sent thousands of pages of e-mails herself to Gen. John Allen — a handful of which were sexually explicit enough to hold up his promotion.
Natalie had a cameo role, voguing with the generals and their wives, and persuading “King David” Petraeus and General Allen, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, to write letters in a bruising custody case as she fought her ex-husband — a honcho in the Iraq occupation — over their baby son.
Reporters, trying to fathom why they were there, asked Khawam and Allred a plethora of questions. But it seems that Natalie, who gingerly entered arm-in-arm with Gloria, just wanted everyone to know that she has filed an appeal to try to reverse a decision giving sole custody to her ex, after a D.C. judge deemed that Natalie had lodged “sensational accusations” against her former husband and was “a psychologically unstable person.”
In the “Military-Adulterous Complex,” as Time called it, the twin sisters and Broadwell were not shy about using their access to top generals to advance their own agendas.
Adam Victor, C.E.O. of TransGas Development Systems in New York, told reporters that Kelley — who swanned around Tampa and the MacDill Air Force Base, home to Centcom, as a trompe l’oeil diplomat for South Korea — had offered to set up a natural gas deal in South Korea in return for an $80 million commission.
“Kelley made it clear to me that General Petraeus put her in this position and that’s why she was able to have access to such senior levels that they were essentially doing a favor for General Petraeus,” Victor, who balked at the ludicrous $80 million, told ABC News’s Brian Ross.
Ross also reported that Broadwell grabbed the brass ring, starring in an infomercial for a company trying to gain military contracts for “strange-looking lightweight machine guns.”
“Watchdog groups say the use of Broadwell was a brilliant move by a company seeking an edge in Washington,” Ross said.
The military might want to have its future stars read Jane Austen as well as Grant and Rommel. “Pride and Prejudice” is full of warnings about the dangers of young ladies with exuberant, flirtatious, “unguarded and imprudent” manners visiting military regiments and preening in “all the glories of the camp.”
Such folly and vanity, the ever wise Elizabeth Bennet cautioned, can lead to censure and disgrace.
-
Start it with Maureen Dowdy, great. :-(
Two more naval officers were relieved this week, a Captain and a Commander, due to misconduct. It is beginning to suggest a "rot" at the upper levels of the military.
Of course, this has always been present in all forces, but never really mentioned or acted upon so publicly.
I have to wonder what is bringing this to the forefront now. It seems that with all the publicity, there must be ulterior motives at work.
-
Someone else with a strong background in these things recently made a very similar comment to me. With that in mind, I have added to the name of this thread.
As far as Dowd goes , , , :lol: , , , I actually thought some of her comments here actually captured the circus/farce aspects of what this matter looks to become in the hands of the Pravdas, Gloria Alred, and others of that ilk.
-
Forwarded to me by an unreliable source; many specious comments herein, but some worthy questions are raised as well , , ,
Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up
- Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives) Thursday, November 29, 2012
(31) Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
857
This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.
DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?
II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.
DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?
II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there.
DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?
II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down.
DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.
II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons - gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.
What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.
The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among ‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.
From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government.
Why Syria, why not Iran?
II: It’s both, but Syria is the primary target here for this operation. First, look at the bigger picture, look at the so-called “Arab Spring.” Who benefits and by default, who doesn’t? Who is the architect for what’s going on throughout the Middle East and North Africa? Whose agenda is being implemented? To specifically address Benghazi, though, look at the bigger picture here and what is trying to be accomplished.
The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia’s private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged. Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi’s interests. It’s about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say, what’s going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia.
Look at what we see happening in Egypt. Destabilization. Do you think the Russians want that? Hell no. Syria is Russia’s red line in the sand, as you earlier wrote. If Syria is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood by the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in this administration, what happens? Well, it will have an adverse impact on Russia from a military standpoint. They will likely lose access to their Mediterranean deep water port in Syria, which is Tartus.
But think further - three dimensionally. Russia is still the world’s largest oil producer, and that’s Russia’s primary source of income. Then there’s Turkey, adjacent to Syria. A large amount of Russian oil and gas, consumed by the West, flows through Turkey, which is also a player in this operation.
So, the destabilization of Syria which is exactly what Obama and Clinton are trying to do, presents a direct military and economic threat to Russia. Assad at least has kept things in check in Syria. Can you imagine Assad being replaced by someone like Morsi? That would strike at the very heart of Russia’s economic health and military capabilities. Think of what’s at stake here. Do Americans want a regional war? World War III? Has Obama or Clinton asked the American people if this is what they want?
Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia.
What about Assad’s war crimes?
Assad is no angel, but don’t be fooled by the death toll attributed to him. Now this is important. Remember the first Gulf War? In the run up to Desert Storm, a young woman testified before the Human Rights Caucus - she only testified under her first name, which was Nayirah. Remember that she testified that Iraqi soldiers were taking infants from incubators in Kuwait, leaving them to die? Her testimony was supposedly confirmed by Amnesty International. Her testimony went viral, and every war hawk in the U.S. government cited her testimony, saying we needed to right the wrongs, the inhumanity. It was all one big lie!
After Desert Storm, it was revealed that Nayirah’s last name was Al-Sabah, and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Her testimony was part of a publicity campaign organized by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which was run by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm out of New York. People must learn the back story.
So we see a body count attributed to Assad. Who’s doing the killing, Assad’s people? Maybe at times, but the Free Syrian Army and other groups are doing most of the slaughter. It’s one huge ‘false flag’ operation and the media is selling it hard. And Americans are buying it, just like the testimony of the girl from Kuwait.
It’s one big lie being told by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and others. Many Americans are buying the lie, and the media is selling the lie. The people behind this are laughing at us. Don’t you get it? They’re laughing at us.
And do you want to know what’s at stake? Four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Forty thousand have been killed so far in Syria. Tens of thousands of Syrian people have become refugees. Why? For what? To advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. For oil.
You know, the so-called right wing establishment were all up in arms about Obama’s submissive bow to the Saudi King. Where are they now? Where’s the outrage that the body count will be much greater than Forty thousand? It is anticipated that if the Obama plan succeeds, not only will America be committed to yet another war, but the body count could be as high as FOUR MILLION. Christians, among others, will be slaughtered. This could trigger a third world war, it’s that serious.
What are Russia and Iran doing? Certainly, they must be fighting back.
Benghazi was a strike against us, the Obama-Clinton agenda. A visible strike, and I’ll explain more about this shortly, because there are events I will point out that will put it all into perspective. But think of it this way. How did we successfully collapse the Soviet Union? I mean, what was the last straw? We attacked their currency - the Ruble. They’re still stinging from that, and Putin was in the KGB at the time. Do you think he forgot about that?
So, how do, or will Russia and Iran strike back if Obama and Clinton continue this insanity? Militarily? Possibly in regional conflicts, but to take us out, to stop us, what is the one area where we are very vulnerable? It’s our economy - our dollar. What’s our dollar tied to? Not gold or silver anymore, and some say it’s not tied to anything. Well, that’s not quite correct. It’s tied to OIL. The free-flow of oil.
Oil transactions everywhere in the world, including Russia and China, are made with U.S. dollars. We buy their oil with our dollars, and they return with those same paper dollars and employ Americans by buying our goods and services. As Michael Reagan wrote: “[t]his system is also crucial to the security of our diplomatic and legal infrastructure, which is ultimately backed by our military. It’s the core of our foreign policy.” He also wrote that “any attack on the free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that attack is successful!”
Tomorrow Part II
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
-
Anything from Doug Hagmann should be taken with a 50 pound bag of rock salt, IMHO.
-
Care to flesh that out GM?
-
I heard today that Rice was the one responsible for passing on the Sudanese offer years ago to hand over Bin Laden. Is this accurate?
-
Care to flesh that out GM?
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2005/04/21
Zarqawi's Nuclear Threat
Host: George Noory
Guests: Douglas Hagmann, Jon Rappoport
During the middle two hours, Douglas Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network discussed reports that say al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mousab al Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device and/or is preparing radiological 'dirty bombs' (made by mixing radioactive material with conventional explosives) for a strike against the United States.
Hagmann believes the U.S. government has released this latest information to prepare its citizens for the next "inevitable" attack. According to Hagmann, Zarqawi may have as many as 20 suitcase nukes (with a 1-to-10 kiloton yield), some of which may already be in America. State sponsorship could also be involved, Hagmann explained, with Iran, China, and Russia contributing in some way to al Qaeda's nuclear capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate Russia is, in fact, missing dozens of suitcase nukes, he said.
Hagmann also pointed out that Zarqawi was stopped at a military checkpoint several months ago, but was not recognized. This was confirmed by government officials off-the-record, he claims. Hagmann noted Zarqawi has not been heard from since the Iraqi elections, and could be somewhere in North America. Despite not knowing Zarqawi's whereabouts, Hagmann believes the U.S. led war on terror has "dented the major leadership of al Qaeda," and will eventually find its founder -- Osama bin Laden.
It's my understanding that prior to 9/11, Hagmann was focused on UFO and Bigfoot investigations.
-
I heard today that Rice was the one responsible for passing on the Sudanese offer years ago to hand over Bin Laden. Is this accurate?
I would think the timing on that is close. Possible that she would be advising on that decision and that we will never know. Maybe she advised yes on the aspirin factory bombing. Did they intend to hit him then or was that really the distraction alleged from the Monica Lewinsky story? I Haven't read any Clinton staff autobiographies. My interests lie more with non-fiction. )
-
"At an interagency teleconference in late April [1994], Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”
- 'Bystanders to Genocide', by Samantha Power, Sept 2001, Atlantic Magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/
-
Put on this thread because Benghazi appears to be the impetus for the report, though it is more general about US diplomatic security globally:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42834.pdf
-
By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst
Now everyone knows that CIA Director David Petraeus was unfaithful to his wife and that former top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal made improper remarks to a journalist. Therefore, these two Army generals were removed from their jobs -- Petraeus recently and McChrystal two years ago -- and publicly humiliated.
Let me add some perspective regarding the careers of these two men.
In December 2006, just before Petraeus took command of all U.S. forces in Iraq and when McChrystal was in charge of counterterrorism there, Baghdad was sustaining 140 suicide bombs per month, with dozens killed in many attacks. In December 2007, largely because of the efforts of both men, that figure was reduced to five per month. The civilian lives saved as a consequence numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands per year. That's real humanitarianism -- unlike the faux humanitarianism often heard at international meetings.
Now let me add some perspective on three other Army generals, who had clean public records and thus were never humiliated to nearly the same extent by the media: Tommy Franks, Ricardo Sanchez and George Casey. According to Thomas E. Ricks' new book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, among other sources, Franks did not plan sufficiently for the post-invasion stabilization of Iraq, Sanchez allowed an insurgency to start and mushroom there and Casey allowed that insurgency to continue without taking creative countermeasures. Franks and Sanchez were arguably guilty of incompetence according to Ricks and others, and Casey was by almost all accounts a mediocrity in over his head as commander in Baghdad. The 140 suicide bombs per month in Baghdad with which Petraeus and McChrystal had to contend were the product of the failed generalships of Franks, Sanchez and Casey.
Petraeus, by contrast, conceived (with help from the Marines) of an alternative kind of war (counterinsurgency), implemented it in the midst of an ongoing conflict and taught his army how to employ it. In the process, he made better use of McChrystal's skills than had previous American commanders. As a consequence, with the arguable exceptions of generals Matthew Ridgway in Korea and Creighton Abrams in Vietnam, Petraeus ranks as perhaps the greatest American Army general since George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in World War II.
The result: Petraeus was brought down by what, according to the New York Times, might well have been an invasion of privacy by the FBI, even as McChrystal had his reputation irreparably damaged by an aggressive Rolling Stone reporter.
In other words, we erect gods and we get -- sorry -- human beings. Not only that, we get human beings under severe stress who are, by nature of their chemistry and circumstances, imperfect.
Let's examine the stress that Petraeus and McChrystal were under in the course of their careers. Whereas the Greatest Generation was on the whole deployed in a war theater for less than three years, Petraeus and McChrystal were deployed longer in a cumulative sense: almost half a decade when you include visits to the region, in addition to their deployments. Moreover, because they were deployed in Muslim countries, they had no access to even an occasional glass of beer on base. Eisenhower spent the war in London allegedly with a mistress -- his chauffeur and secretary, Kay Summersby. That was not frowned upon.
What should concern us regarding Petraeus was the possibility of a security breach; his private life should be, well, private -- the Army code of conduct notwithstanding. What should have outraged us about the McChrystal affair was the very fact of the removal of a brilliant commander because he had dropped his guard with a reporter from a left-wing journal.
Here's when you should ask, What would Abraham Lincoln have done? When told that Gen. Ulysses S. Grant drank alcohol to excess, Lincoln remarked: "Find out what Grant drinks and send a barrel of it to my other generals." Lincoln was not interested in personal foibles in this case; he was only interested in winning a war. Our leaders and public should be, too. Gen. George McClellan was disloyal to Lincoln, but Lincoln might have forgiven McClellan even that if the general could have fought better than he did.
History is replete with the imperfections of great and extremely competent men. Richard Nixon made derogatory remarks about blacks and Jews; he was also a brilliant strategist who reopened America's relations with communist China, leveraged that relationship to counter the Soviet Union and re-established relations with Egypt and Syria after saving Israel with arms deliveries during the Yom Kippur War. Jimmy Carter, by contrast, was a morally perfect man. He was also the president under whose watch Nicaragua and Ethiopia were substantially lost to the West -- with eventual catastrophic consequences for human rights in the case of Ethiopia. Also under Carter's watch the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and a U. S. military operation in Iran went down in failure. The late Richard Holbrooke could be on a personal level extremely unpleasant, as I myself experienced close-up. He was also a brilliant diplomat who ended a war in the Balkans.
The issue here is not personalities. It is power. In a world of power and geopolitics, the best practitioners -- whether a Petraeus or a McChrystal or a Nixon or a Holbrooke -- are men who can get things done. Men who can get things done have the ability to take over a room, to force all the attention on themselves, give orders and have them actually carried out. And the orders they give are creative, morally based and well thought-through.
My purpose here is not to justify what Petraeus and McChrystal did. I am only saying that if the United States is to perform credibly as a great power it does not have the luxury to be ruled by the sensationalist standards of the media, in which incidents involving personal shortcomings are turned into soap operas. In such cases, assuming the person is not a serial offender in a way that impairs his professional competence, the country must forgive in order to allow its most able agents of authority to get on with the job.
Geopolitics -- the battle of space and power -- focuses on impersonal forces like geography, demography, economics and technology. But the actors in all cases are individuals. Individuals do matter. The Iraq War may well have been a mistake, but it was a mistake made worse by bad generalship and made better later on by good generalship -- that of Petraeus and McChrystal.
Be careful about demanding moral perfection from our leaders, civilian and military. In our personal lives we may be governed by a private morality in which someone like Petraeus can be found wanting. But in the public life of a nation, leaders must be judged by what they accomplish on behalf of the citizenry as a whole: that is, what they accomplish for the greater good. Geopolitics is a world governed by a morality of public results rather than a morality of private intentions. For if it is moral perfection that you want, you'll often get mediocrity and occasional incompetence as a result.
Read more: On Geopolitical Generals | Stratfor
-
Tuesday, September 18, just a week after the attack and two days after Rice’s appearance, on the "Late Show With David Letterman."
LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?
OBAMA: Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam --
LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.
OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.
(Quotes from RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html)
--------------
That makes two people, high up, who knew better, intentionally misleading the American people, for purely political purposes, not fit to be American Secretary of State - or any other high office.
Don't tell me what she said falsely on 5 talk shows didn't come directly from the White House.
-
And, unlike Rice, whom Baraq said could not be held accountable because she wasn't informed :roll: THE PRESIDENT cannot say he was out of the loop!
-
The Other Susan Rice File How to embrace psychotic murderers and alienate a continent.
By BRET STEPHENS
The trouble with a newspaper column lies in the word limit. Last week, I wrote about some of Susan Rice's diplomatic misadventures in Africa during her years in the Clinton administration: Rwanda, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo. But there wasn't enough space to get to them all.
And Sierra Leone deserves a column of its own.
On June 8, 1999, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ms. Rice, then the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, delivered testimony on a range of issues, and little Sierra Leone was high on the list. An elected civilian government led by a former British barrister named Ahmad Kabbah had been under siege for years by a rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front, led by a Libyan-trained guerrilla named Foday Sankoh. Events were coming to a head.
Even by the standards of Africa in the 1990s, the RUF set a high bar for brutality. Its soldiers were mostly children, abducted from their parents, fed on a diet of cocaine and speed. Its funding came from blood diamonds. It was internationally famous for chopping off the limbs of its victims. Its military campaigns bore such names as "Operation No Living Thing."
In January 1999, six months before Ms. Rice's Senate testimony, the RUF laid siege to the capital city of Freetown. "The RUF burned down houses with their occupants still inside, hacked off limbs, gouged out eyes with knives, raped children, and gunned down scores of people in the street," wrote Ryan Lizza in the New Republic. "In three weeks, the RUF killed some 6,000 people, mostly civilians."
What to do with a group like this? The Clinton administration had an idea. Initiate a peace process.
It didn't seem to matter that Sankoh was demonstrably evil and probably psychotic. It didn't seem to matter, either, that he had violated previous agreements to end the war. "If you treat Sankoh like a statesman, he'll be one," was the operative theory at the State Department, according to one congressional staffer cited by Mr. Lizza. Instead of treating Sankoh as part of the problem, if not the problem itself, State would treat him as part of the solution. An RUF representative was invited to Washington for talks. Jesse Jackson was appointed to the position of President Clinton's special envoy.
It would be tempting to blame Rev. Jackson for the debacle that would soon follow. But as Ms. Rice was keen to insist in her Senate testimony that June, it was the Africa hands at the State Department who were doing most of the heavy lifting.
"It's been through active U.S. diplomacy behind the scenes," she explained. "It hasn't gotten a great deal of press coverage, that we and others saw the rebels and the government of Sierra Leone come to the negotiating table just a couple of weeks ago, in the context of a negotiated cease-fire, in which the United States played an important role."
A month later, Ms. Rice got her wish with the signing of the Lomé Peace Accord. It was an extraordinary document. In the name of reconciliation, RUF fighters were given amnesty. Sankoh was made Sierra Leone's vice president. To sweeten the deal, he was also put in charge of the commission overseeing the country's diamond trade. All this was foisted on President Kabbah.
In September 1999, Ms. Rice praised the "hands-on efforts" of Rev. Jackson, U.S. Ambassador Joe Melrose "and many others" for helping bring about the Lomé agreement.
For months thereafter, Ms. Rice cheered the accords at every opportunity. Rev. Jackson, she said, had "played a particularly valuable role," as had Howard Jeter, her deputy at State. In a Feb. 16, 2000, Q&A session with African journalists, she defended Sankoh's participation in the government, noting that "there are many instances where peace agreements around the world have contemplated rebel movements converting themselves into political parties."
What was more, the U.S. was even prepared to lend Sankoh a helping hand, provided he behaved himself. "Among the institutions of government that we are prepared to assist," she said, "is of coursethe Commission on Resources which Mr. Sankoh heads."
Of course.
Three months later, the RUF took 500 U.N. peacekeepers as hostages and was again threatening Freetown. Lomé had become a dead letter. The State Department sought to send Rev. Jackson again to the region, but he was so detested that his trip had to be canceled. The U.N.'s Kofi Annan begged for Britain's help. Tony Blair obliged him.
"Over a number of weeks," Mr. Blair recalls in his memoirs, British troops "did indeed sort out the RUF. . . . The RUF leader Foday Sankoh was arrested, and during the following months there was a buildup of the international presence, a collapse of the rebels and over time a program of comprehensive disarmament. . . . The country's democracy was saved."
Today Mr. Blair is a national hero in Sierra Leone. As for Ms. Rice and the administration she represented, history will deliver its own verdict.
-
second post:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/10/Benghazi-Source-Unarmed/
-
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/SER%20letter.pdf
"... the confirmation would be lengthy, disruptive and costly -- to you and to our pressing...priorities."
Good grief. Sec State is in line of succession to be President. Expect a hard question. You have 55 Dem Senators. There aren't 5 Republicans reasonable enough to make 60 and allow a vote on the President's nominee.
She doesn't have an answer for why she went on 5 programs and lied to the American people. There wasn't a protest about a film that spiraled into launching of rocket-propelled grenades.
Questions about will reveal that the President made the same lies to the American people in the same time frame. This part of it isn't about having sensitive intelligence removed from a report. It is about having a lie inserted to fill in for an inconvenient truth omitted. Americans were killed by terrorists right where he was claiming one of his biggest victories.
I wrote previously that he should appoint Republican Susan Collins for the position. She was asking some of the hard questions of Susan Rice. If he picks Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Republican Scott Brown has a campaign staff all set to go. Maybe Jon Huntsman is available.
-
Swiftboat Kerry who threw his medals away after slandering our soldiers? Oy fg vey.
-
"Good grief. Sec State is in line of succession to be President."
The whole cabinet is. But, after the VP, it's the Speaker and Senate pro tem, then the cabinet begins.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/273661-benghazi-probe-faults-systemic-failures-at-state-department
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/273661-benghazi-probe-faults-systemic-failures-at-state-department
Who will be held accountable? Low to mid level resignations for systemic failures?
“did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”
Huh? No one (at the top) had a duty to have our security rise above systemic failure - at our most dangerous diplomatic mission - on the anniversary of 9/11?
"The report also confirms that there was no peaceful protest ahead of the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as the Obama administration initially said in the days after the attack."
Then why did they say there was? Who decided to put out a patently false story? If we can't hold the President accountable and if not the messenger Rice, Then whom?
The report itself http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2012/12_december/19/arb-report-benghazi.pdf reads like a political document to me. No one held accountable, except an unveiled attempt to blame the deceased:
"Plans for the Ambassador’s trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments."
The report goes on to blame the Libyans: "Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers."
We don't know who if anyone controls Libyan forces right now, especially in Benghazi. Who believed we could rely on Libyans for American security at a "high risk, high threat post"?
-
Hillary's concussion is as believable as Obama's tears. Notice he was wiping the outside corner of his eye repeatedly.
Folks those are hollywood fake tears. Real tears drip near the nose.
-
Four low level officials out, for allegedly... “husbanding resources” ... and that this culture contributed to the security deficiencies in Benghazi. According to the report, the culture at State “had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.”
Instead of firing these public servants maybe we could have transferred them over to HHS, GSA or SSA. Or to the new Pentagon where defense cuts are the order of the day, screw national security.
-
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=140&load=7856
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/inhofe-benghazi-cover-bigger-watergate-iran-contra/
-
I am completely unfamiliar with this source, but on the whole it is quite consistent with conversations I have had from people I believe to be quite informed about these things.
==================
MORE EXPLOSIVE INTEL ABOUT THE BENGHAZI ATTACK!. THE PLOT IS DEEPER AND WIDER AND IS THE WORST "SECRET" IN THE INTEL WORLD. OUR CONGRESSMEN ARE BEING LIED TO AND THEY ARE CHUMPS FOR JUST WHINING ABOUT IT.
The hidden real truth about Benghazi: GET THESE DETAILS OUT SO THE BLIND CAN SEE THE LIGHT AND THE IGNORANT CAN SEE THE TRUTH!
>>CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN<<<<<
All 111th Congress Fax Numbers in one file:Excel or Ascii csv
http://www.conservativeusa.org/links/complete-email-fax-list/?%2Fmega-cong.htm
A mosaic of lies
Here is are some of the facts... the MEDIA IS NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT....
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
Fallout
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
INFO FROM : Douglas Hagmann
Please contact the brave Congressman Jason Chaffetz and ask him to look at this story. I have posted there already. He is Investigating the Benghazi murders!
-
It would not surprise me that these "leaks" are still another cover story to justify the decision not to respond.
Whether or not the Benghazi facility was a consulate or a CIA operation is irrelevant to me. Likely, it was used as both. After all, Benghazi is the capital of the old province of Cyrenaica. Also, it was a center of the resistance to Qaddafi. The two "contractors" were killed at a safe house.
Rather than devising these convoluted explanations, Occam's Razor says that this attack was launched on 9-11-12 as part of a coordinated effort in North Africa to remind the US that despite the death of UBL, the forces of the new al Qaidas have been dispersed but not defeated. Benghazi was an easier target than Tripoli. This contradicted Obama's message at the Pentagon that morning. The administration's quick response turned out to be wrong. They persisted in the false narrative mainly for political reasons and because their polls disclosed that most Americans did not view this as a major election issue. They went too far with Rice, but she was a perfect unwitting accomplice. By the time the story began to unravel, it did not matter any more in the election.
-
Interesting posts Rick and Crafty. What we know for sure is that we will never hear the whole story through official administration channels. Something else was going on in that facility. The "independent" review seems to be more smoke and mirrors. Tough talk about failure, then 4 mid-level staffers get their desks moved.
Hillary leaves office with a 66% approval ratings, wholly unquestioned on all aspects of Benghazi. She took responsibility, then she didn't. The injury/illness seems like either BS or hiding something more serious (Daily Mail says it is not brain cancer even though the National Enquirer is known to check, re-check and check again before going to print: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/27/article-2253548-16A97F89000005DC-296_306x389.jpg). You couldn't keep her off a plane or away from a world leader, now she has been in hiding since December 7. Missed her testimony day, missed the State Dept Christmas party, missed the John Kerry announcement, didn't report the "fall" when it happened. That is not how you make health rumors go away, but worked pretty well for making hearings go away. How do you hold someone responsible for incompetence or malfeasance after they already resigned?
Politico is ready to help. Accuse the right of hate instead of the responsible party of dodging: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/when-will-the-right-start-hating-hillary-again-85510.html
-
Rick:
I agree that these leaks may well be used as another form of cover up.
At the same time I think them important for what they may reveal about US policy and the actions of other players in the region, including the Russians and the Iranians as well as the US and others.
The Russians may well have informed the Iranians of the US operation. Surely the Iranians would have been unhappy for Assad is their bastard. It would be in Iran's effort to disrupt the arms supplies and the potential for attendant US influence. There are plausible reports of "foreign" accents amongst the attackers on 911. Could they have been Iranian agents, guiding/manipulating the attack? If true, would this not be an act of war? (Like Iranian participation in attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afpakia? but I digress , , , )
Rick, if you would like some additional background on my thoughts here please give me a call at 310-543-7521.
-
I am completely unfamiliar with this source, but on the whole it is quite consistent with conversations I have had from people I believe to be quite informed about these things.
==================
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
INFO FROM : Douglas Hagmann
Please contact the brave Congressman Jason Chaffetz and ask him to look at this story. I have posted there already. He is Investigating the Benghazi murders!
The problem with the story is highlighted in red.
-
It would not surprise me that these "leaks" are still another cover story to justify the decision not to respond.
Whether or not the Benghazi facility was a consulate or a CIA operation is irrelevant to me. Likely, it was used as both. After all, Benghazi is the capital of the old province of Cyrenaica. Also, it was a center of the resistance to Qaddafi. The two "contractors" were killed at a safe house.
Rather than devising these convoluted explanations, Occam's Razor says that this attack was launched on 9-11-12 as part of a coordinated effort in North Africa to remind the US that despite the death of UBL, the forces of the new al Qaidas have been dispersed but not defeated. Benghazi was an easier target than Tripoli. This contradicted Obama's message at the Pentagon that morning. The administration's quick response turned out to be wrong. They persisted in the false narrative mainly for political reasons and because their polls disclosed that most Americans did not view this as a major election issue. They went too far with Rice, but she was a perfect unwitting accomplice. By the time the story began to unravel, it did not matter any more in the election.
I'd tend to go with Rick on this.
-
GM:
Your point is acknowledged. You have mentioned Hagman previously and I failed to note him this time around. That said, I have other reasons for finding what he says here plausible.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/22/facts-and-questions-about-what-happened-in-benghazi/#ixzz2IlfGGzs2
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/22/facts-and-questions-about-what-happened-in-benghazi/#ixzz2IlfGGzs2
Very good piece.
Link to coverage of the Clinton testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-to-appear-before-congress-over-benghazi-attack/2013/01/22/3f03f8ee-64ce-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html?tid=ts_carousel
- Did she answer any of the unanswered questions? Not really. Did she hurt her political future with her role in this disaster? I don't know.
From the Wash Post piece: Clinton told [Wisc. Sen. Ron] Johnson he was wrong and that he was missing the point with a narrow focus on the wording of the script Rice used. With four Americans dead, Clinton said angrily, “what difference at this point does it make?”
- That is her full answer to the lie that a spontaneous demonstration spun out of control - that anyone who asks it is missing the point that 4 are dead?
Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she takes responsibility for protecting diplomats and other employees abroad. “Nobody is more committed to getting this right..."
- But no one, in fact, was more responsible for getting it wrong. Unless she can say her demands for more security BEFORE the attack were denied by the Commander in Chief.
"Clinton has pledged to adopt all of the 29 recommendations from the independent Accountability Review Board, which include changes to the way diplomatic facilities in dangerous areas would be built and staffed."
- She sees herself, the one who was in of position of authority and ignored their timely pleas for help, as the reformer. She lacks competence integrity but has plenty of fight left in her. What is the lasting impression Democrat activists and voters take out of this?
Aside from the security questions, why was Susan Rice chosen instead of Hillary Clinton the front person for (mis)informing the American people as we tried to understand this deadly attack against Americans serving us? That wanted someone out of the loop, who could easily be wrong on the prepared points and say I don't know on the follow up questions. What role did Sec. Clinton play in choosing Susan Rice as the point person, instead of choosing to inform the American people timely and openly? A UN Ambassador to discuss a State Department security disaster??
My prediction is that next for the out-going Secretary is a rather lucrative book deal that glosses over her role in this scandal.
-
Paul Wolfowitz: Hillary and 'Leading From Behind'
Why did Mrs. Clinton outsource to Qatar the arming of the opposition in Libya and Syria?.
By PAUL WOLFOWITZ
Four months after terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, killed four Americans—including the popular and effective Ambassador Chris Stevens—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will finally testify before Congress on Wednesday. The testimony should be an occasion to examine how the disaster was part of a larger failure in Libya and a still larger one in Syria that will haunt U.S. interests in the Middle East for decades.
Lawmakers will ask Mrs. Clinton why security in Benghazi was so lax on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and why the Obama administration claimed falsely that the terrorist attack was a response to an obscure and distasteful anti-Islamic video when available evidence made clear that the attack was a well-planned operation with likely connections to al Qaeda. For months, the danger in Benghazi had been growing. The evidence included attacks on the British ambassador, the United Nations special envoy to Libya, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the U.S. Consulate itself. Even in Tripoli, Libya's capital, Islamist militias had—in broad daylight and with bulldozers—demolished a mosque that they considered heretical.
How is it that the State Department had no plans for an emergency evacuation in September, even though 18 months earlier, at the start of the Libyan revolution, it had struggled to evacuate diplomats from Tripoli using a chartered Italian ferry? Why did the U.S. Africa Command have no dedicated forces available to respond to the emergency in Benghazi, even though it had conducted extensive combat operations in Libyan airspace just a year before?
According to Vice President Joe Biden, the White House was never warned about security concerns in Libya. "Those are things that are handled by security personnel at the State Department," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. Did the State Department think it unimportant to inform the president's staff? Did it consider asking the Pentagon to have forces in place to respond to an emergency?
But there is a larger question that has bearing on U.S. policy across the region, namely: In a country with a population that is generally friendly and even grateful to Americans, how does a moderate and well-intentioned government—elected in the country's first free elections—have no effective control over powerful extremist militias?
Mrs. Clinton deserves great credit for her leadership when Moammar Gadhafi's forces threatened to overrun Benghazi in early 2011. But she also deserves to be questioned about the subsequent U.S. decision to outsource to Qatar the task of arming and organizing the Libyan opposition. Now, even though Islamist extremists failed to get the votes in last summer's elections, they have the guns and the country's strongest military organizations (which also contribute to instability elsewhere in Africa).
The broader failure in Libya results from an approach to the Middle East that an unnamed Obama administration official called "leading from behind" in a moment of off-the-record candor in 2011. That approach is having even more damaging consequences now in Syria.
The U.S. failure to provide weapons, training or even medical support to the Syrian opposition is yielding the very consequences that U.S. officials claimed would flow from outside intervention. It has helped prolong the conflict, which has now left some 60,000 dead and some two million displaced. It has also enabled extremist fighters armed by fundamentalist Persian Gulf governments, and even elements directly linked to al Qaeda, to gain a growing and perhaps dominant role in the opposition. Thus when the U.S. recognized Syria's new opposition coalition last month, it also designated one of the important new militias, the Nusrah Front, as a terrorist organization.
Even moderate Syrian opposition groups greeted this U.S. designation with disdain, reflecting the irrelevance with which America is now regarded by many Syrians. Where the Syrian opposition started out openly hostile to Russia, China and Iran, the U.S. failure to offer anything except empty rhetoric has caused deep resentment among previously friendly Syrians.
U.S. inaction may in fact have produced a situation in which a post-Assad Syria will be intensely anti-American, perhaps even dominated by extremists. The outcome that some feared would be the result of American action may instead result from American inaction.
It is perfectly understandable why the Obama administration wants to do nothing that would lead to a repetition of the invasion of Iraq. But no one is arguing for any such thing. The administration seems not to remember that the first Bush administration's failure to protect Iraqi Shiites in 1991, when their uprising was crushed by Saddam Hussein, helped lead to a second war in Iraq 12 years later. Or that an international arms embargo kept the Bosnians defenseless for three years against the Serbs and led to American military intervention in 1995, including the stationing of tens of thousands of NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans.
Policy makers should never underestimate the risks of action in the face of any armed conflict, but neither should they underestimate the risks of inaction. Refusing to give people the means to defend themselves—especially when their interests are congruent with those of the U.S.—can end up forcing America to do much more later. It can also breed lasting resentment by the people we abandon.
Although the outcome in Syria won't be known for some time, it will weigh heavily in judgments of Mrs. Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. As she leaves office, the American people deserve to know whether she supports the leading-from-behind approach that has undone some of the Libyan achievement and dangerously prolonged the war in Syria. If it is the president's policy and not hers, now is the time to voice her objections. If it is her policy, too, then it is fair to ask her to defend it and to be held accountable for its consequences.
Mr. Wolfowitz, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has served as deputy U.S. secretary of defense and U.S. ambassador to Indonesia.
-
What a farce yesterday! :-P :-P :-P
Morris gets a lot right here, but personally I would have liked to see the failure to defend our people as the center of questioning, along with what did the President know and when did he know it and WTF did he do about it?
=====================
Senators, Hillary Miss The Point At Hearing
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 24, 2012
During the entire farce of the Senate Hearing on Benghazi, nobody mentioned the words video or film or movie. Or the word cover-up. It would be like covering a moon shot without mentioning the word space.
Reality to the Senate: The only reason for the hearing was to determine how the decision to cover-up the Benghazi killings by pretending it was a demonstration gone awry. It was not to decide how to avoid these situations in the future or to ask about State Department procedures. We just re-elected a president who won, in part, by deliberately deceiving us about a terror attack on September 11th, the eleventh anniversary of the original attack. He pretended that the violence was connected to a video and it was not. That is what these hearings should have been about.
Instead, they were about everything but.
It wasn't until Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal) in the House hearing -- after three hours of Capitol Hill testimony -- that anyone even mentioned the film or the video. To his credit, Rohrabacher asked the question squarely and to her discredit, Hillary ducked it.
When Senator Jeff Flake and John McCain got closer to the issue of the cover-up -- without addressing it directly -- Hillary flared and asked "what difference does it make?" It makes quite a difference. Tony Blair was forced out of office because he "sexed up" a memo about Saddam's WMD capabilities. If President Obama blamed the attack in Libya on a film, knowing that it was not a demonstration but a planned terrorist attack and did so two months before an election, then that is an impeachable offense. That's what difference it makes.
But, even within the foul lines of the soft ball questions she was asked, Hillary's replies were evasive.
Her best, which deserves a place in history, was when she asked if she knew of the twenty previous attacks in Benghazi she replied, "I was aware of those that were brought to my attention."
She said she was "not involved in the talking points" White House spokespeople used to describe the attack. But then she admitted her staff was. So she was involved.
She pleaded a lack of capability to stem the attack. But in an age of supersonic planes, drones, and cruise missiles, can she really maintain that we had no military assets to bring to bear? The truth is that Obama wanted to keep our footprint in Libya light so as not to evoke their - and his own - dismal memories of European and Western colonialism with a robust military presence. It was political correctness, not a lack of military assets, which made it impossible to save our ambassador's life.
And then there was the phone that never rang. Pressed by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin on why she didn't just call the men who returned from Benghazi to find out what happened, she claimed not to want to interfere with an ongoing investigation. Is there anyone who believes that? Isn't it more likely that she didn't want to know the truth so that she didn't have to embarrass her president by contradicting him?
Why didn't she talk with the Assessment Review Board investigating the episode? Because she had no knowledge of the security issues. It's not her affair! That's like a Secretary of Defense saying he didn't know about the military situation. She's Secretary of State. That's what her job is about.
President Obama got away with a massive cover-up pure and simple and his escape was evident in the pathetic questioning and evasive answers in the Hillary Clinton testimony.
-
Agreed. And this pathetic show by Republicans only convinces me more this country is doomed to have to go through some catastrophe in order to get back on the right course towards limited government, individual freedom, free markets and fiscal solvency.
Even this they couldn't even get right. PATHETIC, :? :cry:
-
Limited internet access for me in the mountains and I still haven't seen the video, but this event was not about congressional Republicans. It was Hillary's opportunity to set the record straight and take specific responsibility and she declined.
Of the 24 or so new recommendations from a commission, why were none of them thought of in advance by her - and implemented in the face of known threats? Why was no other national security agency in the loop on Benghazi security if State Dept. security was known to be absent and asleep?
That she got off easy in the hearing and that they did not circle her and destroy her as she leaves office does not mean this is over. She survived in her mind and believes she can go on offense every time it comes up in her potential political future, but that does not change one fact of what happened on her watch.
She had 4 years to prepare for her 3am call. that she said the other guy couldn't handle. She was the lead from behind expert on Libya touting the situation there as one of her accomplishments. She was there when the pleas for help came in months in advance. She knew the Ambassador personally. She didn't set up security or backup on site, off site or anywhere else. The call came during waking hours. They sat there powerless. That is not what SUPERPOWERS do. Her itinerary show she was hanging around the White House with events and photo opps. She must have been there when the call came in.
She was in the loop when they chose an ambitious chump to take the false story forward and answer no real questions. She hid during the months leading up to the election and hid during the months leading up to her fall and blood clot. Then she showed up and declares how dare you question me.
We left our best people exposed. We won't tell you what they were up to. We provided no security, before, during or after the attack. We ignored pleas for help. And we stonewalled and lied to the American people about what happened ever since.
Condi Rice was lambasted for saying who could imagined an attack like 9/11/01. But anyone who could not have imagined attacks on our embassies and diplomats in harms way on the anniversary of 9/11 in this part of the world in totally in denial of their very open thought process. They blew up two African embassies under (other) Clinton. They stormed our Tehran embassy under Carter. They've hit us here and everywhere else. We know the extremist groups are armed and operating in and around Benghgazi and they know we have assets there.
Hillary, you put forward a lie and had a publicity chump to do your evasion of responsibility work. Now you say what difference does it make. I say it makes a difference.
You say you take responsibility. Exactly when did you do that and how? The record now shows exactly the opposite.
-
soloDAD (mouse) now bullies Johnson. Why can't Repubs stand up to this? Not even to a mouse?
Mouse:
Are you saying the tears are fake? Are you ? Are you saying their fake? Are you? Come on, I dare you say it again.
Me:
Talk about protecting one of your gals......The CNN gals are all the same.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/soledad-obrien-ron-johnson-hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony_n_2541459.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&
Doug:
"That she got off easy in the hearing and that they did not circle her and destroy her as she leaves office does not mean this is over. "
Half the country agrees. The other half doesn't care. Hopefully Bob Grant is right and it won't be the Hill in 16. Maybe even her own party is tired of looking the other way and defending the Clintons.
Clinton fatigue.
Good thing no one placed a lamp within arms reach of her during this hearing.... Didn't we just hear about some BS that girls are calmer than men?
-
(http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-012513-hillary-IBD-C.jpg.cms)
-
WSJ editorial excerpt from 1/23 - (could be entitled why I like this newspaper)
"...she phoned President Obama only "later in the evening," she said. The attack in Libya began after 3 p.m. Washington time and the standoff there and at a nearby CIA annex lasted another seven hours. No military help came. Mr. Stevens and three other Americans were murdered.
Mrs. Clinton also said she wasn't responsible for the "talking points" about Benghazi given to White House briefers. She didn't walk point for the Administration on the TV shows that September Sunday because it is not her "favorite thing to do." The hearing's dramatic high point came when Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson wouldn't take this know-nothing line for an answer and pressed why it took the Administration so long to say it was a terrorist strike. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" she shot back.
Sorry, Ma'am. At this point, or at any point, it matters when Administrations mislead Americans."
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/
I agree with Morris here. The hearing with Hillary should absolutely been straight and direct to the point. forget about how to prevent this in the future. Half the country wants to explain covering up a terrorist attack just before an election.
"what difference does it make"
The issue is not how to prevent terrorist attacks. We already know how to do that. The issue is that you, madam sec of state and your appointer PRes. Obama should not cover up and deliberately lie about an attack on the US.
The question is how do we prevent people in our government from breaking the trust with Americans?
Interesting CBS will have a love fest chat with the Prez and the (ex) SoS via their 60 minutes show. The same network whose director of production wants Obama to "bury" the GOP.
It is time Repubs have their spin correction and truth attack squads out on every network correcting the propaganda the crap that will emanate from this meeting.
Just like Clinton did to us in the 90's. Even the tiniest criticism of Bill would result in the Clinton hoards on every single show spinning the truth. Stephonpolous, CArvalle, Forehead Bagella, Davis, ,DNC chair, and the rest.
We need rapid swat like response team.
-
Agreed.
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-special-forces-commander-dod-could-have-flown-rescue-team-tripoli-benghazi-dod
Former Special Forces Commander: DOD Could Have Flown Rescue Team From Tripoli to Benghazi; DOD: State Dept. Decided Whether and What to Fly
February 7, 2013
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin--formerly commander of U.S. Special Forces Command and deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence—told CNSNews.com that, if it had been asked, the Defense Department could have sent a plane to Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, to transport a rescue team of U.S. security personnel that instead ended up taking a chartered private plane from Tripoli to Benghazi that night.
“There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com.
“State should have coordinated with DOD and said: We’ve got to have an airplane,” said Gen. Boykin. “The Department of Defense could have provided an airplane in there. All they had to do was ask.”
A Defense Department official told CNSNews.com, however, that the type of aircraft that was used that night and the decision to use it were both determinations made by the State Department. But the Defense Department official also said that DOD would not have been able to get a plane to Tripoli to fly the security team to Benghazi as quickly as the State Department’s chartered plane did.
According to a timeline released by the Office of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the chartered private plane took off from Tripoli and headed to Benghazi with the rescue team about 2 hours and 48 minutes after the terrorist attack in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. Libya time.
According to the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) report, the department’s temporary duty regional security officer (TDY RSO) in charge of the security detail at the department’s Benghazi mission on Sept. 11, 2012 was monitoring a security camera and saw the terrorists swarm through the front gate of the compound at the start of the attack.
Using his cell phone, this security officer notified the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli within three minutes. He also notified the nearby Annex operated by the CIA. Within eight minutes of the start of the attack, Amb. Chris Stevens, who was in the Benghazi compound, used a cell phone given to him by a State Department Diplomatic Security agent to talk to his deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and tell that deputy personally that the Benghazi compound was under attack.
“Upon notification of the attack from the TDY RSO around 2145 local, Embassy Tripoli set up a command center and notified Washington,” said the ARB report.
“About 2150 local, the DCM was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who briefly reported that the SMC [Special Mission Compound] was under attack before the call cut off.”
After Amb. Stevens' incomplete we-are-under-attack phone call to his deputy in Tripoli, it took almost three hours for the U.S. government to get a solitary private charter plane on the way to Benghazi--and almost four hours to get that plane landed at the Benghazi airport.
“Within hours,” said the ARB report, “Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a seven-person security team, which included two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi.”
While not stating that this plane was a private charter, the DOD's timeline specifies that it took off from Tripoli at 12:30 a.m. Libya time—or 2 hours and 48 minutes after the attack started.
The DOD timeline and the State Department ARB report differ on the number of people included in the security team that traveled on this chartered plane. DOD’s timeline says it was six; State’s ARB report, as quoted above, says it was seven. “12:30 am A six man security team from U.S. Embassy Tripoli, including two DoD personnel, departs for Benghazi,” says the DOD timeline.
Neither the DOD timeline nor the ARB report described any of the members of the security team that took that private chartered flight from Tripoli to Benghazi as State Department personnel.
In a Nov. 2 piece in the Washington Post, David Ignatius reported--in a timeline described to him by a “senior intelligence official”--that the security team that flew to Benghazi on that chartered plane was in fact comprised of CIA people and military personnel working with the CIA.
In fact, the timeline Ignatius published in the Post seems to indicate the CIA chartered the plane.
“1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered,” reported Ignatius. “The Tripoli team includes four GRS [CIA Global Response Staff] security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don't leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack.”
(Like the State Department's ARB report, Ignatius's timeline indicates there were seven people on the chartered plane that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi--not the six claimed in the DOD timeline.)
According to descriptions of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist event published in the State Department ARB report, as well as in a report published by the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, and in a CIA timeline provided by a senior intelligence official, the U.S. personnel in Benghazi were targeted by a series of attacks that occurred at the State Department’s compound, at the CIA Annex, and on the road between the compound and the Annex. This first phase of attacks continued from 9:42 p.m. to about 1:00 a.m.—a span of almost three hours and twenty minutes.
The timeline published by David Ignatius in the Post says: “The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.”
But it was not. About 4 hours and 15 minutes later, the terrorists struck again.
“The seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli arrived in Benghazi to lend support,” said the ARB report. “It arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds. Three rounds hit the roof of an Annex building, killing security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The attack also severely injured one ARSO [State Department regional security officer] and one Annex security team member.”
Amb. Stevens and State Department Information Management Officer Sean Smith had died during the first phase of the attacks, at the State Department compound, in a building torched by the terrorists. The State Department security officers and CIA personnel had recovered Smith’s body from that building, but had not found Amb. Stevens before they were forced--by the threat of being overwhelmed by the attacking terrorists--to retreat under fire to the CIA Annex.
At 11:10 p.m. Libya time, which was about 20 minutes before the U.S. personnel were forced to retreat to from the State Department mission to the CIA Annex, an unarmed DOD drone arrived in the skies over Benghazi to monitor the events as they unfolded. U.S. Africa Command had redirected the drone to Benghazi at 9:59 p.m. About seven hours later, at 5:00 a.m., another drone sent by DOD replaced this first one.
“9:59 pm An unarmed, unmanned, surveillance aircraft is directed to reposition overhead the Benghazi facility,” said the DOD timeline.
“11:10 pm The diverted surveillance aircraft arrives on station over the Benghazi facility,” said the DOD timeline.
“5:00 am A second, unmanned, unarmed surveillance aircraft is directed to relieve the initial asset still over Benghazi,” said the DOD timeline.
These unarmed drones could watch and show administration officials back in Washington what was happening in Benghazi, but they could do no more than that.
“There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com. “But just dealing with the aircraft issue, we could have moved a military plane in there, picked those people up, moved them to Benghazi. And, in fact, we could’ve gotten people moved by helicopter, launched them out of the Sixth Fleet or the naval base in Rota, Spain.”
-
second post:
Yesterday's testimony revealed that the after being informed of the attacks (about one hour into them) the President made no phone calls whatsoever to find out what was being done.
Ditto Hillary.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/panetta-no-time-military-response-benghazi-attack/
edited to add: Also, apparently it was known to Panetta et al that night that is was not disgruntled movie critics who were at work.
-
second post:
Yesterday's testimony revealed that the after being informed of the attacks (about one hour into them) the President made no phone calls whatsoever to find out what was being done.
Ditto Hillary.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/panetta-no-time-military-response-benghazi-attack/
Remember how BoooOOOoooosh finishing reading to children on 9/11 was terrible, while the same voices are silent now.
Was it a Choom gang reunion night? Maybe Buraq wanted to be well rested for Vegas.
My money says Hillary was deep inside a bottle of vodka at that time, but what does it matter?
-
Update: Are they denying this in the WSJ post today on the Syria thread?
Mind boggling that the President and Secretary of State were in the White House that day and not involved. Didn't get informed at the start and didn't check back later. Same guy cut his golf short to "direct" the bin laden kill operation. The photo in this case, 9/11/12, was from a routine military meeting, not a crisis response room.
What was Ambassador Stevens doing there, at that house? Who was he meeting with? What were the topics and results of those meetings? We didn't have an embassy or real consulate with security there. Something was going on that was pressing. We get denial, a story about a video, and screamed at: "what difference does it make now?"
We know Benghazi was the ship-from place for weapons to rebels in Syria, as reported in the Times of London:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece
(quoted below)
With ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the NY Times reports. (further below)
If we were involved in that supply line, perhaps our top officials were advised to distance themselves from knowledge or involvement with the operation, kept their distance, told people with no authority to act to "handle it", they did nothing and four are dead.
If we were secretly helping supply arms to rebels in Syria, why is that wrong?
Cheating on Putin. The alleged operation was allegedly going on in direct defiance to our peace through disarmament partner, Vladimir Putin, former Lt. Col. of the KGB.
-------------------------------------
Times of London report: (link above)
A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM 7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.
“This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received,” said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who helped to move the shipment from warehouses to the border. “These are things that could change the tide — if they are used correctly.”
The Times was shown the Libyan ship, the Intisaar or the Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising. …
Rebel commanders interviewed by the Times said that organisers of the ship conferred with their Libyan counterparts to ensure that the cargo would be split evenly within various Free Syrian Army (FSA) units. But when the ship arrived, the consignment was registered to individuals from the Turkish IHH group, a charity with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
--------------------------------------
NYTimes: C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0
A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM 7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.
“This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received,” said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who helped to move the shipment from warehouses to the border. “These are things that could change the tide — if they are used correctly.”
The Times was shown the Libyan ship, the Intisaar or the Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising. …
Rebel commanders interviewed by the Times said that organisers of the ship conferred with their Libyan counterparts to ensure that the cargo would be split evenly within various Free Syrian Army (FSA) units. But when the ship arrived, the consignment was registered to individuals from the Turkish IHH group, a charity with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
Obama skips intel briefing after 9/11/12 attacks and murder of US diplomats, goes to Vegas fundraising party instead
Washington Post September 13: http://www.washingtonpost.com/marc-a-thiessen/2011/02/24/ABwzFYN_page.html
How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.
According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.
When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB.
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/panetta-and-joint-chiefs-chair-obama-talked-them-only-once-night-benghazi-attack
-
Continuing today's conversation on this thread:
A few months after this forum (and me in particular :lol: ) Glenn Beck and Sen. Rand Paul start catching up
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/08/beck-panetta-testimony-was-cover-for-obama/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-02-08_198663&utm_content=5054942&utm_term=_198663_198671
-
The secret war behind Benghazi
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_secret_war_behind_benghazi_mKbP26KAwILn2KKMs8NIWM
A stealth campaign of assassinations, run by CIA nominee John Brennan, resulted in the death of the US ambassador, a new book claims
By KYLE SMITH
Last Updated: 8:49 AM, February 10, 2013
Posted: 10:27 PM, February 9, 2013
What really happened in Benghazi?
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on the US consulate because of a secret low-level war in which American hit squads took out leaders of al Qaeda militias, which retaliated in Benghazi. There was never a protest at the consulate over the infamous anti-Islamist YouTube video.
So says the new 80-page e-book, “Benghazi: The Definitive Report” (William Morrow) by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb, two military veterans who specialize in reporting about clandestine operations at the website SOFREP.com. 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.
John Brennan was given free rein in North Africa by Obama, a book says.
The fall of Moammar Khadafy presented a tricky situation for us: Khadafy, though a despot to his own people, had nevertheless been cooperating with the US, which among other favors was granted the right to use Libyan territory for CIA black sites.
Moreover, the opposition to Khadafy wasn’t exactly led by a gang of Libyan George Washingtons. Many of the rebel leaders were sharia-loving members of al Qaeda who had come from jihadist strongholds in the cities of Derna and Benghazi, which are so tied up in Islamist fundamentalism that they were major exporters of guerilla warriors who fought the US in Iraq.
Having helped to engineer the ouster of Khadafy with air strikes left Obama with the problem of a revitalized al Qaeda springing up to fill the void.
Obama gave his chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, who is now the nominee to be the next leader of the CIA, a blank check. Brennan could do just about whatever he needed to do in North Africa and the Mideast, contend Murphy and Webb. Brennan chose to conduct a dangerous classified war without looping in Stevens, who paid with his life for his ignorance, according to the book.
The Joint Special Operations Command, which Brennan controls, is a collection of special forces outside of the regular military command originally formed as a hostage-rescue team. But in the middle of last summer, say Murphy and Webb, troops operating clandestinely under JSOC began infiltrating Libya.
“With the first phase of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) all but over,” say Murphy and Webb, “JSOC was starting in on ‘GWOT Season 2,’ as it were, where North Africa was seen as the most dangerous hub of terrorist activity.”
Murphy and Webb go on to make a shocking charge: “The nature of these operations remains highly classified. They were never intended to be known to anyone outside a very small circle in the Special Operations community and within Obama’s National Security Council. Ambassador Stevens, the CIA chief of station in Tripoli and then-director of the CIA, Gen. [David] Petraeus, had little if any knowledge about these JSOC missions.”
-
The knives are coming out against Brennan.
-
The knives are coming out against Brennan.
Rick, Yes, or the facts are coming out against Brennan. Seems to me this does not insulate the President. He put himself out of the loop and stayed out, then promoted the guy who bungled it. His refusals to be briefed in person in a back and forth manner prior, and his quick exit to Las Vegas for campaign demagoguery are looking rather irresponsible in hindsight.
I am stuck on the coverup, false statements by the President, Carney, Clinton, the sick and twisted performance putting out Susan Rice to buy him time to get past his reelection, right up to the outgoing Secretary shouting down legitimate oversight with her outburst: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!
Ambassador Stevens may have had little of no knowledge of the (alleged) operation, but he knew of the dangers in general and the absence of security. This theory doesn't fully explain why he was sitting there in harm's way.
-
Rick:
Good to have you join the conversation; I look forward to your input.
Back when all this started hitting the fan, this thread discussed well ahead of the general curve the notion of a gun-running operation to the Syrian opposition headed by Stevens (his last meeting before his death was with the Turkish consul) via Turkey.
What do you make of all this?
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/brennan-s-evasions_700510.html?nopager=1
Brennan’s Evasions
Feb 18, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 22 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
John Brennan is no Chuck Hagel. That much was clear from the confirmation hearings on Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA. Unlike Hagel, who stumbled and mumbled through his performance, Brennan demonstrated a deep knowledge of his brief and answered (or gamely parried) tough questions with great self-assurance and forcefulness.
But several of Brennan’s answers before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were problematic. Indeed, his three and a half hours of testimony raised important questions on two issues central to his nomination: the politicization of intelligence and the Obama administration’s approach to fighting radical Islam. Brennan will face additional questions in both areas at a closed hearing on his nomination on February 12. He should.
During the hearing last week, several senators asked Brennan about the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) used by the CIA during the Bush administration. In a 2007 interview, Brennan offered a broad defense of the program. “There [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hardcore terrorists,” Brennan said. “It has saved lives,” he continued. “And let’s not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.”
In the same interview, however, Brennan criticized waterboarding as “inconsistent with American values” and “something that should be prohibited.” That wasn’t good enough for many Democrats, who not only believed that EITs were immoral but also desperately needed them to be deemed ineffective, even if the evidence demonstrated otherwise. So Democrats on the intelligence committee undertook a “study” of EITs in an effort to discredit them further. Not surprisingly, the report questions the practices’ effectiveness.
When Brennan was asked for his thoughts on the 350-page executive summary—again, prepared only by Democrats—he testified that it had changed his mind. “I must tell you, senator, that reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time. Now I have to determine what, based on that information as well as what CIA says, what the truth is.”
So Brennan trusts a partisan report produced by senators whose conclusions were announced before the study was even commissioned as much as his own firsthand, contemporaneous knowledge of the effectiveness of the program while he was at the CIA? As Senator Saxby Chambliss pointed out, Brennan received more than 50 emails on the results of interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, one of three al Qaeda leaders to be waterboarded. Brennan’s predecessors who have spoken about the issue publicly—Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta—have acknowledged that EITs produced valuable information. And a close look at the CIA inspector general’s report on EITs leaves readers with one inescapable conclusion: They worked.
If Brennan’s apparent change of heart on EITs causes concern about his ability to put analysis ahead of politics, his comments on Ali Harzi, a suspect in the Benghazi attacks last fall, raise questions about the Obama administration’s approach to radical Islam and—more immediately troubling—Brennan’s veracity.
Did John Brennan lie under oath? The answer appears to be yes.
Here’s the backstory. Senator Marco Rubio asked Brennan about Harzi, who was detained in Tunisia and eventually released by the Tunisian government. When Rubio asked why the United States couldn’t prevent Harzi’s release by the Tunisians, Brennan responded that the United States must respect Tunisian law and traditions. “The Tunisians did not have a basis in their law to hold him.” And when Rubio pushed further, Brennan dismissed his concerns and made a claim that simply isn’t true.
“We didn’t have anything on him, either,” Brennan said. “If we did, we would have made a point to the Tunisians to turn him over to us, but we didn’t have that.”
We didn’t have anything on him?
First, Harzi had a history. He’d been detained by the Tunisian government for five years, from 2006 to 2011, on terrorism charges. Among other concerns, he was then seeking to join his brother, a midlevel operative in Al Qaeda in Iraq. Second, after the Benghazi attack Harzi was detained in Turkey, at least in part on the basis of intelligence provided to the Turks by the U.S. government. Third, Harzi was held in Tunisia for three months on the strength of intelligence the U.S. government collected about his involvement in the Benghazi attacks. According to the Daily Beast, that intelligence included real-time social media updates from Benghazi about the unfolding attack. Fourth, Harzi’s own lawyer says that the Tunisian courts are still monitoring Harzi because he remains charged with membership in a terrorist group.
If Brennan believes the U.S. government doesn’t have “anything” on Harzi, it’s hard to find others who share that assessment.
“He was involved,” one U.S. official familiar with the investigation told The Weekly Standard. This view echoed those of several intelligence and law enforcement officials.
Fawzi Jaballah, an adviser to Tunisia’s justice ministry, said the Tunisian attorney general opposed the release. Interior minister Ali Larayedh said in a TV interview that Harzi is “strongly suspected to have been involved in the attack of Benghazi.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested during her final appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is evidence of Harzi’s involvement—just not evidence that can be presented in court.
“Upon his release, I called the Tunisian prime minister,” she testified. “A few days later [FBI] Director Mueller met with the Tunisian prime minister. We have been assured that he is under the monitoring of the court. He was released because at that time—and Director Mueller and I spoke about this at some length—there was not an ability for evidence to be presented yet that was capable of being presented in an open court.”
Of course, not having evidence that can be presented “in an open court” is very different from not having “anything on him.” Would an FBI team spend five weeks on the ground in Tunisia if the U.S. government had no evidence of his involvement in the attack? And why would the FBI director discuss Harzi with the prime minister of Tunisia if the U.S. government “didn’t have anything on him”?
The short answer: He wouldn’t. Three sources familiar with the investigation tell The Weekly Standard that one of the main reasons for Mueller’s mid-January stop in Tunisia was to press the Tunisian government for help with Harzi. And no one among the dozen U.S. officials spoken to for this story agreed with Brennan’s characterization that the U.S. government “didn’t have anything on him.” Harzi was not the most important figure in the Benghazi attacks, but there is no doubt the United States has evidence of his involvement.
Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Frank Wolf worked with the State Department and the FBI to get the Tunisian government to allow the FBI access to Harzi. “There was a sense of urgency from the FBI in all of my discussions about him,” says Graham. “The FBI guys I talked to felt very strongly that this guy was involved. He was a prime target.”
Wolf, who has spoken regularly to senior State Department and FBI officials, says he had the same understanding. “The FBI team that went over there to interview him—they believe he was there [in Benghazi] and has a lot of information. I’m told he remains a person of significant interest.”
An FBI spokesman tells The Weekly Standard: “I don’t think there’s anything we can say on the record while this is under investigation.”
Brennan’s eagerness to downplay Ali Harzi should concern senators for another reason. It’s consistent with the Obama administration’s response to jihadist attacks and radical Islam more broadly. So when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit, the president falsely claimed he was “an isolated extremist” long after it was clear that he was a committed jihadist with strong ties to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And when Faisal Shahzad sought to blow up an SUV in Times Square, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called it a “one-off” attack by an unaffiliated individual, ignoring claims of responsibility from the Pakistani Taliban.
And on Benghazi, the Obama administration’s official line, as articulated by Susan Rice five days later, was that the attacks that killed four Americans were “spontaneous” and the result of an anti-Islam video. She said this despite a report from the CIA station chief in Libya that the assault had been a terrorist attack and also claims from the nation’s two top defense officials—Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey—that they knew this on the night of September 11. And Brennan’s claims of transparency notwithstanding, the White House still refuses to produce 70 emails that top administration and intelligence officials exchanged in preparing the “talking points” for Rice’s television appearances.
John Brennan may not be Chuck Hagel. But that’s not a reason to confirm him.
-
http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-did-white-house-deceive-us-after.html
Why did the White House deceive us after the Benghazi attack?
Ask Bill Kristol and Peter Wehner in The Wall Street Journal:
Presumably for two reasons. The first is that the true account of events undercut the president's claim during the campaign that al Qaeda was severely weakened in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The second is that a true account of what happened in Benghazi that night would have revealed that the president and his top national-security advisers did not treat a lethal attack by Islamic terrorists on Americans as a crisis. The commander in chief not only didn't convene a meeting in the Situation Room; he didn't even bother to call his Defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack.
This is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Is it too much to hope that President Obama is privately ashamed of his inattention and passivity that night?
I think he is ashamed. Here's what I've been assuming happened: It looked like our people were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance. But then the fight went on for 7 or 8 hours. The White House folk decided there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable, and then they witnessed a valiant fight which they had done nothing to support. It was always too late to help. It was too late after one hour, then too late after 2 hours, then too late after 3 hours.... When were these people going to die already? After that was all over, how do you explain what you did?
IN THE COMMENTS: CWJ said:
Althouse's surmised timeline if true is the ultimate in —
"What difference, at this point, would it make?"
Perhaps Hillary was telling us more than met the eye.
-
Our President never made a phone call. He didn’t talk to Leon Panetta, or any military personnel, or Hillary Clinton. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/white-house-no-phone-calls-benghazi/ He accepted the defeat at the first sign of a fight, then probably worked with his speechwriters on the Vegas event.
They may have worked out the cover story about the video while the fighting was still going on, not knowing it would drag on for 7-8 hours before the last American was killed.
No backup was ever ordered. How do you not even try to help?
-
Sen. Lindsay Graham has been quite good on all this. He spoke very well, very penetratingly on Bret Baier last night (good work by BB too-- as usual) seems to be playing things well in the manuverings in the Senate with regard to all this as well.
As for our Cic-- SHAME!!! SHAME!!! SHAME!!! :x :x :x
-
Sen. Lindsay Graham has been quite good on all this. He spoke very well, very penetratingly on Bret Baier last night (good work by BB too-- as usual) seems to be playing things well in the manuverings in the Senate with regard to all this as well.
As for our Cic-- SHAME!!! SHAME!!! SHAME!!! :x :x :x
I'm no fan of Grahamnesty, but I agree that he did good work here.
-
We agree on him and amnesty, but respect for his work here
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/white-house-no-phone-calls-benghazi/
BTW, he also makes the excellent point that no one even knows who the survivors were nor is there any access to their AARs on what happened.
-
And we are still waiting for the ambassador's autopsy report.
-
I wonder to what extent Graham's view is influenced by his experience as JAG.
-
Interesting point BD, care to flesh that out for us?
-
Interesting point BD, care to flesh that out for us?
I can't flesh out the extent of the impact, but if you mean fleshing out the meaning of my question, that I can do.
1. Graham is one of the few senators who serve(d) in the military, and the only one in the JAG (I think).
2. This gives him an inside perspectivee on war that few current senators have, and perhaps more importantly a VERY different take on the law of war.
3. Public reports, such as Jack Goldsmith's excellent Power and Constraint, have documented Graham's impact in other, related but different, "lawfare" policy spaces.
4. Combine the above with values, party and fact that he sits on Armed Services and Judiciary (leadership role on Crime and Terrorism subcommittee), and I think there could be implications.
In addition to Power and Constraint, which I highly recommend, see below for some articles that tie his JAG experience into his policy views:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/05/05/95296/graham-miranda/?mobile=nc
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/46035721/senator-lindsey-graham-general-norton-schwartz-reflect-60th-anniversary-jag-corps (I can read it, not sure you will be able to, sorry)
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/283507-gop-lawmaker-asks-how-obama-could-sleep-during-benghazi-attack
-
Gregory is trying to argue why we should not be looking into it? A coverup of what?
McCain showing a backbone answers the question:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/17/john-mccain-snaps-at-david-gregory-over-benghazi-do-you-care-whether-or-not-four-americans-died/
-
http://www.mintpress.net/cia-sex-scandal-continues-paula-broadwells-promotion-revoked/
-
I heard reports that we had some 20-30 people wounded that night and that 6-7 of them are still in the hospital and being held incommunicado?!?
Anyone have anything on this?
-
Don't know about the wounded, but like the Ambassador's autopsy, they are being hidden.
-
There was some Congressman or Senator being interviewed on FOX this morning while I was heading out the door so I didn't catch all the details, but the gist of it was that A LOT of people were wounded, some 6-7 so seriously that they are still in Walter Reed hospital and the Congressman/Senator in question was saying that he/Congress were being blocked from getting in to see them.
-
Wow, this would be a big deal if someone else was president.
-
There was some Congressman or Senator being interviewed on FOX this morning while I was heading out the door so I didn't catch all the details, but the gist of it was that A LOT of people were wounded, some 6-7 so seriously that they are still in Walter Reed hospital and the Congressman/Senator in question was saying that he/Congress were being blocked from getting in to see them.
http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/03/02/congressman-frank-wolf-to-secretary-kerry-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/ (???)
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser-un-ambassador-said-to-be-front-runner/2013/03/09/3e54feba-8383-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html
"Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who lost out in a bruising bid for the job of secretary of state, may have the last laugh."
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser-un-ambassador-said-to-be-front-runner/2013/03/09/3e54feba-8383-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html
"Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who lost out in a bruising bid for the job of secretary of state, may have the last laugh."
Last laugh at the American people she lied to?
-
National Security Adviser does not require senate confirmation. Who knew that advise and consent was such a bad thing in some cases, could expose character flaws - like lying. We need nothing but honest people in these positions - like Sandy 'boxers' Berger. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html He described the episode as "an honest mistake." Oops, "It was not inadvertent." Lies and smear, said Media Matters, prior to Berger's confession and plea bargain. http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/07/23/anatomy-of-a-smear-sandy-berger-socks-shocker-l/131484
Susan Rice (in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack) will fit in fine with the likes of James Clapper (Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular), Jack Lew (can’t pass a budget without 60 votes) and John (cut-off-their-ears) Kerry to work with the President who promised unemployment would be down to 5% by 2013 if we pass his stimulus. http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-unemployment-chart-2012-9
Unless the world ends now, we don't know who has the last laugh.
-
Excellent article from the always-superb Frank Gaffney:
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/03/11/investigative-benghazigate/
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57573613/six-months-later-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/
By Sharyl Attkisson /
CBS News/ March 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors?
Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.
In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.
Source: Press officers partly responsible for Benghazi talking points changes
White House declines to release images from night of Benghazi attacks
Republicans demanded more information about Benghazi in recent weeks before they would agree to allow Obama Administration nominees to move forward in the Senate. A source familiar with material turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the Obama Administration in response tells CBS News that long sought-after FBI transcripts of some survivors were included but had been "blacked out" or redacted. Three Senate Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they want the survivors to be made available for interviews about what happened the night of the attacks.
Meanwhile, a State Department review board found that despite requests from Stevens for more security prior to the attack, there were no military resources in place close enough to come to the rescue of Americans during the attack. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified that troops have been placed on a higher state of alert since then.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in January she was unaware of Stevens' unmet security requests. She said the highest ranking official who received them at the State Department was undersecretary Patrick Kennedy. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Dempsey said they were aware of Stevens' requests and concerns.
At a press conference on November 14, 2012, President Obama stated that his administration has provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi." Yet, when CBS News asked for White House photos from the night of the attacks, surveillance video that was promised last November, and answers to outstanding questions, a White House official told us that there would be no further comment.
CBS News has filed multiple Freedom of Information requests for Benghazi-related material, but none has been provided. Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is suing the U.S. government in an attempt to receive some of the denied information.
-
If I were them, I'd avoid getting on the same plane with all the other survivors....
Still waiting on the Stevens autopsy report.
Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57573613/six-months-later-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/
By Sharyl Attkisson /
CBS News/ March 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors?
Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.
In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.
Source: Press officers partly responsible for Benghazi talking points changes
White House declines to release images from night of Benghazi attacks
Republicans demanded more information about Benghazi in recent weeks before they would agree to allow Obama Administration nominees to move forward in the Senate. A source familiar with material turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the Obama Administration in response tells CBS News that long sought-after FBI transcripts of some survivors were included but had been "blacked out" or redacted. Three Senate Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they want the survivors to be made available for interviews about what happened the night of the attacks.
Meanwhile, a State Department review board found that despite requests from Stevens for more security prior to the attack, there were no military resources in place close enough to come to the rescue of Americans during the attack. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified that troops have been placed on a higher state of alert since then.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in January she was unaware of Stevens' unmet security requests. She said the highest ranking official who received them at the State Department was undersecretary Patrick Kennedy. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Dempsey said they were aware of Stevens' requests and concerns.
At a press conference on November 14, 2012, President Obama stated that his administration has provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi." Yet, when CBS News asked for White House photos from the night of the attacks, surveillance video that was promised last November, and answers to outstanding questions, a White House official told us that there would be no further comment.
CBS News has filed multiple Freedom of Information requests for Benghazi-related material, but none has been provided. Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is suing the U.S. government in an attempt to receive some of the denied information.
-
"Still waiting on the Stevens autopsy report"
Interesting point made by one of the talk pundits: Do you notice what President Obama and then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton both call the deceased ambassador?
Not Mr. Stevens, not Ambassador Stevens, never Ambassador Christopher Stevens. They call him Chris. First name only. Buddy to buddy. Nobody knew him better, except maybe his wife and kids. Barack and Hillary, I wonder if he called them by their first names too. Closest of friends, probably would be golfing together right now if he was around.
Yet 'Chris' couldn't get a message about security through to either one of them over a period of many months to save his life.
-
"Nobody knew him better, except maybe his wife and kids."
Tangent: Wasn't he gay?-- but the larger point you make is valid.
Anyway, when I go to and from the airport I often find myself in conversation with the taxi driver-- perhaps a cultural atavism from my youth as a New Yorker. Where I live many of the drivers are from the mideast, Armenia, and occasionally Afghanistan. These men are often someone who left a life of much higher status (doctor, engineer, teacher, etc) to come start a new life in America. As a humble taxi driver typically they remain unseen as what they are, they are in the eyes of their passengers a taxi driver and are presumed to be as stupid as their English is clumsy.
But, again perhaps due to my youth as a New Yorker, I have been blessed to have familiarity and comfort with engaging with people from many parts of the world and to intuit their intended meaning through heavy accents and exceedingly fractured English. Perhaps due to experiencing just how much it took me to learn to speak Spanish, a language linguistically close to English, I am humbled when I imagine what it must take to learn English when one's home language is radically different and unlike English to Spanish, good instruction material and teachers are next to non-existant.
In that context, on my ride home from the airport last night my driver was from Afghanistan. Gently I inquired if I might ask his perspective on things because here in America we have a hard time understanding that part of the world. Not only was he game to engage, his English was actually rather good and we had a wonderful conversation about Afpakia, the war in Iraq, Libya and so forth. It is without bragging that I say he was rather stunned at my level; indeed my feeling was more of shame at the level of ignorance with which he must silently endure.
Towards the end of the conversation, I asked if he had heard the news about the great numbers of our people wounded that night in Benghazi and that some were in the hospital and that US Congressmen trying to get through to them were being denied access. This he, a man revealed by our conversation to be a man who had kept a close eye on developments in his homeland and the middle east as well, found hard to credit.
I told him, and what I predict here now, is that this is beginning to come to boil. Let's do our part in getting the word to the lurkers on this forum who then go on to do good things with what they find here. :-D
The Adventure continues, , ,
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/18/report-hacker-starts-distributing-confidential-memos-sent-to-hillary-clinton-on-benghazi-attack-libya/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/18/report-hacker-starts-distributing-confidential-memos-sent-to-hillary-clinton-on-benghazi-attack-libya/
I hope they prosecute the hacker but also learn from the info about what was going on / not going on relating to this attack and scandal, since no one else will tell us. My understanding is that Valerie Jarrett was the director of the coverup.
"My good friend Chris" couldn't get his security requests answered to save his life. If we are so far into this administration that they didn't even think to blame the disaster on George Bush, then this administration has almost nothing left.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW - that we let al Qaida win this round. Hillary has moved on to gay marriage. If she is out of public life, who cares what she thinks about social issues.
-
The failure to provide security is but the least of the three questions in this. Govt. is stupid and incompetent, that is no surprise.
The bigger issues are
1) Why no help was sent? Were our people left to die so the President could go on his fundraising trip? And, closely interactive with this is
2) what did the president know and when did he know it, ditto Hillary-and the lies to the American people about the nature of the attack. Hillary's emails may well shed light on this.
-
Urgent Action on Benghazi Needed:
Call Your Congressman's Home Office
Dear Member:
We struck a nerve! Your phone calls to Speaker Boehner and Chairman Mike Rogers drove home a powerful message:
Stop blocking the House Select Committee on Benghazi! Start issuing subpoenas! Now!
Some of Revive's members who called last week tell me Rep. Roger’s office was particularly livid about the phone calls! Well, tough. Frankly, six months of dancing and dithering with Team Obama is long enough already. It’s time for House Republican Leaders to honor the memory of the four fallen Americans who Obama abandoned to death in Benghazi. We can honor their sacrifice by exposing the truth and delivering justice, wherever it leads. Understandably, some Republicans are relectant to 'go there'. But now is not the time to dither. 'Benghazi-Gate' is the most treacherous scandal to threaten the Presidency since ‘Watergate’. It's time to be bold.
Speaking of bold, Congressman Frank Wolf needs our help. Back in January, Wolf introduced House Resolution 36, which establishes a House “Select Committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya”.
As of today, only 62 House Republicans have co-sponsored Wolf’s Resolution 36.
Is Your Favorite Republican Member of Congress one of 166 House Republicans Who Are Not a Cosponsor of House Resolution 36?
You Can Find Out By Clicking Here Now
If your favorite Republican Member of Congress is on this list, it is urgent for you to call them now at their home district offices.
In some cases, failing to cosponsor House Resolution 36 could merely be an oversight by your Congressman. So be respectful, but firm.
Tell your Congressman to cosponsor House Resolution 36, 'Establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya'.
If you’re angry about Benghazi, calling the home district offices of your favorite Republican congressman is the single most effective act you can take today to expose the truth about Benghazi.
But you can help out even more by forwarding this email to a friend.
Send to a friend
Revive America USA considers a vote on House Resolution 36 the very highest of priorities.
Revive plans to launch a powerful online advertising campaign to publicize the list of Republicans who are not cosponsoring House Resolution 36.
We want this list to appear everywhere! We want to change their minds!
So please, if you have the financial means, help Revive America to continue its campaign to expose the truth about Obama and Benghazi.
Go Here to Donate
Yours for America,
Bob Adams
Founder & President
P.S. - Is your Member of Congress a cosponsor of House Resolution 36? If their name is the list below, they are not cosponsors. Please Call Them Now
-
An Urgent Message from Revive America
Dear Member:
Congress is still on "Spring Recess" through the weekend, so please continue to call the home district offices of the 166 House Republicans who have not consponsored House Resolution 36, the House Select Committee on the Benghazi Terror Attack. (You can find the list at the end of this email.) If you have already called, please forward this email to family and friends.
Speaker Boehner and the three House Committee Chairmen investigating Benghazi haven't issued even a single subpoena, but they're promising a final report in "weeks not months".
But frankly, even the bumbling 'Pink Panther' character Inspector Clouseau knows you can't investigate a crime -- let alone a dispicable act of terror -- without issuing subpoenas and interviewing witnesses.
Here's what Senator Lindsey Graham says about the Benghazi witnesses:
"I've had contact with some of the survivors. Their story is chilling. They feel afraid to tell it. It's important they come forward to tell their story," Graham told FOX News. "Some are back working for the government. Some are still injured. The bottom line is they feel that they can't come forth. They've been told to be quiet."
Even in Chicago, this is called witness intimidation.
Revive America USA will continue to fight in Congress for a full and complete investigation of Benghazi, but we need your help.
-
By MARK HELPRIN
In the rush to paper over its delinquencies in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration seems unaware that its failures are fundamental rather than merely anomalous. They are, unfortunately, a portent of the future.
On March 26, this newspaper reported that "In the wake of the attack, the military has examined how to improve its rapid response forces," specifically by "adding special operations teams of roughly 10 troops to ships carrying larger Marine Expeditionary Units." MEUs shipborne in amphibious ready groups usually number 2,200 Marines in special forces, reconnaissance, armored reconnaissance, armor, amphibious assault, infantry, artillery, engineer and aviation battalions, companies and platoons. They can get over the beach fast, and they fight like hell.
On March 21, 2011, during Operation Odyssey Dawn, an American F-15 went down in Libya. Immediately after the Mayday, the 26th MEU started rescue operations from the USS Kearsarge, and a short time later two of its Harrier fighter jets, two CH 53 helicopters, and two MV 22 Ospreys were at the scene, with more than a hundred Marines. Hundreds more might easily have arrived if required. Forces like this could have shattered the assault in Benghazi in minutes. Adding 10 men to such echelons rich in special forces would have little relevance. Fine in itself, the proposal is an obfuscation. The issue is not the composition of already capable MEUs but rather that one was not available when the attack took place.
From World War II onward, the U.S. Sixth Fleet stabilized the Mediterranean region and protected American interests there with the standard deployment, continued through 2008, of a carrier battle group, three hunter killer submarines, and an amphibious ready group with its MEU or equivalent. But in the first year of the Obama presidency this was reduced to one almost entirely unarmed command ship. No MEU could respond to Benghazi because none was assigned to, or by chance in, the Mediterranean.
Whereas during most of the Obama years the United States has kept one ship in the Mediterranean, during World War I no less than Japan deployed 14 destroyers and a cruiser there. But today—with the Muslim Brotherhood watching over the Egyptian powder keg, terrorist warlords murdering our diplomats in Libya, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb reaching up from the Sahel into the Mediterranean littoral, instability in Tunisia, Bedouin kidnappers in the Sinai, Hamas rockets streaming from Gaza, Lebanon riding the Hezbollah tiger, Jordan imperilled, and a civil war raging in Syria —what possible reason could there be for a powerful Sixth Fleet?
Benghazi is a lesson in failings of probity writ small and large. Our policy, relentlessly pursued by the president, is to disarm. As China and Russia invigorate their defense industrial bases, we diminish ours. We are stripping our nuclear deterrent to and beyond the point where it will encourage proliferation among opportunistic states, endow China with parity, and make a first strike against us feasible.
In Korea, we depended upon tactical nuclear weapons, then pulled back after the North deployed chemical and biological weapons to check them. The obvious course was to build up conventional forces, but instead we cut them drastically. Although now with precision-guided munitions we can pick off much of what the North has, it will retain sufficient mass to make war's outcome uncertain and inflict millions of civilian casualties.
We hide behind nearly toothless Europeans who provide skittish diplomatic cover rather than substantive military support. With reduced naval, air, and ground forces, we bluff in the South China Sea, nurture adventurism in quarters of which we are not even aware, yet, and prove that though our diplomats may beg for protection, terrorists can spend eight hours attacking an American diplomatic post with utter impunity.
One finds in the Companion to British History the telling lines: "In the absence of most of the troops, there was an insurrection. . . . Colchester was burned . . . the IXth Legion ambushed and mostly destroyed."
Would that the president, or Hillary Clinton, possibly the next president, comprehend this. Her record-air-mile tenure as secretary of state, in which restless ambition was the cause of unambitious restlessness, brought one of the most confused approaches to the international system ever foisted upon the long suffering Republic, unless you think donating Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood was Napoleonic genius. Was her January performance before the Senate Benghazi hearings, in which she accepted responsibility while at the same time angrily rejecting it, worthy more of the Queen of Hearts or the Cheshire Cat? Notably, her husband, famously confused even about the meaning of is, always kept an MEU in the Mediterranean.
History and the present tell us unambiguously that we require vast reserves of strength used judiciously, sparingly where possible, overwhelmingly when appropriate, precisely, quickly, and effectively. Now we have vanishing and insufficient strength used injudiciously, promiscuously, slowly, and ineffectively.
Since 1972, the Democratic Party has reflexively advocated the reduction of American military power, even at the defining junctures of the Cold War. The George W. Bush administration spent a well intentioned two terms more or less switching out Sunni for Shiite in Iraq, poking hornets in Afghanistan, destabilizing Pakistan, and decapitalizing the armed forces. The tea party, knowing only the importance of fiscal discipline, does not understand the risks it is willing to accept to national security. And to the extent the current administration actually perceives the need to provide for defense, it always seems proudly to decide not to.
Do Americans understand that war and death abhor a vacuum of strength and will rush in when weakness opens a place for them? Do we care? At the moment, the power of decision rests with those who don't.
For the sake of comfort and illusory promises, a false idea of goodness, and the incoherent remnants of New Left ideology, we as a people have chosen drastically to diminish our powers of action in the world even as they bear upon our self defense. Having established and advertised this, we will rue the day we did. Benghazi, a brightly illustrative miniature, is only a symbol of things to come.
Mr. Helprin is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and the author, most recently, of the novel "In Sunlight and In Shadow" (Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt, 2012).
-
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SOF-700-Letter-4713.pdf
-
An Urgent Update on Benghazi: Cosponsors Surge to 90 for House Resolution 36
Dear Member:
When Revive America first started our campaign for a House Select Committee on Benghazi, the DC-Establishment didn’t give us a snowball’s-chance-in, well, Benghazi.
Speaker Boehner said he opposed the Select Committee as far back as November. Chairman Mike Rogers, the powerful Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called it "very expensive”. No wonder only 48 House Republicans had the audacity to defy Speaker Boehner on Benghazi.
It was game over.
Obama thought he was home free (unlike Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods) and Speaker Boehner avoided the embarrassing spectacle of a ‘Watergate-Style’ committee on Benghazi, but Boehner, Rogers, and Obama didn’t count on you, and nearly 200,000 conservative members of Revive America USA.
Because of your persistent phone calls to Congress, we’ve gone from 48 to 62, and now to 90 cosponsors in the past week!
In fact, West Virginia Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito just signed-on this morning as a cosponsor!
All of your phone calls, letters, and donations to Revive America’s campaign are paying-off – big time. We can win this fight! Go Here Now to Help Us. Now Revive isn’t the only group fighting for the Select Committee. In fact, we stand in very good company. On Wednesday, 700 Special-Ops veterans blasted Congress for giving “no serious effort” to Benghazi.
And then, in a stunning announcement that’s still rocking Capitol Hill, Ms. Patricia A. Smith, the mother of Navy Seal Sean Smith, endorsed House Resolution 36. Ms. Smith’s son was one of the four American heroes abandoned by Obama to die at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.
In a very short period of time, we’ve built up a ton of momentum. Now is not the time to let up. Let’s win this fight today!
Go Here Now to Help Us
We need to keep cranking-up the pressure.
Mr. Speaker, we won’t “STAND DOWN”. And neither should you.
There are two ways you can help:
1). Call Speaker John Boehner at (202) 225-3121. Tell him to lead or get out of the way of House Res. 36.
Call Chairman Mike Rogers at (202) 225-3261. Tell him to support House Res. 36.
Call Members of Congress who may not be onboard with us yet. Ask them, why not? You can find the list by Going Here
And very important -- Call Congressman Frank Wolf to Thank Him for His Leadership at (202) 225-3121
2). I know not everyone can contribute, especially after four years of Obama. But if you can help, we urgently need your financial support to win this huge battle, and frankly, our resources are nearly exhausted.
We are so very close to a huge victory.
Revive America will fight this battle until the very end, but we can only go as far as you’ll take us.
Please Go Here Now to Donate Any Amount
Thank you for standing with me.
For America,
Bob Adams
Founder & President
-
We Are Winning!
Dear Member:
Only three weeks ago, Revive America launched its campaign for a House Select Committee on Benghazi.
At the time, the odds were overwhelmingly against us.
And odd as it may seem, our chief opposition wasn’t Barack Obama.
It wasn’t even Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats.
It was none other than House Speaker John Boehner.
Back in November, Speaker Boehner announced his opposition to creating a House Select Committee on Benghazi.
He still opposes it.
That could also be why only 48 House Republicans dared until recently to cosponsor H. Res. 36, which establishes the Committee.
Because on Capitol Hill, what Speaker Boehner says, goes. He has immense power.
But Revive America doesn’t answer to Speaker Boehner.
So we fought back, and you helped us to make the difference - big time!
Because of your persistent phone calls to Congress, just in the past week, support for the House Select Committee on Benghazi has surged to a whopping 102 cosponsors!
We picked-up 40 new cosponsors last week!
Clearly, Speaker Boehner is losing control over Benghazi.
Every new cosponsor is a ‘vote of no confidence’.
We are winning this fight! Please Go Here Now to Help Us
Ms. Patricia Smith, the mother of Navy Seal Sean Smith, has officially endorsed the creation of a House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Here is part of what she wrote in her letter of endorsement:
“Please, Please help me find out who is responsible and fix it so no more of our sons & daughters are abandoned by the country they love. It is very difficult to find out. Leon Panetta advised Pres. Obama that the attack was occurring and Pres. Obama went to bed without sending help. It is too late for my son but not too late for those that follow” – Patricia A. Smith, Mother of Sean Smith, Killed in Benghazi
Thank you for all that you are doing to help.
Sincerely,
Bob Adams
Founder & President
P.S. – Because of your support, we picked-up 40 new cosponsors last week! Help Revive America to force the hand of Speaker Boehner this week, and to expose the truth about Obama, Hillary, and Benghazi. Go Here Now to Support Our Campaign
There is no limit to what you can donate. Revive America USA, Inc., can accept unlimited individual and corporate contributions.
REVIVE AMERICA USA, INC operates as a social welfare organization organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to REVIVE AMERICA USA are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
Paid for by Revive America USA, Inc.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.ReviveAmericaUSA.com
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/294375-boehners-hand-forced-on-benghazi
From the article:
Speaker John Boehner is trying to head off a GOP rebellion over his handling of the investigation into last year’s fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by releasing an interim report of evidence by his panel chairmen.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/294375-boehners-hand-forced-on-benghazi
From the article:
Speaker John Boehner is trying to head off a GOP rebellion over his handling of the investigation into last year’s fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by releasing an interim report of evidence by his panel chairmen.
(http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/04/24/benghazi_s640x566.jpg?4b2dc4018a1a545eba92dcd28d97e9aab93c2292)
Full Report, 46 page pdf: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/benghazi.pdf
-
The White House accused Republicans of a political distraction Wednesday after House committee chairmen asked President Obama to release a State Department cable that they said would prove Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary off state, signed off on security cuts at the diplomatic post in Benghazi ahead of the attack Sept. 11.
According to the committee chairmen, the April 2012 Clinton cable denies the U.S. Embassy in Libya’s request for more security. Five months later, the outpost in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were killed, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“An April 19, 2012, cable bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature acknowledged requests for additional security, but nevertheless ordered the withdrawal of security assets to proceed as planned,” the chairmen of five House committees wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama.
“Given the gravity of this issue, we request that you immediately make the April 19, 2012, State Department cable public.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mrs. Clinton’s signature on the cable was standard for all diplomatic cables and was a practice continued from prior administrations.
He accused the Republicans of trying to “stoke a false controversy.”
Mrs. Clinton resigned as secretary of state this year, but political analysts say she could make another run for the White House in 2016. If she does, questions about her role in Benghazi are sure to dog her.
Officials in Libya made repeated requests for more security and reported to headquarters that the situation was deteriorating in Benghazi. The British Embassy, the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross withdrew their personnel from Benghazi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE RELATED: Obama, Clinton blew Benghazi response: Republican report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Clinton has testified that she never saw the requests for more security and that subordinates made decisions to reduce protection.
But in an interim report released Tuesday, the chairmen of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Oversight & Government Reform Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee said the evidence shows otherwise.
The chairmen cleared the intelligence community of blame, saying it gave plenty of warning that an attack could happen. The chairmen also cleared the Pentagon, saying the military did what it could to respond, but it was limited.
Instead, the lawmakers said it was Mr. Obama and his aides at the White House, along with Mrs. Clinton and her team at the State Department, who failed.
“The report demonstrates that reductions in security levels prior to the attacks were approved at the highest levels of the State Department,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce, California Republican, said Wednesday. “The report also finds that in the days after the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to cover up the State Department’s responsibility for this disaster.”
Mr. Carney said the administration is focused on trying to track down those who orchestrated the attack.
He said the House “efforts to politicize this have failed in the past and are not helpful to the broad national security efforts we share.”
Mr. Royce, though, said the State Department must answer more questions.
He also said he will introduce a bill to give the department’s internal review process more freedom. He and fellow Republicans were critical of the internal review on Benghazi, saying it stopped short of tracing the decision to withdraw security to the highest levels, and it didn’t recommend any discipline for officials in the chain of command who were involved in that decision.
The administration initially said the attack was spontaneous mob violence sparked by an anti-Muslim video but later called it an organized terrorist assault.
The Republican report said the White House was responsible for prohibiting the mention of terrorism, and the report said administration officials were trying to shield themselves from criticism that they had been too lax in security.
The Republican report reflected an internal battle within the House caucus. Rank-and-file Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attack was dying out, and they had called for a Watergate-style special committee to investigate. Republican leaders resisted, saying the chairmen of the five committees could handle the work.
Democrats on the five committees fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely and that the result was biased.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/24/white-house-clintons-signature-benghazi-cable-stan
-
I look forward to more on this. I asked a sitting US senator about this yesterday. He expressed continued, genine concern in the ongoing investigation.
-
I hope the investigations also will determine why no help was sent to our people under fire and WTF the president was doing , , , besides jetting off to a fundraiser. The same question for SecState Clinton as well.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/explosive-report-forces-were-available-to-help-americans-under-attack-in-benghazi/
The Brett Baier Special Report is hard on this story too. Tomorrow night will be part 3.
-
Prosecute Hillary.
Last week, Speaker Boehner published an Interim Progress Report from the Committees investigating Benghazi that affirms, with absolutely no doubt, that Hillary Clinton lied under oath.
Despite her assertion that she had never seen any documents telling of a heightened threat or requesting increased security, she personally signed off on a drawdown of embassy security personnel in Libya.
All of her "emotional testimony," all of her assertions that "what difference does it make" about the reason Americans died in Benghazi, all of the snide remarks of the Administration about the Republican investigation are now revealed as nothing but a disgusting attempt to hide from the truth and deceive the American people.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
What needs to happen at this point is abundantly clear.
You don't lie about the death of four Americans – including two Navy SEALs – and get away with it. It's time for former Secretary of State Clinton to be prosecuted for perjury.
The case for prosecution is well established, and there are no grounds to give Hillary a pass. In fact, the report by the House explicitly states that Secretary Clinton was "seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."
There is a strong precedent for taking such action against a senior Administration official. In 2005, Scooter Libby – the Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney – was indicted on charges of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice in relation to the Plume affair. Libby resigned his government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.
If you'll recall from back then, liberals in the government and in the media were doing everything but calling for Libby's head. They were practically frothing at the mouth with indignation that he'd leaked information to the press and lied about it. No one had died, no American property had been destroyed – just the politics of it was enough.
But of course it's different when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Whitehouse Spokesman Jay Carney has already started the liberal spin machine at full throttle, making the outrageous assertion that Hillary signed off on all kinds of things – we can't expect her to actually read what she's signing.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
As far as this White House is concerned – and the vast majority of the mainstream media – lying under oath is no big deal. Sure, a few American heroes may have been murdered. Radical Islamists may have destroyed our "diplomatic facility"; with rocket launchers. Our own Ambassador may have been slain. But you can't possibly expect them to take accountability for their actions – or even expect them to own up to their mistakes. That's simply beneath a member of the Obama Administration.
This despicable arrogance has to stop. And, since there is absolutely no indication that Barack Obama or his liberal allies have any intention of taking responsibility, we must do everything in our power to bring them to justice.
The fact of the matter is that the tragedy in Benghazi could have very likely been averted if it weren't for Hillary's signature on that document months prior. She knew the dangers. She knew what the people on the ground saw, and she knew what they needed to deal with it.
But Hillary Clinton didn't do a damn thing about it. And because of that, people died. Then she willingly and repeatedly lied to the American people, to the media, and – while under oath – to Congress.
We're demanding that she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If you want to see justice served, and this destructive administration finally held accountable, I urge you in the strongest terms to join us on this mission. Talk to your friends and neighbors, and share this message with everyone you know.
Speaker Boehner is showing his willingness to do right by our service people by releasing this report. Now we have to let him and the rest of Washington know that this needs to be the beginning, and not the end.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
We need a chorus of voices from all across America demanding that Hillary – and any other member of the Obama Administration involved in the Benghazi cover-up – be indicted immediately. Our service people abroad and the American people deserve accountability from the United States government.
We must never allow those who put everything on the line for this country to receive such an abhorrent disservice and then have the whole affair swept under the rug. It's time to restore responsibility and honor to our government.
That starts with indicting – and ultimately prosecuting – Hillary Clinton for her lies.
Sincerely,
Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks
P.S. Everything we have seen from this administration since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, points to a colossal leadership failure in the Obama Administration and their attempts to cover up the truth about what happened. And now, the smoking gun, HILLARY LIED.It is up to us to hold them accountable and to demand real leadership. Please help us hold their feet to the fire with any contribution you can afford. And then sign the petition today to demand a special select committee to investigate the truth about what happened on September 11, 2012.
-
Similarly, the House charged Attorney General Eric Holder with a Contempt of Congress over its non-responsiveness in the Fast and Furious, Dead Mexicans and Border Guard scandal. It turns out that the Attorney General declined to prosecute himself. Allowing that to go unanswered was the set up for the next coverup. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/holder-contempt/index.html
-
Suddenly, Three Big Developments in the Investigation Into the Benghazi Attack
This news cycle has three new pieces of news related to the Benghazi attack that you must see and keep handy for the next time you hear a White House press secretary say it was "a long time ago" or a secretary of state ask "what difference does it make?"
DEVELOPMENT ONE, courtesy CNN's Paul Cruickshank, Tim Lister, Nic Robertson, and Fran Townsend:
Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.
One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.
Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it's not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.
So, unless these multiple sources are wrong, this can accurately be described as an al-Qaeda attack, either preplanned or a target of opportunity.
DEVELOPMENT TWO, from Adam Housley of Fox News:
On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help -- but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.
The disconnect was one example of what sources described as a communication breakdown that left those on the ground without outside help.
"When you are on the ground, you depend on each other -- we're gonna get through this situation. But when you look up and then nothing outside of the stratosphere is coming to help you or rescue you, that's a bad feeling," one source said.
Multiple sources spoke to Fox News about what they described as a lack of action in Benghazi on Sept. 11 last year, when four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.
"They had no plan. They had no contingency plan for if this happens, and that's the problem this is going to face in the future," one source said. "They're dealing with more hostile regions, hostile countries. This attack's going to happen again."
Under normal circumstances, authorities in Benghazi would have fallen under the chief of mission, one source said -- the person in charge of security in the country who in this case was Stevens. But once Stevens was cornered and members of his security detail pushed his distress button, that authority would have been transferred to his deputy. However, that deputy was out of the country.
That meant the authority then reverted directly to the U.S. State Department, and oversight of the response to the attack that night fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who were calling the shots.
It would be very useful to know more about this source. Perhaps it's someone with an agenda, or someone whose recollection of that night is inaccurate. But if it was someone within the special-operations community, someone with firsthand knowledge of what happened that night, well . . . then this is explosive. There was a call for help, there were actions that could be taken, and the State Department decided against it. If it really did lead all the way back to Hillary Clinton, this would end her 2016 chances. "She left Americans to die horrible deaths" is pretty much the worst charge a presidential candidate could possibly face.
And while we don't know with absolute certainty that what this source is saying is true . . . if it is true, it would explain a lot about the third big development:
DEVELOPMENT THREE, courtesy Fox News' James Rosen:
The State Department's Office of Inspector General is investigating the special internal panel that probed the Benghazi terror attack for the State Department, Fox News has confirmed.
The IG's office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB -- led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen -- failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.
The IG's office notified the department of the "special review" on March 28, according to Doug Welty, the congressional and public affairs officer of the IG's office.
This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi.
Since the ARB report was issued in December -- finding that "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" well below Clinton were to blame for the "inadequate" security at Benghazi -- Clinton and other top officials have routinely referred questioners to the conclusions of the board report. Now the methodology and final product of the ARB are themselves coming under the scrutiny of the department's own top auditor.
-
Definitely worth the time!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
-
When even a pravda like CBS starts covering the story, things could get interesting real quickly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-u-s-ambassador-was-raped-before-he-was-murdered
The president of libya even offered to ferry troops from tripoli to benghazi and was told no thank you - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/chaffetz-state-department-officials-fear-retaliation-on-benghazi-more-will-talk/
============================
Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
May 7, 2013
The Benghazi Hearings: This May Be the Week That Defines Obama's Second Term
Dear Republicans on the House Oversight Committee:
Please do not grandstand. Please do not take the time before the television cameras to tell us how outraged you are, even though what you are investigating is, indeed, outrageous. There will be plenty of time for that after the hearing. All day Wednesday, give us the facts, and then more facts, and then more facts.
Just ask the questions of the witnesses. Let them speak and don't cut them off. Do not give the Obama administration any cover to claim that this is a partisan witch hunt from unhinged political opponents. Don't waste time complaining about the media's lack of interest or coverage so far. Just give them — and us — the facts to tell the story, a story that will leave all of us demanding accountability.
Sheryl Attkisson's excellent reporting for CBS gives us a sense of what to expect, with three big issues.
First: Leading up to September 11, why did State Department's keep reducing the amount of security protecting diplomatic staff in Libya, in light of the increasingly dire requests from those in country?
The former deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya, Gregory Hicks, was interviewed by congressional investigators on the House Oversight Committee in April. He told them, "we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum."
Second: Precisely what happened that night? Was there a time when a rescue could have been authorized, but wasn't? Were any forces told to "stand down" and not attempt a rescue?
From Hicks' interview:
A: So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the SOCAFRICA commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight. And, of course, this meant that one of the . . .
Q : They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight.
A: They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it. So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military." A nice compliment.
Wait, there's more from another witness:
On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Third: What happened afterward, and was there an effort to lie to the American people about what happened?
Hicks, again:
Greg Hicks: The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about. The impact of that is immeasurable. Magariaf has just lost face in front of not only his own people, but the world... my jaw hit the floor as I watched this... I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day... I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report, is, "Greg, we are under attack." ... It is jaw-dropping that - to me that - how that came to be.
Finally, did the previous efforts to investigate this amount to a cover-up?
Jed Babbin:
Last week, we learned that the State Department's Inspector General is investigating the Pickering-Mullen "Accountability Review Board" for, among other things, its failure to investigate and get statements from the Benghazi survivors. Before there were whistleblowers there were survivors, yet the comprehensively misnamed "Accountability Review Board" didn't question them.
Which isn't a surprise. The ARB did what it was paid to do: limit the damage and blame people under Hillary Clinton for the failures of leadership and management. It was, simply, a whitewash. We'll probably wait a long time for the IG to report the facts — 2017 sounds like the right time frame.
In the press conference announcing the report, Adm. Mullen said something that's been bothering me ever since. He said that no military assets could have been deployed in time. In time to do what?
Jed makes a good point here: Just how did the U.S. military and diplomatic folks outside of Benghazi know how long they had to rescue anyone? How did they know how long our guys would be able to hold out, or how long the attack would go on? After the fact, you can calculate that not enough forces could have reached the site in time, but how did they know that as the events were ongoing?
If that means, in Clintonian terms, that they wouldn't have been in time to save Ambassador Chris Stevens, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been in time to save the SEALs.
If you parse Mullen's words — as we learned we must when Hillary's hubby was president — he almost certainly meant that the ambassador was killed in the early moments of the attack.
In short, what we don't need is a bold, expectation-setting, agenda-hinting prediction like this:
Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said on his radio show Monday that President Obama "will not fill out his full term" because he was complicit in a "cover-up" surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.
"I believe that before it's all over, this president will not fill out his full term," Huckabee said. "I know that puts me on a limb, but this is not minor."
-
Good to see the Benghazi scandal finally under scrutiny. The lying is so thick it is hard to know where to start or end exposing it.
LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: I believe that President Obama lied to the American people, himself. Secretary [Hillary] Clinton lied to Congress. Susan Rice lied to the UN. Jay Carney lied to the media. And the mainstream establishment media have protected this administration right down the line. [An unpleasant image of professional journalist Candy Crowley comes to mind.]
Hillary was absent when her help was needed. The dead Ambassador had no way of reaching her for months in advance with his plea for help. And she never made a phone call during the all day attack.
The President never said where he was for the 3am (5pm) call, then he did nothing.
It was our first Ambassador murdered in 33 years. This attack was a big f'ing deal.
The Obama advisers ordered: Stand down. The President left the room. Who was in charge?
Rand Paul had this right: "Dereliction of Duty". “Had I been president at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post,”
Hillary was most certainly IN the loop when the talking points were changed from true to false. She will never be President.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Source-Only-President-Could-Have-Made-Stand-Down-Call-During-Benghazi-Attack
WaPo: What is known and unknown as of now re the talking points:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-benghazi-talking-points-whats-known-and-unknown/2013/05/06/f689ee08-b693-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html
-
Now if this were a Republican....
Yesterday the sleaze in ex chief - Bill announced Hillary is not definitely running for his past job....
Likely the only thing the main stream media will carry about this is the Clinton army of BS ers blanketing all the talk shows and news outlets with the rapid response "damage" control.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/john-bolton-benghazi-could-bring-down-obama-admini/
-
Benghazi Truths vs. Washington Politics
Wednesday's hearing turned a light on a previously unnoticed player in the story: Hillary Clinton's chief of staff.
By ELLIOTT ABRAMS
'I was stunned. My jaw dropped," said Gregory Hicks at Wednesday's House hearing on the Benghazi terror attack last fall and its aftermath. Mr. Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya under Ambassador Chris Stevens, was referring to the now-famous TV appearances by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
Ms. Rice, blanketing the Sunday talk shows the weekend after the murderous assault on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, spoke of spontaneous protests and linked them to a video insulting Islam. But Mr. Hicks said "there was no report from the U.S. Mission in Libya regarding a demonstration," and there were no protests. "The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya," he added. In the last telephone call that Mr. Hicks received from Stevens, the ambassador said "we're under attack" and then the cell connection dropped.
The hearing deepened the mystery of how Ms. Rice came to say such things. It added a new political wrinkle in the person of Cheryl Mills, whose role was previously unnoticed. Mr. Hicks testified that when a Republican member of the committee, Jason Chaffetz, visited Libya to investigate what had happened, he was instructed that no State Department officer was ever to be alone with the congressman—and that a lawyer was to attend every meeting he had.
When the lawyer was excluded from one meeting with intelligence officers because he lacked the security clearances, Mr. Hicks received a furious call from Ms. Mills, who was then chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We can be confident that Ms. Mills, who represented Bill Clinton in his impeachment hearings and who was counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, was not calling to guarantee due process. She was calling to protect Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Hicks also told the committee that when he asked the acting assistant secretary for the Near East, Beth Jones, why Ms. Rice had spoken about protests and the video, he was curtly told to drop that line of questioning.
Mrs. Clinton's role in this matter remains obscure, in part because the State Department's Accountability Review Board did not interview her, amazingly enough. The review board protected all of the department's higher-ups and blamed career officials down the ladder. The board is now itself under investigation by State's inspector general, and Wednesday's testimony revealed the sore feelings of career officers about the review board's conduct.
It is now widely known that the "annex" in Tripoli was a CIA location, but the whole story of Benghazi makes little sense unless the CIA role in the affair can be clarified. There were very few security officers at the consulate, and this seems like a huge error by the State Department. But is this because the whole Benghazi set-up was mostly a CIA operation?
That could explain as well why the annex was permitted there, though it did not meet minimal State Department security standards. It may explain why State had a presence in dangerous Benghazi at all—as a cover for the intelligence presence. This may not be fodder for an open hearing, but unless we understand the interplay between State and the CIA, we will not have the full story.
The three witnesses—Mr. Hicks and two other State Department officers who work on counterterrorism and security, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom—came across as civil servants of whom Americans can be proud. Mr. Hicks's account of the night of the attack and following morning, and the desperate efforts to save the Americans in Benghazi, were gripping.
The hearing room was silent as he told the tale, for the most part without emotion. He named the Americans on his team who had risked their lives to try and rescue Stevens, and others who had performed so well in the intense crisis that gripped the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. At 3 a.m. he gave the order to abandon the embassy building because there were Twitter feeds saying an attack was coming, and he told stories like that of the embassy nurse who started "smashing computer hard drives with an ax" to protect classified information.
The hearing also showed the chasm between the culture of career civil servants ready to risk their lives and the vicious political culture of Washington. No doubt politics motivated some of the Republicans, but due to the nature of the hearing they were cast as investigators. Most Democrats appeared far more dedicated to defending Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration than to finding out exactly what happened, and any criticism of Ms. Rice was rebutted. After all, Chris Stevens is gone but 2016 is just around the corner.
The three witnesses seemed to be visitors from a different reality—different from Rep. Carolyn Maloney and her outrage that anyone could criticize the great Secretary Clinton, or from Cheryl Mills and the anger she expressed at Mr. Hicks for allowing a congressman to escape the presence of the lawyer she had sent.
The Accountability Review Board was also part of that Washington culture, protecting the top levels of the State Department—the secretary and the deputy and under secretaries—and laying blame (and punishment) on the career people below them. This hearing did not ascertain where the buck should stop, but it was a step forward in getting the facts. And it was a reminder that in Washington we should not permit people with political motives to blight the careers of civil servants and blame them for failures of management and policy at the top.
Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009
-
BENGHAZI - The U.S. State Department’s deputy chief of mission in Libya fought back tears on Wednesday as he delivered a lengthy account of the nighttime terrorist attacks last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
• Deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya Gregory Hicks testified Wednesday that the anti-Muslim YouTube video initially blamed for the Benghazi attacks was a “non-event” in Libya. Hicks said that it was clear from the beginning that there was an attack on the consulate, not a protest over the video.
• Hicks told Congress that a U.S. State Department official began criticizing his job performance, and he was ultimately demoted, after he asked why U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice attributed the Benghazi attack to an anti-Muslim Youtube video.
• Hicks said that at 2 a.m. Benghazi time, he briefed U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hicks said that during the briefing, he referred to the incident as a terrorist attack, and that at no time was it referred to as anything else.
• President Obama called Clinton at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
• That was more than six hours after the attacks started, more than an hour before Tryone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed--and about the time that Clinton first released a statement linking the attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” a reference to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.
• Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer at the US Embassy in Tripoli in the months before the Benghazi attack, also said senior State Department officials were aware of security shortcomings, and it was "inexplicable" that their actions were not reviewed more thoroughly.
• Eric Thompson, the U.S. State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, testified that he had urged the deployment of an elite response team—known as the Foreign Emergency Support Team, or FEST—but was rebuffed by the White House.
• White House spokesman Jay Carney Wednesday blamed the intelligence agencies for the administration’s effort to hide Al Qaeda’s role in the lethal jihadi attack last September on the U.S. diplomatic site in Benghazi, Libya. Asked if White House officials made any changes, Carney claimed that “the only edits were stylistic and non-substantive.”
-
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/05/09/gregory-hicks-i-swore-an-oath-to-uphold-and-defend-the-constitution”/
-
Asked if White House officials made any changes [to the lies about the attack], Carney claimed that “the only edits were stylistic and non-substantive.”
---------
Hey Mr. Carney, This is an congressional investigation of history's most transparent administration. The report made to the American people was a complete fabrication. How about if you disclose all the changes made by all of the parties including the White House and State Department and we will decide what is "stylistic and non-substantive.”
What was said in these open hearings that could not have been said last September and who has been brought to justice so far for attacking the United States of America?
The message sent to terrorists is: attack the United States, kill diplomats, and they will "stand down" and then deny that you did it.
Meanwhile, some small-time filmmaker is world famous and in prison.
-
I confess to a sense that as serious as lying to the American people about who it is that is attacking us, this business about the talking points can get us detoured into a Clintonesque tangent of bureaucratic infighting between the CIA and the White House.
FWIW my sense of things is that a far more unifying theme for the American people from across the political spectrum is the matter of abandoning our people under fire. WHO in the White House told Gen. Hamm to tell our soldiers in Tripoli to not board that plane? Where is the President's log for that day? Not strange that he should release it, after all he released it for his activities on the day of the Bin Laden kill.
-
I know Crafty is right about the in-fighting point. The security issues are much much larger. Still my mind is stuck on the completely fabricated story put out to the American people. Also, according to some, the lying played a role in causing the Libyan government to delay the entry of the FBI to the crime scene until 2 1/2 weeks later, while the evidence was degrading. Possibly the reason that no one has been brought to justice as promised.
-------
Yesterday's testimony of Greg Hicks was described by journalists present as the most riveting since Oliver North and Alexander Butterfield.
Or, as they reported on the low information voter news sites, Kim Kardashian is still pregnant.
All through the different phases of the attack, told with great detail and credibility, one had to wonder if help was on the way, when, and why not?
Liberal journalist tried to downplay the testimony. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post called Hicks a storyteller that disappointed the committee Republicans that invited him. Milbank said of Hicks, "his gripes were about bureaucratic squabbles rather than political scandal".
Milbank continued: this whistleblower spent a good bit of time tooting his own horn. “I earned a reputation for being an innovative policymaker who got the job done. I was promoted quickly and received numerous awards,” Hicks informed the lawmakers. “I have two master’s degrees. . . . I speak fluent Arabic. . . . I fast became known as the ambassador’s bulldog because of my decisive management styles. . . . Incoming charge Larry Pope told me personally that my performance was near-heroic.”
Milbank may not know that this formerly competent diplomat, the number one man in Libya after Stevens' death with two masters degrees and fluent in Arabic, was demoted to a desk job after expressing his "shock" about the Susan Rice's account of it and his perceived cooperation with congress.
Milbank: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html?hpid=z2
Hicks received a call from Mills (Sec. Clinton's Chief of Staff), whom he described as being “very upset.” Mills, he said, demanded to know what was said [to congressional investigators].
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347758/hicks-clintons-confidante-called-me-very-upset-cooperating-investigation
Text of Hicks testimony: http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20130508/NEWS01/130508017/Transcript-Testimony-Gregory-Hicks-Benghazi
President Obama, September 12, 2012 in Las Vegas, after a few words of nothingness about the attack: "[Republicans] want to give you more tax cuts, especially tilted towards the wealthy, and everything will be okay.
AUDIENCE: Booo –
THE PRESIDENT: And this is their prescription for everything — tax cuts in good times, tax cuts in bad times; tax cuts when we’re at peace, tax cuts when we’re at war; tax cuts to help you lose those few extra pounds — (laughter) — tax cuts to give your love life that extra kick. (Laughter.) "
https://historymusings.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/full-text-campaign-buzz-september-12-2012-president-barack-obamas-speech-at-a-campaign-event-in-las-vegas-nevada/
-
http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/9888/sign-petition-to-investigate-benghazi/
-
Breaking this morning, from ABC News' Jonathan Karl:
When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."
Here's the kicker: "In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned . . ."
Hey, why would they want to accurately inform the public if it might result in criticism from Congress, right?
-
Special Report: Alexander on Benghazi
May 10, 2013
Editor's Note: In today's edition, Mark Alexander provides concise analysis on what you need to know about Benghazi. Don't miss the rest of the Digest after this special report.
Amid all the media saturation regarding the 2012 assault in Benghazi, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack on our own soil in 2001, there are some important developments you need to know.
Those developments fall into two categories:
First: Who within the Obama administration knew what, and when, and who told our Special Forces operators to stand down and not respond? The answer to this question is crucial, because it allows us to determine what motivated that stand-down order. In addition, the answer might shed some light on where the president was after 5 p.m. on September 11, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey informed him that our embassy was under attack and that our people were fighting for their lives. That we still don't have any idea what the commander in chief was doing during this crisis tells us all we need to know about our shamefully incurious mainstream media.
Second: Who within the administration changed the narrative talking points about the Benghazi attack, why, and under whose direction? The CIA immediately (and correctly) asserted that it was a terrorist attack, so why did the Obama administration tell the American people that it was a protest in response to an utterly obscure YouTube video that was deemed offensive to Muslims? The answer to this question is crucial for determining who in the administration advanced the fraudulent narrative in order to provide Obama political cover ahead of the upcoming presidential election.
As to the first question regarding the stand down order, here is what we do know:
Regarding the stand down order, questions raised about what could have been done to save Americans in Benghazi are legitimate, but hindsight is 20/20, and second guessing military commanders on the ground, or at the Pentagon, should be done with all due respect. If the response team was ordered to stand down because they would have arrived too late, or because the response could have escalated into a much larger conflict resulting in the deaths of the responders, or both, that is one thing.
On the other hand, if the response team was ordered to stand down because of political concerns in advance of the upcoming election that a larger confrontation would undermine the appearance that Obama was conqueror of the al-Qa'ida threat, that is quite another thing. Were these Americans sacrificed as part of a political campaign calculation? We won't know the answer to this question until it's clear how far up into the Obama administration that stand down order was issued.
The second-highest-ranking American official in Libya at the time of the attack, Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S., testified this week that he received a call from Ambassador Stevens, who told him, "Greg! We're under attack!"
Hicks said that after U.S. Special Operations Command Africa was alerted, then ordered to stand down (or "not to go" as the DoD is parsing it), the operations commander "was furious." Hicks said, "I had told him to go bring our people home. That's what he wanted to do," adding "everyone in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning."
When asked about his reaction to the repeated assertion on Sunday morning talk shows by UN Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack was a "protest" related to a YouTube video, Hicks responded, "I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed. ... The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya."
When Hicks raised objections to the administration's utterly inaccurate narrative, he says he was "effectively demoted."
In the final analysis of the attack in Benghazi, the Accountability Review Board assessment may be correct, even though the Board was chosen by Hillary Clinton and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper -- both of whom have career stakes in the outcome of that review.
(Marc: I find this too mild and too defential. IMO this is the more important issue than the talking points lies. Abandoning people to their deaths for political reasons is more important-- and a more effective political point-- than a politician lying to get re-elected. Here is a retired admiral getting it right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Gx3tJ53zlPU )
However, the question of who changed the talking points narrative after the incident was not addressed by the ARB.
As to the second question regarding who changed the narrative about the Benghazi attack for political reasons, here is what we do know:
Days before the Obama administration began pushing the "YouTube video protest" narrative, it was clear that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist assault. Department of State counterterrorism officials, the CIA and military intelligence sources immediately reported that the attack was a terrorist assault.
Within 24 hours of attack, the acting assistant secretary for Middle Eastern affairs at the State Department, Beth Jones, confirmed that Ansar al-Sharia, a radical Islamic terror group with known ties to al-Qa'ida, was the perpetrator.
Although the official Benghazi account generated by the CIA immediately after the attack makes no mention of a protest regarding a YouTube video, the Obama administration intentionally altered that accurate account into a fraudulent one that blamed the video. This was done to create political cover for Obama so the incident would not derail his re-election campaign momentum.
Blame-shifting from terrorism to the video narrative achieved two political goals. It framed the attack in one of the Left's favorite themes, "intolerance," and removed it from the specter of the Obama administration appearing incompetent and having overstated the demise of al-Qa'ida.
But the blame-shifting charade is rapidly falling apart.
Within days of the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood in front of the flag draped caskets of four dead Americans and asserted, "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless and totally unacceptable."
That was a lie worthy of her husband.
Obama spokesman Jay Carney asserted, "The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."
That, too, was a lie.
Ambassador Susan Rice hit the network talk shows hard with the YouTube claim. "What happened this week in Benghazi was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated..."
And another lie.
A full two weeks after the Benghazi attack, Obama told the UN General Assembly, "That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
That was a lie, and the lies are compounding.
In January, Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?"
Her phony indignation is evident, and it's downright despicable. This was neither a video nor was it because "guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans." Clinton is not calling it what everyone knew it to be within hours of the incident.
"What difference at this point does it make?"
The difference now is that we know she, and Obama, were lying.
The Weekly Standard published a timeline from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the substantive revisions the Obama administration made to the CIA's talking points six weeks prior to the 2012 presidential election.
Asked about those revisions, Jay Carney explained, "The only edits made here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building, or the facility in Benghazi, from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like."
Fact trumps fiction, however. Removing references to al-Qa'ida and substituting them with references to a YouTube video are something other than "stylistic" changes.
Carney is lying.
Carney then delivered the centerpiece of the administration's talking points to cover the political trail of the original (adulterated) talking points: "Ultimately, this all has been discussed in an enormous level of detail by the administration to congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points again is part of an effort to chase after what isn't the substance."
Clearly, it is the Obama administration that politicized the talking points last September.
On October 15, 2012, ahead of the second presidential debate, The Patriot Post submitted to key Romney campaign officials a thoughtful compilation of talking points that would resonate with grassroots Americans. Among those talking points was the recommendation for Romney to make the case that Obama was concealing the truth about Benghazi in order "to shield his administration from the appearance of incompetence and to maintain the errant perception that the al-Qa'ida threat died when he (actually Navy SEALs) killed Osama bin Laden. Thus, Obama and his key administrators insisted that protests over a web video led to attack in Libya, knowing full well that it was actually a well-executed terrorist assault. This obfuscation clearly was, and remains, a political calculation in advance of his re-election, to ensure this incident does not detract from the perception that Obama is adequate as commander in chief."
Romney never made that case, nor did he reference any of the other grassroots talking points we submitted -- and by the narrowest of margins, he lost the election. Unfortunately, the Republican National Committee also pulled its pre-election ad on Benghazi.
In short: Obama, Clinton and Rice lied, and Americans died. It is time for Congress to ramp up the investigation into the politicization of the attack narrative. A special prosecutor should now be on the horizon.
Meanwhile, on the eve of the congressional testimony on Benghazi this week, Susan Rice was honored by The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies for "her work in advancing U.S. interests, strengthening the world's common security and prosperity, and promoting respect for human rights."
And Ms. Clinton was in Hollywood the day of the testimony for a Beverly Hills gala to receive the Warren Christopher Public Service Award from the Pacific Council on International Policy. It is no small irony that the late Christopher, who was deputy secretary of state under Jimmy Carter and secretary of state under Bill Clinton, was awarded by Carter the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, for his failure to successfully negotiate the release of the 52 American Embassy hostages held in Iran for the final 444 days of the Carter presidency.
That was another Middle Eastern debacle, which contributed to Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan.
No doubt Obama heeded the lesson from Carter's re-election defeat, and was determined to do whatever needed to be done so that the Benghazi embassy attack would not threaten his re-election bid.
For the record, Carter awarded that medal to Christopher just days before Reagan took office. Also for the record, on January 20, 1981, at the moment President Reagan completed his inaugural address, Iran released all of the American Embassy hostages. Iran understood that Reagan would not be a pushover like Carter -- as the leadership of the Soviet Union would soon learn.
If only Obama could learn that lesson...
-
Who ordered the stand down?
First ask, who CAN order a military action in a foreign land? That would be -- only -- the Commander in Chief.
Why did he order a stand down?
That is why the investigation into the fraudulent talking points is so important. If the biggest considerations after the fact were all based in politics, so was the thinking DURING the attack!
Peggy Noonan today:
"...the implied question that hung over the House hearing, and that cries out for further investigation. That is the idea that if the administration was to play down the nature of the attack it would have to play down the response—that is, if you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324244304578473533965297330.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
-----------
The stand down also could have been because the President was unreachable, off the grid. He was never in the situation room that day, where they all sat during the OBL kill. No one has said they spoke with him during the 8 hour attack? Maybe Mark Sanford knows where he was...
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347912/bad-faith-and-benghazi
‘Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
That was how then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously brushed off the question of when she knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were, in fact, a terrorist assault and not a “protest” of an anti-Islam video that got out of hand.
Clinton’s fans, in and out of the press, loved her defiant response, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it.
What Clinton was really doing there was deflecting attention away from the fact that she had lied. We now know, thanks to Wednesday’s congressional hearings and reporting by The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes, that administration officials knew from the outset the video had nothing to do with it. Intelligence sources on the ground in Libya and officials in Washington knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. The video was a “non-event in Libya,” according to Gregory Hicks, the man who inherited Stevens’s duties after the ambassador was killed by al-Qaeda-linked militants. The false video story was simply imposed from above by Clinton, President Obama, and their subalterns.
Let’s return to that lie in a moment.
The hearings exposed another lie. Obama and Clinton have insisted that they did everything they could to help the Americans besieged in Libya; they just couldn’t get help to them in time.
That’s simply untrue.
But even if that were true, it would still be a self-serving falsehood.
If you see a child struggling in the ocean, you have no idea how long she will flail and paddle before she goes under for the last time. The moral response is to swim for her in the hope that you get there in time. If you fail and she dies, you can console yourself that you did your best to rescue her.
But if you just stand on the beach and do nothing as the child struggles for life, saying, “Well, there’s just no way I can get to her in time,” it doesn’t really matter whether you guessed right or not. You didn’t try.
The White House and State Department insist they guessed right, as if that somehow absolves them of responsibility. They would have sent help if they could have, they claim, but they simply weren’t ready to deploy forces on September 11, the one day of the year you’d expect our military and intelligence agencies to be ready for trouble in the Middle East, particularly given that before his murder, Stevens warned of security problems in Benghazi.
But we know the administration ordered others who were willing, able, and obliged to come to the consulate’s rescue to “stand down.” They in effect told the lifeguards, “Don’t get out of your chairs.”
Though an unmanned drone was there to capture the whole thing on video, which must have been reassuring as the mortar rounds rained down.
Leon Panetta, who was the secretary of defense during the attack, mocked critics who wanted to know why the Pentagon didn’t scramble any jets from Italy to the scene. “You can’t willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. . . . You have to have good intelligence.”
Never mind that real-time video of the attack is pretty good intelligence. An F-16 doesn’t need to blow anyone to hell to have an impact. As military expert and former assistant defense secretary Bing West notes, “99 percent of air sorties over Afghanistan never drop a single bomb.” Just showing up is often intimidating enough.
What motivated the White House and the State Department to deceive the public about what they did is unknown. Maybe it was incompetence or politics or simply understandable bureaucratic confusion.
But we do know they deceived the public. Which brings us back to the lies over the video. In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. Obama and Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming the video — as if the First Amendment were the problem.
Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That’s what difference it makes.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/geraldo-rivera-my-sources-tell-me-benghazi-was-about-running-missiles-to-syria-rebels/
This would explain Romney's silence-- but just how does not rescuing our people protect the weapons running program?
-
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/msnbc-benghazi/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TR8IxtS1AiY
Even "impeachment" is mentioned!!!
-
From Jay Leno: When it comes to Benghazi, Obama has a new slogan. Hope, and change the subject.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html
The Benghazi Scandal Grows
The State Department, the CIA, the White House . . .
May 20, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 34 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version—produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers—was a shadow of the original.
Whistleblowers
The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.
These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”
There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.
.
Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy—al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.
The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”
In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.
This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.
“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”
So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?
There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points.
===============================
The CIA’s talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.
In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security—including State, Defense, and the CIA—as well as senior White House national security staffers.
The Deputies Committee convened the next morning, Saturday the 15th. Some participants met in person, while others joined via a Secure Video Teleconference System (abbreviated SVTS and pronounced “siv-its”).
The proceedings were summarized in an email to U.N. ambassador Rice shortly after the meeting ended. The subject line read: “SVTS on Movie/Protests/violence.” The name of the sender is redacted, but whoever it was had an email address suggesting a job working for the United States at the United Nations.
Related Stories
According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan.
The email to Rice reported that Sullivan would work with a small group of individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the talking points on Saturday before sending them on to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which had originated the request for talking points.
The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows. The sender told Sullivan the name of the staffer (redacted in the email) who would be running Rice’s prep session and encouraged the team to keep Rice in the loop.
At 2:44 p.m., the author of the email to Rice followed up directly with Sullivan, asking for a copy of the talking points to help with Rice’s preparation for TV. Sullivan promised to provide them.
A senior Obama administration official did not challenge the accuracy of the email to Rice, but disputed any implication that Sullivan was responsible for rewriting the talking points. “The CIA circulated revised talking points to the interagency after the Deputies Committee meeting and Jake Sullivan did not comment substantively on those points.”
This official pointed to Jay Carney’s comments this week. “What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points.”
But Carney’s claim raises an obvious question: Why would intelligence community officials want to redraft talking points they’d already finalized?
The major substantive changes came Friday evening, after a State Department official expressed concerns about criticism from Republicans, and Saturday morning, following the Deputies Committee meeting, where, according to internal Obama administration emails, officials further revised the talking points.
What’s clear is that the final version did not reflect the views of the top intelligence official on the ground in Benghazi, who had reported days earlier that the assault had been a terrorist attack conducted by jihadists with links to al Qaeda, or the top U.S. diplomat in Libya, Gregory Hicks.
========================
Hicks testified last week that he was not consulted on the talking points and was surprised when he saw Rice make a case that had little to do with what had happened in Benghazi. “I was stunned,” he said. “My jaw dropped.”
The hearings last week produced fresh details on virtually every aspect of the Benghazi controversy and raised new questions. By the end of some six hours of testimony, several Democrats on the committee had joined their Republican colleagues in calling for more hearings, additional witnesses, and the release of unclassified documents related to the attacks in Benghazi.
On May 9, House speaker John Boehner echoed the calls for those unclassified Benghazi documents to be made public. He had two specific requests. First, Boehner called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her colleagues to describe a conversation she’d had with Libya’s ambassador to the United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him. “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Among those copied on the email: Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff and longtime confidante.
Second, Boehner asked the White House to release the 100 pages of internal administration emails related to the drafting and editing of the talking points. Sources tell The Weekly Standard that House Republicans will subpoena them if the administration does not turn them over voluntarily.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was time to “move on” from Benghazi. More recently, Jay Carney suggested the same thing, explaining that Benghazi had happened “a long time ago.”
But it’s increasingly clear that congressional Republicans, and many Americans, will not move on until the outstanding questions about Benghazi are answered.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
Correction: This piece originally said that Victoria Nuland suggested changes to the talking points because she was concerned about criticism from Republicans in Congress. That's inaccurate. She suggested changes because of concerns from members of Congress.
-
I was thinking a bit about my post that Geraldo has finally discovered the gun running meme some seven months after I was posting about it here.
It dawned on me that when Geraldo reports that Team Obama told Romney that there was a secret gun running operation that needed to be kept secret and that this is why Romney did not pursue Benghazi that this is really fg significant.
If there was a gun running operation-- as I suspect there was-- then it is not clear to me what the logic is that it would be revealed by acknowledging who it was that attacked us.
Continuing this line of thought, then does it not follow that Team Obama lied to Romney in the name of national security to dupe him into not pursuing this line of attack?
Do I have this right?
-
I just heard a rumor that Petraeus no longer feels the loyalty to Team Obama (can't blame him either!) and will be saying and doing things this week , , ,
===========================
"Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens's warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that '1.43 million cables come to my office' -- and she can't be expected to see all of them, or any. ... Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn't read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic -- seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia's somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. ... Hicks is now America's head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, 'Leave a message after the tone and I'll get back to you before the end of the week.' Just to underline the difference here: Libya's head of government calls [whistleblower Gregory] Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to. ... A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. ... Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama's view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn't in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama's delusions meet reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them. One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse." --National Review's Mark Steyn
-
I just heard a rumor that Petraeus no longer feels the loyalty to Team Obama (can't blame him either!) and will be saying and doing things this week , , ,
Makes sense. As CIA Director, his product was the first version (true version) of what happened in Benghazi, before the 12 revisions. He has already faced the humiliation of his infidelity. He may still face legal or military culpability for details within that. Either way, he has very little choice but to step forward when called to testify, and tell the truth.
------
Jonah Goldberg made a very significant point in Crafty's post here May 10:
'Help [that was ordered to stand down] just couldn’t get there in time.'
True or false in hindsight, that excuse HAD to be written after the fact. It could not have been known at the start of an 8 hour attack.
Goldberg: "If you see a child struggling in the ocean, you have no idea how long she will flail and paddle before she goes under for the last time. The moral response is to swim for her in the hope that you get there in time. If you fail and she dies, you can console yourself that you did your best to rescue her."
-----
Mark Steyn:
A terrorist attack isn’t like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it’s more like a tennis match: Whether it’s all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347980/benghazi-lie
-----
Peggy Noonan explained the non-response ordered by the non-meeting in the situation room, where the President and Secretary of State were not following the events as they transpired (also posted May 10):
"If you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse".
-----
Michael Barone wrote today: (excerpts)
We know that [Sec. Clinton] assured one victim’s father, Charles Woods, that “we’re going to prosecute that person that made the video.”
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Clinton was knowingly attempting to mislead. She certainly knows the difference between Cairo and Benghazi.
And it’s undisputed that Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 man in our Libya embassy, reported that it was an “attack” on September 11. That was the word he heard in his last conversation with Christopher Stevens.
It’s undisputed as well, after testimony at the House committee hearing last week, that Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary of State’s Near Eastern division, e-mailed on September 12 that “the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”
That e-mail went to Clinton counselor Cheryl Mills and State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, among others. You may remember Mills as one of the lawyers defending Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial.
On September 15, the day after Clinton’s assurances to Woods, State Department and White House officials prepared talking points for members of Congress and for ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who was scheduled to go on five Sunday talk shows the next day.
Who chose Rice as the administration’s spokesman? As Barack Obama said after the election, when she was reportedly under consideration to be the next secretary of state, Rice had “nothing to do” with Benghazi.
Selecting which officials go on the Sunday talk shows is a White House function. Either the president or someone who had good reason to believe he was reflecting Obama’s wishes selected Rice, who was out of the loop on the issue.
The expectation must have been that she would say exactly what she was told — and would not betray any inconvenient facts known to those in the loop like Clinton.
The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes got hold of the series of September 15 e-mails in which White House and State Department officials prepared the talking points.
References to warnings State received before September 11 of Ansar al-Sharia–and al-Qaeda-linked attacks in Benghazi were deleted. Nuland describes these as “issues . . . of my building’s leadership.”
The final talking points said, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex.” Rice went on TV and parroted the line.
That was refuted by Hicks. The video was a “non-event” in Libya, he told the House committee. And he testified that he was chastised by none other than Mills for briefing Republican representative Jason Chaffetz without a lawyer present.
The FBI did not find time to interview Hicks. But State found time to yank him out of his job and give him a desk job he regards as a demotion.
Obama continued to attribute the Benghazi attack to a protest against a video on September 18 (Letterman), September 20 (Univision), and September 25 (The View and the United Nations).
There were obvious cynical political motives for attempting to mislead voters during a closely contested presidential campaign.
Obama did not want his theme of “Osama is dead, al-Qaeda is on the run” to be undercut by an Islamist terrorist attack on our ambassador.
Clinton did not want her department’s denial of pleas for additional security in Libya to become known.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347995/benghazi-deception
-
The verbal gymnastics and evasions begin , , ,
The Next Scapegoat
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 13, 2013 270 Comments
Twenty years ago, when she was a young Foreign Service officer in Moscow, Victoria Nuland gave me a dazzling briefing on the diverse factions inside the Russian parliament. Now she is a friend I typically see a couple times a year, at various functions, and I have watched her rise, working with everybody from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton, serving as ambassador to NATO, and now as a spokeswoman at the State Department.
Over the past few weeks, the spotlight has turned on Nuland. The charge is that intelligence officers prepared accurate talking points after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, and that Nuland, serving her political masters, watered them down.
The charges come from two quarters, from Republicans critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi and intelligence officials shifting blame for Benghazi onto the State Department.
It’s always odd watching someone you know get turned into a political cartoon on the cable talk shows. But this case is particularly disturbing because Nuland did nothing wrong.
Let’s review the actual events. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012. For this there is plenty of blame to go around. We now know, thanks to reporting by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Michael Schmidt in The Times, that Benghazi was primarily a C.I.A. operation. Furthermore, intelligence officers underestimated how dangerous the situation was. They erred in vetting the Libyan militia that was supposed to provide security.
The next day, Nuland held a background press briefing, a transcript of which is available on the State Department’s Web site. She had two main points. There’s a lot we don’t know. The attack was conducted by Libyan extremists. She made no claim that it was set off by an anti-Muslim video or arose spontaneously from demonstrations.
On Friday, Sept. 14, David Petraeus, then the director of the C.I.A., gave a classified briefing to lawmakers in Congress. The lawmakers asked him to provide talking points so they could discuss the event in the news media.
C.I.A. analysts began work on the talking points. Early drafts, available on Jonathan Karl’s ABC News Web site, reflect the confused and fragmented state of knowledge. The first draft, like every subsequent one, said the Benghazi attacks were spontaneously inspired by protests in Cairo. It also said that extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated.
The C.I.A. analysts quickly scrubbed references to Al Qaeda from the key part of the draft, investigators on Capitol Hill now tell me.
On Friday evening of Sept. 14, the updated talking points were e-mailed to the relevant officials in various departments, including Nuland. She wondered why the C.I.A. was giving members of Congress talking points that were far more assertive than anything she could say or defend herself. She also noted that the talking points left the impression that the C.I.A. had issued all sorts of warnings before the attack. (Didn't it? Certainly others did , , ,)
Remember, this was at a moment when the State Department was taking heat for what was mostly a C.I.A. operation, while doing verbal gymnastics to hide the C.I.A.’s role. Intentionally or not, the C.I.A. seemed to be repaying the favor by trying to shift blame to the State Department for ignoring intelligence. (Not buying this at all , , ,)
Nuland didn’t seek to rewrite the talking points. In fact, if you look at the drafts that were written while she was sending e-mails, the drafts don’t change much from one to the next. She was just kicking the process up to the policy-maker level.
At this point, Nuland’s participation in the whole affair ends.
On Saturday morning, what’s called a deputies committee meeting was held at the White House. I’m told the talking points barely came up at that meeting. Instead, the C.I.A. representative said he would take proactive measures to streamline them. That day, the agency reduced the talking points to the bare nub Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was given before going on the Sunday talk shows.
Several things were apparently happening. Each of the different players had their hands on a different piece of the elephant. If there was any piece of the talking points that everybody couldn’t agree upon, it got cut. Second, the administration proceeded with extreme caution about drawing conclusions, possibly overlearning the lessons from the Bush years. Third, as the memos moved up the C.I.A. management chain, the higher officials made them more tepid (this is apparently typical). Finally, in the absence of a clear narrative, the talking points gravitated toward the least politically problematic story, blaming the anti-Muslim video and the Cairo demonstrations.
Is this a tale of hard intelligence being distorted for political advantage? Maybe. Did Victoria Nuland scrub the talking points to serve Clinton or President Obama? That charge is completely unsupported by the evidence. She was caught in a brutal interagency turf war, and she defended her department. The accusations against her are bogus.
-
Boehner is the Problem, Help Fix Him!
Dear Member:
Are you happy about the job Congress is doing to expose ‘Benghazi-gate’?
Here is the 8-month track record of failure:
Congress has not issued one single subpoena.
Potentially dozens of witnesses have never been interviewed, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who should be interrogated.
Many of these witnesses and ‘whistleblowers’ are now being harassed, intimidated, and retaliated against by Team Obama. All that these fine men and women want is to honor the sacrifice made by their abandoned and slaughtered colleagues. Instead, they’re being warned to ‘shut-up’ or else.
After 6 months of lethargy, confusion, and overwhelming Obama distractions, only 1 of the 5 congressional committees investigating Benghazi even held a single, one-day congressional hearing.
Obama called theses hearings a ‘side show’. And the 5-committee chairs may prove him correct, as there’s not a single Benghazi hearing planned for May, or in the foreseeable future. None! This is totally unacceptable.
If you’re mad as h_ll about Benghazi, there’s only one person to blame. This one powerful person isn’t Dirty Obama. It isn’t alleged Benghazi-perjurer Hillary Rodham Clinton, or even her lapdog political fixer Cheryl Mills. The person to blame is none other than House Speaker John Boehner.
When it comes to Benghazi, Boehner is the problem.
As the House Speaker, and third in line to the Presidency, John Boehner is an immensely powerful politician. Speaker Boehner has strongly opposed a special Benghazi committee since last November. Back then rank-and-file Republican members fell in line behind the Speaker, trusting his leadership. But those days are long over!
Now 8 months later, Boehner still opposes a House Select Committee on Benghazi. But other than his handpicked Leadership Team, and a few other hanger-ons’, Speaker Boehner has lost the caucus on Benghazi. With each passing day, more House Republicans abandon Boehner to support a House Select Committee --- just like Nixon had at ‘Watergate’. Eighty-five cosponsors have joined since Easter Recess, 40 since Boehner’s failed ‘Progress Report’ was released, and another 15 just since the hearing last week, including 8 in the last two days!
Help Us Continue to Add Even More Cosponsors!
Late last night, I spoke with a senior aide to Speaker Boehner about Benghazi. Frankly, Boehner’s Office didn’t move an inch, and only dug-in deeper.
But it is Imperative for All of Us to Keep Calling Speaker Boehner’s Office at (202) 225-0600.
Tell Speaker Boehner to Stop Blocking the House Select Committee on Benghazi!
If your Congressman has already cosponsored Resolution 36, the House Select Committee, please ask them to do even more, because they can. Ask your Congressman to issue a public statement of support that calls upon Speaker Boehner to immediately appoint the House Select Committee.
You can reach your Member of Congress at (202) 225-3121
It is urgent for you to call as soon as possible, and if the phone is busy, just keep on calling! You’ll get through!
I cannot underscore enough the importance of phone calls and meetings.
Since a Member of Congress rarely sees your email among many thousands of others, and receives ‘irradiated’ postal mail a month late, only phone calls and visiting with your Congressman can get the job done.
This is really Revive America’s two-part strategy of attack:
1). Apply pressure-up from the ‘grassroots’ to Congress:
As a citizen and fellow American, you engage in the political process by making phone calls, and lots of them!
When Congress is in session, like today, call (202) 225-3121. When they’re back home on recess, call them at their home district offices! This always gets their attention, because you’re not competing against slick Washington-DC lobbyists for your congressman’s attention.
2). Personal One-on-One Meetings with Congressman and Senior Aides:
Revive America is continuously meeting with Congress everyday up on Capitol Hill. Help Us Continue Our Work on Capitol Hill
Revive America’s two-part strategy has paid off big time for our campaign on Benghazi. We’re so close now to winning this incredibly important House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi. But Revive could not do it without you. So from one American to another, thank you for staying in the fight!
Yours for America,
Bob Adams
Founder & President
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/11/the-key-benghazi-questions-still-unanswered/
-
No. The Obama administration is the problem. Parts of this are valid, but the shift of blame isn't helpful. The drip, drip, drip of the scandal, as Krauthammer put it, is not all bad for Republicans politically. The speaker has to deal with the perception of half the country that these inquiries are just opportunistic Republicans running wild.
Boehner should be pressing for oversight for sure, but his main public focus should be focussed on policy answers to policy problems. He should calling out regulatory excesses, pushing for comprehensive tax reform, etc. and making it clear that it is the other side that is bogging the country down with their arrogance and abuses of their power, and not addressing the nation's problems. MHO )
-
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/documents/whu-benghazi-emails.pdf
-
Thanks BD. I for one do not have time to wade through it however. :-) Anyone have a citation for a good analysis?
-
Thanks BD. I for one do not have time to wade through it however. :-) Anyone have a citation for a good analysis?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/16/benghazi-emails-questions-remain/2166909/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newly-released-benghazi-emails-directly-contradict-white-house-claims_724603.html
http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/16/three-lessons-from-the-benghazi-emails/
-
Thanks BD. I for one do not have time to wade through it however. :-) Anyone have a citation for a good analysis?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html
-
Thanks BD. I for one do not have time to wade through it however. :-) Anyone have a citation for a good analysis?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html
Puffington Host is good analysis? You are such a kidder, BD! :-D
-
You should read the article, GM... though I am sure by now other outlets have the story (or at least CBS, where it broke).
-
From the URL BD cited-- if true this is REALLY REALLY BAD:
"CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
"The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."
"The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
"The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
"The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
"The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."
-
Ask Dan Rather about the integrity of documents See-B.S. uses. :roll:
-
Did or did not the Reps modify the actual language?
-
Did or did not the Reps modify the actual language?
Hard to say. What's the provenance of the various emails?
-
Well, I'm not seeing anything about it anywhere else, maybe BD's source got it wrong? What say you BD?
-
Well, I'm not seeing anything about it anywhere else, maybe BD's source got it wrong? What say you BD?
Unsure. There are plenty of outlets covering the story, but all that I find lead back to the CBS report.
-
Forgive me for questioning the network known for "fake but true" and the most transparent administration ever, but without evidence this isn't "Operation shiny object", I'll treat this story as the bull it most likely is.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348677/10-pm-phone-call-andrew-c-mccarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy
‘What would you be focusing on in the Benghazi investigation?” I spent many years in the investigation biz, so it’s only natural that I’ve been asked that question a lot lately.
I had the good fortune to be trained in Rudy Giuliani’s U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. Rudy famously made his mark by making law enforcement reflect what common sense knew: Enterprises take their cues from the top. Criminal enterprises are no different: The capos do not carry out the policy of the button-men — it’s the other way around.
So if I were investigating Benghazi, I’d be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That’s the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the one that’s gotten close to zero attention.
Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and “talking points.” The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.
A good deal of media attention has quite appropriately been lavished on e-mail traffic between mid-level administration officials in the days leading up to Sunday, September 16. That is the day when Ms. Rice, a close Obama confidant, made her appalling appearances on the Sunday-morning political shows. Those performances were transparently designed to mislead the American people, during the presidential campaign stretch run, into believing that an anti-Islamic Internet video — rather than a coordinated terrorist attack orchestrated by al-Qaeda affiliates, coupled with the Obama administration’s gross failure to secure and defend American personnel in Benghazi — was responsible for the killings.
Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration’s deft handling of the Arab Spring — by empowering Islamists — had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was “Islamophobia” and the “violent extremism” it allegedly causes — which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.
All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.
Even in the conservative press, it has become received wisdom that President Obama was AWOL on the night of September 11, after first being informed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in the late afternoon, that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. You hear it again and again: While Americans were under attack, the commander-in-chief checked out, leaving subordinates to deal with the crisis while he got his beauty sleep in preparation for a fundraising campaign trip to Vegas.
That is not true . . . and the truth, as we’ve come to expect with Obama, is almost surely worse. There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the “blame the video” narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.
We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”
Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.
The earlier story better fit Obama’s modus operandi, which is to disappear in times of crisis. His brief legislative career was about voting “present” because he prefers to be absent when accountability knocks. The idea is to be the Obama of Evan Thomas lore: “standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.” He reemerges only after the shooting stops and the smoke clears: gnosis personified, here to diagnose our failings. He is not a commander-in-chief for the battle but the armchair general of the post mortem.
In this instance, though, Carney’s hand was forced by then-secretary Clinton. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, she recounted first learning at about 4 p.m. on September 11 that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. That was very shortly after the siege started. Over the hours that followed, Clinton stated, “we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.” It was in the course of this “constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings” that Clinton then recalled: “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective.”
Yes, the 10 p.m. phone call.
-
Will Congress need the Supreme Court to get communications from Hillary and Obama? Didn't the Supremes weigh in on the Nixon tapes?
The only hope to pin this on Obama (all savvy people know he and his close advisors are responsible) is an email or getting someone to turn.
The only other thought is public opinion turns and the media do their job. I am not holding my breath.
-
"Didn't the Supremes weigh in on the Nixon tapes?" - Yes
...
"The only other thought is public opinion turns and the media do their job."
- That's right. The media got dragged in with the AP scandal and the combination of the scandals begins to expose the emperor. Ask his predecessor, you cannot enact a domestic agenda while approval ratings are approaching the 30s. Same goes for helping with congressional campaigns in swing districts, no one wants a soiled-duck to come out on his or her behalf.
What really happened in the White House during the Benghazi attacks gets known by what they call in math, calculating the negative space. We know what didn't happen and fill in the rest accordingly. We know they knew our people were facing an organized terrorist attack from the beginning. We know that they knew they had screwed up on providing prior security. We know their answer right from the beginning was to wave the white flag. We know they violated all rules of military decency by abandoning our people. We know three of the dead violated direct orders by going there to help. We know they were wrong to decide help couldn't get ther in time to do any good. The stand down order was a BIG BIG BIG blunder and we know responsibility for that goes to the top, whether he was sitting there, turned it over to a top general or relied on the advice of a campaign adviser.
We know they were wrong to house operations there at all. We don't know what the operations were. We know they were wrong and stupid to not beef up security for the anniversary of 9/11. We know they didn't respond to prior requests from Benghazi and Libya for greater security. We know they handled it wrong and knowingly lied to our faces after the fact. What more do we need to know? The rest of it, arms sales to Syria or whatever, is the drip, drip, drip, as Krauthammer put it, that keeps it in the news.
All we don't know is whether or not people care.
The Pres. cannot blame decisions he made or should have made on a Secretary or anyone else and she can't blame much on him either; she is culpable too. That joint appearance on 60 Minutes now looks like guilty co-defendants swearing to stand by each other until the bitter end. We can hope that someone in the loop turns on them soon and spills out the real behind the scenes story. What we really hope is that these same people are never trusted again.
-
Doug:
"All we don't know is whether or not people care"
Agreed.
I vaguely remember Nixon times. I was 16 in '73 and not as interested in politics as with the girl in the hallway. I recall thinking what was the fuss over Nixon. It seemed like a political vendetta to "get" the Republican. Later I look back and agree that behavior like Nixon's shouldn't be tolerated.
The ironic thing now is the same liberals who went after Nixon then do everything possible to look the other way now it is *their guy" even more obviously commiting breach of power. Agenda trumps honesty, integrity, and even the law.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/20/Hillary-s-Scapegoat-Speaks
-
You should read the article, GM... though I am sure by now other outlets have the story (or at least CBS, where it broke).
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/21/wapo-three-pinocchios-for-wh-spin-on-benghazi-e-mails/
WaPo: Three Pinocchios for WH spin on Benghazi e-mails
posted at 9:21 am on May 21, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
It’s no surprise to Hot Air readers that the spin from the Left and the White House on the Benghazi e-mails collapses on even cursory scrutiny. The spin, which was that the GOP had “doctored” the e-mails through “misquotes” that unfairly blamed the State Department for trying to protect itself from criticism over a lack of preparation, got dismantled by Jazz over the weekend. No one had claimed they were ”quotes” in the first place, and when reading through the e-mail chain released belatedly by the White House, it became clear that State was demanding wholesale changes to the CIA’s bullet points for self-preservation.
Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact-checker, weighed in on this spin after White House strategist Dan Pfeiffer used it in his full Ginsburg on Sunday, giving Pfeiffer and his bosses three Pinocchios for misleading attacks on the reporters and the Republican note-takers. In particular, Kessler slams them for claiming that the full e-mails exonerated State when in fact they do just the opposite — and implicate the White House in the attempt to manipulate the talking points for political advantage:
When the White House last week released all of its e-mails, it became clear that Rhodes was responding at the tail end of a series of e-mail exchanges that largely discussed the State Department concerns.
In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities [including those of the State Department] and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” …
Moreover, the full disclosure of e-mails makes it clear that White House officials were concerned about the State Department’s objections.
Referring to then deputy national security adviser (and now White House chief of staff), White House press officer Tommy Vietor wrote at 6:21 p.m.: “Denis [McDonough] would also like to make sure the highlighted portions are fully coordinated with the State Department in the event they get inquiries.” (He’s referring to sections in the draft that mention Ansar al-Sharia and to prior terror warnings in Benghazi — both of which were removed in the final draft.)
There is also the comment at 9:14 p.m. by a CIA official: “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with those concerns in mind.”
Kessler concludes:
[T]he reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.
Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it’s a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.
Will those media outlets that played along with the White House spin reconsider their post-release reporting? It depends on how seriously they take fact-checking by the Washington Post. So far, even the Washington Post hasn’t taken it seriously enough to correct its May 19th story on the IRS, despite using canards that Kessler himself had already give four Pinocchios.
And once again, let’s ask: How did we go from the FBI concluding AQ involvement in the Benghazi attack on page 57 of the e-mail string to having no mention of organized terrorism at all in the talking points?
Update: Jim Geraghty gets the Headline of the Day: Washington Post Forced to Begin Using its Strategic Pinocchio Reserve.
-
" The spin, which was that the GOP had “doctored” the e-mails through “misquotes” that unfairly blamed the State Department for trying to protect itself from criticism over a lack of preparation, got dismantled by Jazz over the weekend."
Very glad to hear that.
As I understand it, the purpose of the talking points was to give all concerned (Congressmen, WH folks, etc) a clear sense of what could be said that would not compromise security and intel. Thus, there is NO reason whatsoever for any modifications to what the CIA first wrote.
-
Thanks for the post, GM.
-
Eli Lake: "While the State Department was responsible for elements of the security for the diplomatic mission at Benghazi, the mission itself was used primarily for intelligence activities and most the U.S. officials there and at the nearby annex were CIA officers who used State Department cover. That purposeful ambiguity between diplomatic and intelligence efforts abroad has meant that at home, the State Department has taken almost all of the public blame for an error that was in part the fault of the CIA."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/exclusive-cia-honored-benghazi-chief-in-secret-ceremony.html
Democrat Walter Russell Mead: "[Benghazi] scandal still has legs."
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/22/benghazi-theres-more-to-come/
"This is a combustible situation. In the struggle to defend themselves, each of these dueling bureaucracies is likely to leak information that casts its rival in a poor light—and there are some signs that there may indeed be more shadows in need of illumination. More headlines about Benghazi are the last thing that Team Obama, as well as Team Hillary, want to see right now. But if Benghazi can’t be buried, these teams, too, will get in on the Blame Game.
And finally, as the top brass at State, CIA, Camp Clinton and the White House all try to wash their hands of the scandal, they will deal with the problem of underlings who refuse to be scapegoated. Furious at taking the fall for decisions made far above their pay grade, lower level officials will reach out to the press. Stories like this are like a fire in an ash tray; its flames may not reach all that high, but it can smolder for a long time and really stink up the room.
Don’t count Benghazi out of Scandal Season yet. So much went so wrong in so many ways, and the administration has tried so hard to keep a lid on the whole smoldering mess, that we suspect there are plenty more details waiting to emerge."
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/benghazi-suspects-us-officials-identify-five-men-but-there-are-questions-on-possible-trials/2013/05/21/256b1f9a-c241-11e2-9642-a56177f1cdf7_story.html
-
"Administration officials agreed to remove all reference to Ansar Al Sharia , , ,"
What Orwellian clap trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The purpose of the talking points was to have a statement of what officials could say publicly. There is NO reason that I understand for them to have been modified at all. The fact of the interagency-State-WH? discussions shows that the WH and State were seeking to manipulate what the CIA had already said could be said. Do I have this right?
Therefore to say the "WH agreed to remove" reads to me as an out and out Orwellian deception.
Do I have this right?
-
"Administration officials agreed to remove all reference to Ansar Al Sharia , , ,"
What Orwellian clap trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The purpose of the talking points was to have a statement of what officials could say publicly. There is NO reason that I understand for them to have been modified at all. The fact of the interagency-State-WH? discussions shows that the WH and State were seeking to manipulate what the CIA had already said could be said. Do I have this right?
Therefore to say the "WH agreed to remove" reads to me as an out and out Orwellian deception.
Do I have this right?
Yes, you have it exactly right. The purpose of sending the representative of the administration to all major outlets to obscure the truth rather than reveal it, and they chose someone out of the loop that with no knowledge could not trip up on the follow up. Obscure truth or tell the opposite of truth is what they almost always do on almost every issue, Bush tax cuts caused the housing collapse, a budget that never balances will not add a dime to the debt, and taxing only the richest among us will benefit the middle class.
Honest people can disagree about what to remove from a report for national security reasons, but honest people don't make up a false story for political cover to get through an election.
I can understand playing down the secret CIA presence. I understand the human error or bad luck of underestimating the security risk. I understand there might be good reasons why no terrorists have yet been brought to justice. But there is no excuse imaginable for the stand down order leaving the rest left behind to die, and it is Orwellian for sure to send someone out to tell us the opposite of what really happened.
We endured the drama and photography from inside the situation room during the successful raid of the bin Laden compound. The release of the details of that operation posed security risks as well, but it was worth it to the President for the political approval he gained. We would also like to know during failure who was in the room and what decisions were made by whom and when.
Michael Moore spent 6 minutes of a movie showing that when George Bush was notified of 911 he kept reading to school children. George Bush survived that and the country pulled together. We have yet to learn anything about what this Commander in Chief was doing when his focus should have been on this crisis. Our military would never order a stand down. Only a civilian at a higher power than the highest General would or could do that. David Axelrod from the Ministry of Disinformation owes the American people an explanation.
-
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/05/28/surprises-in-the-benghazi-e-mails/
From the article:
Before proceeding, it is worth noting in passing that Victoria Nuland would be a curious choice for the role of political manipulator. She is not a political appointee, but a professional Foreign Service officer. She has served as ambassador to NATO, as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott in the Clinton administration, and as to principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney in the Bush administration. Her husband, Robert Kagan, was a foreign policy adviser to the McCain and Romney campaigns. Having served as department spokesperson for the past two years, she has just been nominated by President Obama to be assistant secretary of state for European affairs. If anything, her career suggests that she must be about as apolitical as a government official can be, but may take the institutional interests of the State Department quite seriously.
Briefly, then, what do we learn from the newly released e-mails—apart from a crash course in how bureaucracy operates? First, not only was the reference to the demonstration in the talking points from the beginning, but no one in any agency questioned it in any way. It was simply accepted as the truth at the time, even if it was later shown to be a mistake
-
Sorry BD but not buying the direction in which this pushes. The purpose of the talking points was to establish what the intel community was comfortable with the politicos saying in public. IMHO it logically follows that there was no valid reason for any massaging whatsoever of what the intel folks first wrote- but there was massaging a plenty by the political and most reasonable people would strongly suspect the reasons for it were political at the cost of the American people being lied to about who attacked us for weeks and even months. It takes a special level for Hillary to tell the parents of the fallen "Don´t worry, we´ll get the folks who made the video." :x :x :x
-
When disseminating intelligence, the only things that should be scrubbed are sources and methods.
-
No need to apologize. I'm not trying to convince you. But, the outlet is sound and the author is well regarded, so I thought it was worth a read.
-
Fair enough :-)
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/krauthammers-potentially-damaging-theory-benghazis-biggest-scandal-of-all-has-yet-to-be-uncovered-see-what-it-is/
Separately, as evidenced herein, I was one of the first to explore the gun running theory. Here it goes through a fascinating modification with what seems to me tremendous explanatory power. As noted in the piece, this is still hearsay:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/21/report-more-benghazi-whistleblowers-to-reveal-devastating-details-on-terror-attack-including-why-chris-stevens-was-in-libya/
-
Since we don't know it was gun running, I think we can safely say it was gun running or worse, going on in Benghazi. Something they for sure do not want us to know.
Already covered in Crafty's Blaze post but deserving of a repeat and second source, Dr. Krauthammer concludes from the evidence available that Pres. Obama who was not meeting with Generals or even trying to summon a rescue, was engaged in the concoction of the false story WHILE the fatal attacks were staying going on, which we now all know was the main concern in the administration.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/29/krauthammer_obama_was_constructing_a_cover_story_for_benghazi_while_last_two_americans_were_fighting_for_their_lives.html
Krauthammer: Obama Was Constructing A Cover Story For Benghazi While Last Two Americans Were Fighting For Their Lives
"The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question of all is what was the president doing in those eight hours. He had a routine meeting at 5:00. He never after, during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the Secretary of Defense, he never calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never called the CIA Director. Who does he call?
About five hours in he calls the Secretary of State. And after the phone call, she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance. It looks as if the only phone call was to construct a cover story at a time when the last two Americans who died were still alive and fighting for their lives. There’s the scandal and that I think has to be uncovered." (The O'Reilly Factor, May 28, 2013)
-
As the administration strives to accelerate scandal-fatigue, (thousands of) questions remain.
The first one here was posed by Allen West: When in our history did we ever leave Americans behind to die?
The second wave attacks and the last two to die were the guys who disobeyed the "stand down" order. Will Carney, Obama, Hillary or any General on duty at the time step up to the plate and admit that they think these two deserved to die or at least deserved no support?
Did lying about what happened to the American people put egg on the face of the Libyan leaders and impede the slow-to-start investigation?
Where are the arrests?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/9/benghazi-killers-still-on-the-lam-after-9-months-m/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Benghazi killers still on the lam after 9 months, may have sought to ‘smoke out’ CIA
-
Benghazi's Legacy of Broken Trust
When serving in harm's way, diplomats, spies and soldiers need to know that their government has their back.
By KEVIN G. NORTON
In 2009, I was a member of a small team of advisers to the Afghan police in Paktia province in the mountains near the southeastern Afghan border. One hot afternoon in early June, we received a desperate call for help from another American unit that was under a sustained attack. We drove out to their position as fast as we could, only to find several casualties and chaos. The Taliban cut off the attack soon after we arrived.
After we evacuated the casualties, the officer in charge of the unit told me that he could not find his interpreter. I led a small group of soldiers down into a wide field to look for the interpreter. We knew the danger: At any moment the Taliban could have resumed the attack and caught us in a very exposed position. We searched for more than 10 minutes before we found his lifeless body. It had been thrown from a vehicle that was hit by an improvised explosive device. We took another few minutes to locate his severed leg.
Why would we take such a risk to find an interpreter? Because he was a part of our team. He had taken on faith that we would do what we could to protect him and never leave him behind. Had we not done so, what message would it have sent to our other interpreters and partners? It would have been extremely difficult to ask others to take risks on our behalf or look out for us.
I am reminded of that day in the Afghan mountains whenever I think of the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 last year. There are many causes for concern or outrage regarding the attack and its aftermath. But the heart of the scandal is this: Four U.S. citizens, willing to put themselves in harm's way for the country's greater good, were left to die with no support from the government they represented.
While many lawmakers and commentators have pointed out this basic fact, what is less appreciated is what the Benghazi scandal means for others who go abroad to serve the country. Servants of the American people—diplomats, spies, soldiers, aid workers—who work in harm's way should be able to depart these shores confident that their government will do anything it can to protect them. This principle is at the very core of foreign service and is based on trust. Any breach of that trust is devastating to our efforts abroad.
In Benghazi, the U.S. government simply did not do all it could to protect its agents in the field. Leon Panetta, defense secretary at the time of the attack, later told Congress that U.S. forces were not deployed because "you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
This was a stunning abdication of responsibility. Mr. Panetta and President Obama knew that Americans were under attack that night. Thousands of U.S. military personnel have given their lives to save their fellow Americans—civilians and soldiers alike—under similar circumstances.
At the conclusion of his recent speech on Memorial Day, Mr. Obama issued a challenge to all Americans: "Let it be our task, every single one of us, to honor the strength and the resolve and the love these brave Americans felt for each other and for our country." Those brave Americans include Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, including two former Navy SEALs, who died in Benghazi.
Amid the many recent scandals that have come out of Washington, there is a danger that the disastrous Benghazi episode will be put aside before it has been adequately explored—before Americans know exactly who did and did not perform capably and honorably during those terrible hours and their aftermath.
We do already know one essential truth about Benghazi: The sacred bond between the government and those who serve it was broken, and the message was delivered to Americans serving around the world. That's a scandal.
Mr. Norton is a national security consultant and former U.S. Army infantry officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
second post
Meanwhile, Back in Benghazi . . .
Remember my story about the smuggling of shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles in and out of Libya during that country’s civil war? Public reports indicate that tracking those missiles was almost certainly what Ambassador Chris Stevens was working on when he was attacked and murdered in Benghazi. While the most lurid allegations of U.S. arms smuggling in Libya remain unproven, the Obama administration did give its blessing to Qatar’s smuggling of arms to the Libyan rebels in 2011 — and later realized that the weapons were ending up in the hands of Islamist militants. The quiet approval of the arms smuggling violated a United Nations arms embargo and probably ended up exacerbating a problem that would eventually require Stevens to be in that city when the danger was so considerable.
There is a new Reuters report from Benghazi that further corroborates the account of Libyans smuggling their leftover weapons, including missiles, through Benghazi to Syria, and adds additional details:
Abdul Basit Haroun says he is behind some of the biggest shipments of weapons from Libya to Syria, which he delivers on chartered flights to neighbouring countries and then smuggles over the border. . . .
The first consignment of weapons was smuggled into Syria aboard a Libyan ship delivering aid last year, Haroun says, but now containers of arms are flown “above board” into neighbouring countries on chartered flights.
That Libyan ship departed shortly before the attack against Americans in Benghazi:
On September 14, 2012, three days after Stevens was killed, Sheera Frenkel, a correspondent for the Times of London, reported from Antakya, Turkey:
A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.
Frenkel’s report identified the ship’s captain as “Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.”
The Reuters report continues:
A Reuters reporter was taken to an undisclosed location in Benghazi to see a container of weapons being prepared for delivery to Syria. It was stacked with boxes of ammunition, rocket launchers and various types of light and medium weapons.,,
The UN report appears to confirm at least some of Haroun’s account, in its investigation in the case of a second vessel, the Al Entisar.
The [UN] Panel investigated a news report that a Libyan ship with around 400 tonnes of aid had supplied Syrian rebels with “the largest consignment of weapons … since the uprising”.
The Panel found that the loading port was Benghazi, that the exporter was “a relief organization based in Benghazi” and the consignee was the same Islamic foundation based in Turkey that Haroun said had helped with documentation.
Great omen for our efforts to arm the Syrians, huh?
-
A mere eight months later POTH catches us with this forum:
In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons
Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Crates of recoilless rifle rounds in a rebel cache in Idlib, Syria, bear the triangle symbol of arms sent to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
By C. J. CHIVERS, ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: June 21, 2013
During his more than four decades in power, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya was North Africa’s outrageously self-styled arms benefactor, a donor of weapons to guerrillas and terrorists around the world fighting governments he did not like.
A Libyan rebel in 2011 carried off boxes of ammunition from a factory near Tripoli that served as a supply point for Qaddafi forces.
Even after his death, the colonel’s gunrunning vision lives on, although in ways he probably would have loathed.
Many of the same people who chased the colonel to his grave are busy shuttling his former arms stockpiles to rebels in Syria. The flow is an important source of weapons for the uprising and a case of bloody turnabout, as the inheritors of one strongman’s arsenal use them in the fight against another.
Evidence gathered in Syria, along with flight-control data and interviews with militia members, smugglers, rebels, analysts and officials in several countries, offers a profile of a complex and active multinational effort, financed largely by Qatar, to transport arms from Libya to Syria’s opposition fighters. Libya’s own former fighters, who sympathize with Syria’s rebels, have been eager collaborators.
“It is just the enthusiasm of the Libyan people helping the Syrians,” said Fawzi Bukatef, the former leader of an alliance of Libyan brigades who was recently named ambassador to Uganda, in an interview in Tripoli.
As the United States and its Western allies move toward providing lethal aid to Syrian rebels, these secretive transfers give insight into an unregistered arms pipeline that is difficult to monitor or control. And while the system appears to succeed in moving arms across multiple borders and to select rebel groups, once inside Syria the flow branches out. Extremist fighters, some of them aligned with Al Qaeda, have the money to buy the newly arrived stock, and many rebels are willing to sell.
For Russia — which has steadfastly supplied weapons and diplomatic cover to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria — this black-market flow is a case of bitter blowback. Many of the weapons Moscow proudly sold to Libya beginning in the Soviet era are now being shipped into the hands of rebels seeking to unseat another Kremlin ally.
Those weapons, which slipped from state custody as Colonel Qaddafi’s people rose against him in 2011, are sent on ships or Qatar Emiri Air Force flights to a network of intelligence agencies and Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey. From there, Syrians distribute the arms according to their own formulas and preferences to particular fighting groups, which in turn issue them to their fighters on the ground, rebels and activists said.
Qatari C-17 cargo aircraft have made at least three stops in Libya this year — including flights from Mitiga airport in Tripoli on Jan. 15 and Feb. 1, and another that departed Benghazi on April 16, according to flight data provided by an aviation official in the region. The planes returned to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The cargo was then flown to Ankara, Turkey, along with other weapons and equipment that the Qataris had been gathering for the rebels, officials and rebels said.
Last week the Obama administration announced that it had evidence that Mr. Assad’s military had used sarin nerve agent in multiple attacks, and that the United States would begin providing military aid to the rebels, including shipments of small arms.
In doing so, the United States could soon be openly feeding the same distribution network, just as it has received weapons from other sources.
The movements from Libya complement the airlift that has variously used Saudi, Jordanian and Qatari military cargo planes to funnel military equipment and weapons, including from Croatia, to the outgunned rebels. On Friday, Syrian opposition officials said the rebels had received a new shipment of anti-tank weapons and other arms, although they give varying accounts of the sources of the recently received arms. The Central Intelligence Agency has already played at least a supporting role, the officials say.
The Libyan shipments principally appear to be the work of armed groups there, and not of the weak central state, officials said.
Mr. Bukatef, the Libyan diplomat, said Libyan militias had been shipping weapons to Syrian rebels for more than a year.
“They collect the weapons, and when they have enough they send it,” he said. “The Libyan government is not involved, but it does not really matter.”
One former senior Obama administration familiar with the transfers said the Qatari government built relationships with Libyan militias in 2011, when, according to the report of a United Nations Panel of Experts, it shipped in weapons to rebel forces there in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
As a result, the Qataris can draw on their influence with Libya’s militias to support their current beneficiaries in Syria. “It’s not that complicated,” the former official said. “We’re watching it. The Libyans have an amazing amount of stuff.”
====================
yrian activists and Western officials say that like the unregistered arms transfers organized by other Arab states, the shipments from Libya have been very large but have not kept up with the enormous rebel ammunition expenditures each day.
And most of the weapons have been relatively light, including rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, small arms ammunition and mortar rounds but the Libyan influx appears to account for at least a portion of the antitank weapons seen in the conflict this spring, including Belgian-made projectiles for M40 recoilless rifles and some of the Russian-made Konkurs-M guided missiles that have been destroying Syrian tanks in recent months.
Syrian rebels, working with Qatari backers and the Turkish government, have developed a system for acquiring and distributing Libya’s excess stock, Syrian activists and rebels said.
Orders are placed and shipments arranged through the staff of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, a Western-backed opposition committee that was formed in Turkey late last year.
Safi Asafi, a coordinator commander active on Syria’s northern borders, one of the unofficial gates for weapons shipment to the opposition, said that rebel groups seeking Libyan arms approach the council to arrange the deals.
“Any fighting group in Syria that wants weapons from Libya will go to the staff asking for the approval from the Turkish authorities involved in the transfer, then gets it, the weapons arrive in Syria, and everyone gets his due share,” he said.
By one common formula, Mr. Asafi said, the staff will take 20 percent of the weapons designated for individual groups and distribute them to others. But the ratio can fluctuate, he said, depending on the group’s stature and influence, and less powerful groups sometimes yield a larger cut.
The Supreme Military Council generally does not distribute weapons to blacklisted or extremist groups, Syrian activists said, but these groups have little trouble acquiring the weapons once the arms enter Syria, often buying them directly from groups that receive the council’s support.
Signs of munitions from the former Qaddafi stockpile are readily visible.
Late last month The New York Times found crates, storage sleeves and spent cartridge cases for antitank rounds from Libya in the possession of Ahfad al-Rasul, a prominent group fighting the government and aligned with the Supreme Military Council.
The crates were immediately identifiable because they were painted with a distinctive symbol — 412 inside a triangle — that has been used by many manufacturers, including in China, the Soviet Union, Russia, North Korea and Belgium, to mark ordnance shipments designated for Colonel Qaddafi.
Stenciling on the crates’ sides declared their original destination in 1980: the “Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahirya.”
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/was-saudi-money-behind-benghazi-cover-up-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
including a possible cover-up of foreign (i.e. illegal) donations to Obama campaign, the Clintons
-
I can't seem to read Dick's essays anymore without being hit with ads to sign up for something.
Dick, if your listening, I like to read your essays but please make the sign up requests less "in your face".
-
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/26/chris_stevens_benghazi_diary_published_brooding_hopeful_final_days
-
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/libyan-intelligence-confirms-muslim-brotherhood-egyptian-president-mohamed-morsi-involved-in-benghazi/
Home » Libyan Intelligence Confirms Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian President Morsi Involved in Benghazi
June 27, 2013 by Tim Brown
Libyan Intelligence Confirms Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian President Morsi Involved in Benghazi
Just two days after the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, reports were already coming out that the Muslim Brotherhood led Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was somehow involved in the attacks. At the beginning of June, journalist Cynthia Farahat, linked Morsi to Benghazi from the same video in the link above and recently one of Egypt’s politicians was caught on a hot mic discussing war with their enemies, namely Israel and the United States. Now, according to a Libyan Intelligence document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where several Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed.
Pamela Geller discussed this very thing on September 15, 2012 on Fox and Friends.
Image of the Libyan intelligence document
Image of the Libyan intelligence document
Raymond Ibrahim reports:
On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate, quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i. Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the nation’s Minister of Interior.
It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.
According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…”
It should be noted that these findings are unsurprising: the supremacism of prominent Brotherhood figure Safwat Hegazi is such that he publicly declares the Brotherhood “will rule the world“; Saudi Mansour’s hate-mongering, pro-Brotherhood TV station repeatedly aired footage of the YouTube Muhammad movie inciting violence around the Muslim world; popular Sheikh Muhammad Hassan holds that smiling to non-Muslims is forbidden, except when trying to win them over to Islam; and Sheikh Hazim Abu Ismail is simply an openly anti-freedom, anti-infidel religious leader.
The theory concerning the trade for Ambassador Chris Stevens for the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman has been circulated for quite a while now. However, as Dean Garrison points out, “Morsi has been the missing link to hold that story together.” We’ve been told that Stevens was also involved in the movement of stinger missiles and that he died from a lethal injection, not smoke inhalation.
The United States is arming and aiding a known enemy and terrorist in Mohamed Morsi. We’ve supplied them recently with $1.3 billion in aid right on the heels of slipping them $250 million. We’ve sent them 20 F-16s along with helped them get $1 billion worth of German U-boats.
Additionally, our own State Department hired Al-Qaeda operatives to provide security for the diplomatic mission in Benghazi!
One would wonder why Obama and his cronies wouldn’t be bringing this to light and implicating Morsi in the attack. It would seem to reason that this would alleviate some of the pressure from his administration, though not all of it. The only thing one can seriously consider here is that the Obama administration is indeed complicit in the attack in Benghazi.
Garrison seems to have hit the nail on the head on this piece of evidence. He writes:
My opinion is that the pieces have fallen together and Benghazi has been blown wide open. You probably won’t get that story on CNN but take all of the facts we have and look how they fit together.
Obama agreed to send the Blind Sheik home but he needed Stevens to make it look like a valid prisoner exchange. He made a deal to set it up. It blew up in his face and now we see our congressional leaders chasing their tails like puppy dogs while conveniently avoiding the important questions. The truth lies in Morsi’s involvement and our government’s obvious efforts to protect him. I would be shocked if this is not the real story. Though we may never actually know.
I believe that it was more than a case of negligence by our government. I believe they share guilt in the murder of four Americans. I believe they set it up.
-
http://blunttrama.ning.com/video/benghazi-the-truth-behind-the-smokescreen
39 minutes
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-going-to-be-a-benghazi-tell-all-2013-6
-
http://joemiller.us/2013/07/gop-wants-to-talk-to-retired-colonel-who-was-at-benghazi-but-he-cannot-be-found-and-pentagon-isnt-helping/
-
http://joemiller.us/2013/07/gop-wants-to-talk-to-retired-colonel-who-was-at-benghazi-but-he-cannot-be-found-and-pentagon-isnt-helping/
Most transparent administration ever!
-
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/congressman-says-benghazi-survivors-forced-to-sign-non-disclosure-forms.html
-
survivors forced to sign non disclosure
Obstruction of justice at the highest level. This sounds like a Hillary trick.
Of course it is in the interests of "national" security. Not just her political career security.
No outrage. No response. Not even a blip in the media's noise meter for the day.
And people trust the government to control and monitor and manipulate the world's internet?
-
http://joemiller.us/2013/07/pentagon-admits-that-key-marine-colonel-missing-from-benghazi-isnt-actually-retired-will-now-allow-him-to-testify/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/19/congress-will-hear-africa-special-forces-commander/
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/312539-conservatives-seek-to-put-pressure-on-boehner-with-60-foot-long-benghazi-petition#ixzz2Zo6HbiM1
-
http://blunttrama.ning.com/profiles/blogs/from-opsec-breaking-benghazi-survivors-silenced
-
Mark Levin: Boehner and Obama ‘Cut Some Kind of Deal’ on Benghazi
Dear Member:
Mark Levin dropped a bombshell on John Boehner.
He believes Speaker Boehner may have ‘cut some kind of deal with Obama’ on Benghazi. Help Expose the Truth About Benghazi
Here’s what conservative radio host Mark Levin told listeners on Tuesday, just after Revive America joined former Rep. Allen West and other patriots at the Special Operations Speaks press event in front of the U.S. Capitol:
‘We have to draw a very sad conclusion: John Boehner does not want to know what took place in Benghazi on that horrific day,” Levin declared. “And I’m honestly starting to think that he’s cut some kind of deal with Obama, because why else would he do this?’
‘John Boehner is what stands between setting up a special investigative committee and not,” he concluded. ‘Why the h_ll should the Republican Speaker of the House obstruct the investigation?’
As you may remember, back in May, I caught some ‘flak’ for saying what I believe is obvious, ‘Boehner is the problem, not Obama… If you’re mad as h_ll about Benghazi, there’s only one person to blame… Speaker John Boehner’…
I stand by my words, and I doubled-down on them during my speech in front of the U.S. Capitol. Watch the Speech
And Mark Levin is spot-on.
While I’m not holding my breath, I do sincerely hope Speaker John Boehner proves both of us wrong. Benghazi isn’t about scoring political points.
It’s about exposing the truth:
Why did America abandon four men, including our U.S. Ambassador, to slaughter? Was this price paid for Obama’s reelection?
Who is the treasonous coward who issued the order for our troops to ‘STAND DOWN’?
Where exactly was Obama during the 8-½ hour terror attack?
Help Revive America to Expose the Truth About Benghazi – Go Here Now to Donate
You can watch my speech on Benghazi in front of the U.S. Capitol by Clicking Here
You Can Watch the entire Special Operations Speaks event, including speeches from former Rep. Allen West, Rep. Louie Gohmert, and ‘Special Ops’ veterans by Going Here Now.
Thank you for staying in the fight.
Remember Benghazi!
Bob Adams
Founder & President
There is no limit to what you can donate. Revive America USA, Inc., can accept unlimited individual and corporate contributions.
REVIVE AMERICA USA, INC operates as a social welfare organization organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to REVIVE AMERICA USA are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
-
Mark Levin: Boehner and Obama ‘Cut Some Kind of Deal’ on Benghazi
Mark Levin dropped a bombshell on John Boehner. ...
Levin is an accomplished lawyer who served in the Reagan administration as high as chief of staff to the Attorney General, yet thinks presume guilty and then prove yourself innocent is good enough for flame throwing. If Boehner 'cut some kind of deal' wouldn't he already know that? The President and former Secretary must love seeing Benghazi turn into a circus of conservatives blaming Republicans for mis-handling the scandal.
Wouldn't it suffice to oppose the policy or call on him to do more, instead going after the person? Speaker Boehner didn't order anyone to stand down or spread a false story afterward. How about blaming those who did?
---------------
Continuing on Benghazi...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/24/still-no-benghazi-answers/
Still no Benghazi answers
A promise for action betrayed
Ten months after the horrific tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, when terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate and killed four Americans, the administration has given no credible answer to persistent questioning about why units such as the Foreign Emergency Support Team were not activated to save the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
-
What good faith reason is there for Boener to be blocking true investigations?
-
What good faith reason is there for Boener to be blocking true investigations?
It's a good question. Maybe timing or waiting for information coming that we don't know about. I agree he is a lousy point man but I don't believe he doesn't get the depth of the scandal or is part of a conspiracy or coverup.
-
To have risen to Speaker of the House means he has sufficient intelligence to grasp the implications and the depth of what happened here. I can see no good faith reason for blocking a genuine investigation.
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1927267151001/charles-woods-wh-officials-murdered-my-son/
10/26/12
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/28/father-of-seal-slain-in-benghazi-attack-demands-answers-as-grisly-details-emerge
10/12/12
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2569737308001/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/breaking-us-benghazi-hero-waited-20-hours-for-help-with-a-shredded-leg-while-obama-campaigned-in-las-vegas/
-
Still waiting on that autopsy report.
-
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/stand-down-orders/
Not sure whether I've already posted this:
http://blunttrama.ning.com/video/benghazi-the-truth-behind-the-smokescreen
-
maybe the foreign accents heard amongst the crowd were Iranian agents , , , but I could be wrong.
========================================================
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack
CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings. The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well." :-o :-o :-o
Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.
In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.
"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.
"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said. "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want. The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."
Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack. A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously. While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.
The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.
"We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that," he said.
Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there. More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.
Read: White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails
In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk. Then suddenly, there was silence.
"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.
Lawmakers also want to about know the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them. Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels. (as I speculated here almost immediately in the aftermath)
It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA. The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.
But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."
The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.
Programming note: Was there a political cover up surrounding the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans? Watch a CNN special investigation — The Truth About Benghazi, Tuesday at 10 p.m. ET.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/1/house-subpoenas-benghazi-documents-from-state-dept/
-
:-o :-o :-o
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/02/rep-gowdys-explosive-claim-obama-admin-is-changing-names-of-benghazi-survivors-and-dispersing-them-around-the-country-to-keep-them-hidden/
-
second post
Benghazi May Have Been Center For Covert Arms To Syrian Rebels In CIA Op; Secrecy Is To Avoid Iran-Contra Type Exposure
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on August 2, 2013
Printer-Friendly Version
CNN's Jake Tapper broke new ground yesterday by reporting that there were 35 CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi at the time of the September, 2012 raid. But the questions loom: What were they doing there? And why was the Administration so desperate to cover-up their presence that it administered polygraph tests to stop leaking and had agents use aliases?
Answers to these questions were ventured by James Horn, a former intelligence operative and the author of the 2011 book Experiencing Islam. Horn spoke on The Dick Morris Show on WPHT 1210 AM in Philadelphia.
In a previous appearance on The Dick Morris Show on June 24, 2013 and in an article in Family Security Matters magazine in June, Horn broke the news -- now confirmed by CNN -- that the CIA had "thirty additional Americans on the ground in Benghazi at the time of the attack."
He says that they were involved in a covert and possibly illegal effort to ship arms from Libya to the Syrian rebels with the aid of al Qaeda operatives. Horn says, "The CIA was involved in the illegal acquisition of weapons from the terrorist al Qaeda affiliates in Libya and shipping them to al Qaeda Sunni terrorists in Syria via Turkey."
If Horn's testimony is to be believed, it would mean that the cover-up of the Benghazi raid was motivated by much more than a mere desire by Obama to conceal the viability of al Qaeda despite the bin Laden killing. Obama may have been trying to stop a full blown Iran-Contra type scandal from engulfing his administration.
Apart from the cosmetics of being found to be working with al Qaeda to arm al Qaeda rebels in Syria, Obama may have feared legal issues.
Media reports suggest that lawyers advising the Administration have had serious concerns that arming the rebels could violate "customary international law" and give Syrian dictator Assad legal justification and motivation to attack Americans around the world.
In addition the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had not approved aid to the Syrian rebels at the time of the Benghazi attack and did not do so until last month. To have armed the Syrian rebels would have violated the tacit understanding between the executive and the Intelligence Committees that the Administration would not proceed without the approval of the Committees.
The perspective from Horn of the real issues at stake in Benghazi makes the CIA's efforts to cover it up more understandable. It would be to stop revelations of this magnitude from leaking out that the agency would be polygraphing its operatives in Libya monthly, moving them around the country, and making them take assumed names.
But the Benghazi scandal has gone from an effort by the Administration to deflect public focus on al Qaeda's continuing power to an attempt to cover up possibly illegal arms shipments reminiscent of Reagan's Iran Contra scandal.
Now the focus of the investigation must not only be why Obama and Hillary Clinton lied by saying that the raid was simply an overreaction to a movie and why there was not adequate military support for Ambassador Chris Stevens but what the CIA was doing there anyway and whether it violates American or international law.
-
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/08/04/why-the-administration-lied-about-benghazi/?singlepage=true
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/michael-ledeen-on-the-benghazi-cover-up.php
I have never believed the rumor that we were sending arms from Libya to Syrian rebels. I was told by Syrian friends that the opposition were furious because they weren’t getting any support. Not from us, and not via Turkey. There was some training, based in Jordan I believe. I think that the Annex was an Intelligence Community hq. Not just CIA, also NSA, FBI, DIA, special forces etc. and I think their major operation was trying to get control of US weaponry that we had sent to anti-Qadaffi forces, now spreading around the Middle East to the usual suspects.
I think the admin was frightened about that story: US weapons end up in enemy hands, ergo we were arming our enemies, replay of the birth of al Qaeda etc. You can’t say you are at war with AQ if you are arming them, right? That plays very badly in the prez campaign. And then of course the total cockup of the non-response to the killing of our men.
The CIA denial seems pretty strong to me. The Brennan letter, too, which is in a way a way of covering up the story because if CIA people talk to Congress, all that stuff is classified and can be hushed up. It’s the leaks that are worrisome if you’re trying to conceal the scope of the mission. Clearly the admin was trying to keep investigators from the wounded at Walter Reed.
-
U.S. Files Sealed Charges in Benghazi Attack
Move Marks First American Response to Assault That Killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya
By DEVLIN BARRETT
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department has filed sealed criminal charges against a number of suspects in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, according to people familiar with the matter.
One of those charged, according to these people, is Ahmed Abu Khattalah, founder of Libya's Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia. Mr. Abu Khattalah was seen at the compound when it was overrun, according to intelligence officials. In interviews with reporters, Mr. Abu Khattalah has admitted being at the scene but denied involvement in the attack.
The exact nature of the charges wasn't clear, nor was the number of suspects named in the investigation. Investigators and prosecutors are continuing to pursue the case, and they plan to charge additional suspects, according to the people familiar with the case.
A Justice Department spokesman, Andrew Ames, said the investigation is continuing. "It has been and remains a top priority," he said, declining to comment further. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress investigators were making good progress on the case, but declined to offer specifics.
The Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the consulate, which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, led to accusations from Republicans that the Obama administration had issued public talking points designed to hide the likelihood that the attackers were linked to al Qaeda, and thereby insulate political figures from blame in the months before a presidential election. The White House has long denied those accusations.
The question of when to charge individuals in the Benghazi attack—and whether to make such charges public while the FBI engages in a world-wide hunt for suspects—has been the subject of internal debate among counterterrorism officials in the months since the attack, according to the people familiar with the case.
Some officials wanted charges filed earlier, and made public earlier, to reflect progress investigators believe they have made in the case, those people said. Others argued for a more cautious approach, in part out of concern that revealing too much about the probe could hurt its chances of gathering more evidence and apprehending potential suspects.
The lack of public charges has led critics of the Obama administration, particularly Republicans in Congress, to challenge the administration's handling not just of the immediate response to the attacks, but of the long-term response as well. Some conservatives have accused the administration of covering up its failures on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, and beforehand-accusations the administration has strenuously denied.
In May, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released images of three men who were at the compound and who were being sought for questioning. It is unclear if any of those facing criminal charges are the same as the ones in those FBI images.
Ansar al-Sharia has been a focus of the joint U.S.-Libyan investigation after U.S. intelligence officials intercepted phone calls between members of the group and al Qaeda leaders in Northern Africa, made immediately after the consulate attack, bragging about the incident, according to the people familiar with the matter. While Ansar al-Sharia has been linked to al Qaeda, it isn't clear if the storming of the consulate was directed by the global terror group.
Write to Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com
-
Is Benghazi Obama’s ‘Iran-Contra'?
Dear Member:
Rush Limbaugh’s right about Benghazi: “Where ‘there’s a lot of smoke... There’s a fire.”
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh ripped House Republican Leaders for being wimps on Benghazi.
“Waiting for CNN to do this isn’t going to cut it. People need to be put under oath,” said Limbaugh, referring to CNN’s exclusive report of a possible Obama-CIA secret gunrunning operation in Benghazi linked to the 9/11-terror attack.
The CIA is also threatening and intimidating Benghazi survivors, including the use of extensive polygraph tests to ‘shut-up’ the witnesses of the terror attack, alleged the CNN report. This would account for why, almost a year after Benghazi, not a single Benghazi survivor has once testified publicly before Congress. In fact, most have gone ‘missing-in-action’. Obama and his goons have effectively ‘shut-them-up’.
“Democrats are scared to death what Benghazi could mean to their party,” continued Rush Limbaugh. “Because they remember Iran-Contra, they remember what they were able to do with that….”
Rush is right, but what if House Republican Leaders are also “scared to death what Benghazi could mean to their party”, or more specifically their own political careers?
If Benghazi were a secret CIA gunrunning operation, it would’ve required a sign-off by top congressional leaders known as the “Big 8”, which includes Speaker Boehner.
“According to section 503’s Presidential Approval and Reporting of Covert Actions in the 1947 National Security Act,” writes Kerry Pickett for Breitbart, “the President may not authorize covert CIA actions without informing the intelligence committees of Congress.”
If House Republican Leaders were informed, it would make Benghazi potentially a bipartisan cover-up.
It would also explain why House Republican Leaders have politically-stage-managed the whole Benghazi investigation from the very start. Certainly, with the appointment of a House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi, Speaker Boehner would largely lose control over the mushrooming scandal. Then so be it.
It brings to mind what Team Obama once so colorfully wrote to fellow Democrats before the infamous vote on Obamacare: “At this point, we have to just rip the Band-Aid off and have a vote — up or down.”
For once, House Republicans ought to take the Democrats own advice.
It’s time to “have a vote — up or down” on H. Res. 36, the House Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi.
Help Us Force the Vote -- Go Here Now to Donate
Remember Benghazi!
Bob Adams
Founder & President
-
The scandal revolves around President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/benghazi-is-the-alleged-cia-scandal-real.php
A congressional source (to Powerline) who has knowledge of the Benghazi investigation wrote regarding the CIA:
"The bottom line is that the CIA has been exceedingly responsive to us, we have no evidence to substantiate the claims of intimidation, and we interact with CIA personnel of all levels all the time both at official functions and informally. And we have not heard anything that would make me think any of the conspiracy rumors or intimidation rumors are true.
We know what they were doing there (yes, there were such folks on the ground). We knew before the attack. And we have seen nothing to suggest that they were shipping arms to Syria or holding detainees at the annex, both of which would have been outside their authorization. We have been given a very large volume of reports, emails, and intelligence — thousands of pages — and we have met with folks who were on the ground. I see no evidence suggesting the attack was at all related to their specific activities. It was apparently a target of opportunity, and a relatively insecure one at that. We are pretty confident we know the whole story, and I constantly ask reporters to share their unnamed sources with a promise to keep it anonymous and confidential, and they never follow through."
If there was a substantial group of CIA people on the ground in Benghazi, could they have been brought into play to help save Ambassador Stevens? Our source responds:
"The folks who moved to the TMF were able to get everyone out, save Stevens who could not be found. They were able to evacuate everyone else, including retrieving Sean Smith’s body.
The two security professionals from the Annex who died were killed later — during the mortar attack on the annex — not during the initial attack on the TMF. We don’t see anything suggesting that more people going to the TMF from the annex would have helped. They mobilized pretty quickly. Some guys weren’t immediately close, and you don’t want to clear out an entire facility to help another. So the tactical decisions on the ground can be debated with hindsight, but we see nothing suggesting that there was a failure on the ground by the U.S personnel at the moment of the attacks. Everyone behaved rationally and heroically."
Does that include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton back in Washington? No:
"There is a scandal here. It is the light footprint mindset of this admin and the inability of the white house to make the tough decisions to get the attackers. As we learned from the 911 commission report, when terrorists succeed in attacking the United States, and we don’t respond quickly and successfully to find them, terrorist groups are only emboldened and empowered. It seems it is a truth that we are seeing play out again around the world right now."
-
This piece is based on speculation, but it the best information available (IMO) until the Presidential stonewalling breaks down, which is likely never.
She did it before. Where was he after the 5:00 meeting? No one else from staff 'regularly follows' the President to the residential quarters of the White House.
--------------
"Present as the call was made, reports blogger Chip Jones at Conservative Report Online, was Valerie Jarrett, who, as the call was ending, went from the living quarters to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials. What she may have said and whether the president sent her is unknown. We do know the president retired for the night, and no rescue mission was launched. Once before, Jarrett had called off the military for political purposes."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080713-666729-jarrett-gave-benghazi-stand-down-order.htm?p=full
http://conservativereport.org/benghazi-valerie-jarrett-cic/
-
Sign the petition here :http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/3929-billboard-pm
Barack Obama's "leadership" during the massacre in Benghazi can only be characterized as a dereliction of duty by the Commander-in-Chief. As we approach the one year anniversary of the September 11th attack, SOS remains steadfast in our dermination to expose the truth behind the Administrations false narrative.
And still, ONE MAN stands between the American people and the Watergate-style Select Committee needed to get to the truth and deliver justice.
It’s not Barack Obama. It's not Eric Holder. It's not John Kerry either...
House Speaker John Boehner is the ONE MAN blocking a real investigation of Benghazi.
Sign the Petition to Demand a Watergate-style Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi
Boehner’s stonewalling is helping Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and the rest of Obama’s corrupt administration get away with the deadliest scandal in American history.
Four Americans were brutally murdered on September 11, 2012 – including two courageous special operations soldiers who fought for their lives against scores of heavily armed Islamic terrorists. Abandoned by the president, denied reinforcements, they died needlessly, and they and their families deserve justice.
Barack Obama’s incompetence deserves the full attention of an investigation with all the power needed to uncover the levels of corruption that grow taller with every day.
And now, for some reason, John Boehner is helping perpetuate that corruption.
Shortly after you helped us present Congress with a petition demanding action, Rep. Frank Wolf introduced a bill (H.Res. 36) to establish a House Select Committee to find out once and for all what Barack Obama did – and didn’t do - while Americans under his command were being slaughtered by terrorists.
With a single stroke of his pen Boehner could bring H.Res. 36 to the floor of the House for a vote. Once there, it could finally bring to light the truth about the Benghazi scandal – and finally bring to light Barack Obama's dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief.
Instead, John Boehner refuses and continues to help hide the truth by denying a vote to form a Select Committee.
Demand a Watergate-style Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi
And please give any amount you can afford to keep the pressure on to END THE COVER-UP
That’s why, in late July (as you may have seen or read in the news), Special Operations Speaks worked with Rep. Steve Stockman as he introduced a historic Discharge Petition that would bring Rep. Wolf’s bill to the floor of the House.
We are fighting hard at Special Operations Speaks to force Boehner to allow a full investigation of the Benghazi massacre.
And now, we need your help to put some teeth into this historic Discharge Petition.
If we can get 218 members of the House of Representatives to sign the Stockman Discharge Petition, Boehner will be forced to bring H.Res. 36 to the floor of the House for a vote.
And I can assure you that we will win!
Within days, a Watergate-style Select Investigating Committee would begin forming to delve into the criminal negligence of Barrack Obama.
Finally those four Americans who were robbed of life would see some amount of justice.
So here is what we have to do:
Right now members of Congress are home for August recess – we need to tell them personally to sign the “Stockman Discharge Petition” for a House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi.
If your member holds a town hall meeting – go there, stand up, and speak out. If he visits your neighborhood – confront him in the street. And if he tries to hide – go to his district office! Let them know the support of the people is behind them.
And we will take care of Speaker of the House John Boehner, by following him right into his own backyard.
In just a matter of days, we are going to begin running the billboard above throughout his entire district in Ohio.
We'll show the Speaker to his face the same thing you need to show your member of Congress back home: We want answers because this is not a ‘phony scandal!’– Sign the Stockman Discharge Petition NOW!
The brave Americans who died in Benghazi, Libya – especially our fellow special operations soldiers who sacrificed their lives when they could have remained safe - deserve better than a cover up by Barack Obama and John Boehner. They may be just “bumps in the road” to them but they are heroes to those of us at SOS, as I’m sure they are to you.
So, please, Help demand justice for these brave soldiers who were ignored by the president by signing our petition and donating to help us keep the pressure on... and by telling your House member to sign the Stockman Discharge Petition – right now, while he or she is in your district during the August recess.
With your help, that Watergate-style Select Committee will finally get to who is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers in Benghazi, Libya.
So, please, act now.
Sincerely,
Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-Founder of Special Operation Speaks
P.S. Special Operations Speaks relies completely on voluntary contributions from its supporters like you to carry on this important battle to find out the full truth about the Benghazi massacre. We will proudly take the point – it is what we have always done – if you will take our back.
-
As was noted here ten months ago , , ,
This is real bad folks , , ,
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/12/Attorney-For-Benghazi-Whistleblower-400-U-S-Missiles-Stolen-In-Benghazi-Annex-Involved
On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.'s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were "diverted to Libya" and ended up being stolen and falling into "the hands of some very ugly people."
DiGenova represents Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson. He told WMAL that he "does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles."
He claimed his information "comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community." He said the biggest concern right now is finding those missiles before they can be put to use. "They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner," he claimed.
On August 4, Breitbart News covered a report in The Telegraph that said 35 CIA operatives were working in Benghazi when the attack against the consulate took place. The Telegraph claimed these operatives were allegedly in an "annex near the consulate [working] on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian Rebels."
Months earlier, following then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's February 7 testimony on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attacks, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested that one of the causes behind the terrorist attack "may have been that there was a gun running operation going on in Benghazi, leaving Libya and going to Turkey and [distributing] arms to the [Syrian] rebels."
-
Hat tip to Doug:
The Mother of All Scandals by Victor Davis Hanson
August 12th, 2013
IRS?
A system of voluntary tax compliance cannot survive a dishonest IRS. Lois Lerner and company have virtually ruined the agency. For the foreseeable future, each time an American receives a tax query, he will wonder to what degree his politics ensures enhanced or reduced scrutiny — or whether his name as a donor, activist, or partisan has put him on a watch list.
Worse still, when a high commissioner of the IRS takes the 5th Amendment, it sends a frightening message: those audited go to jail when they refuse to testify; those who audit them who do the same do not.
AP?
The Associated Press/James Rosen monitoring by the Obama administration was creepy not just because it went after a heretofore obsequious media, but because Obama’s lieutenants alleged that the reason was aiding and abetting the leaking of classified material.
Of course, disclosing top-secret information and thereby damaging the national interest is no small thing. But was leaking the real reason that Eric Holder lied under oath when he assured his congressional inquisitors that he was not monitoring the communications of Americans — after he had done just that in the case of James Rosen of Fox News?
No modern administration has leaked classified data like the Obama administration. Do we remember a frustrated Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warning White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon “to shut the f— up” for disclosing the secret details of the bin Laden hit?
Or was John Brennan’s effusive blow-by-blow description of the Navy SEAL team protocol worse? Or for that matter, why did David Sanger and David Ignatius seem to have access to classified details about the bin Laden document trove and the Iranian Stuxnet cyber-war campaign? The obvious answer is that after the midterm election of 2010, a panicking Obama administration worried about reelection, and especially polls that suggested the president was weak on national-security issues.
To rectify that image, politicos began leaking the nation’s most intimate secrets to remind the public that, behind the scenes, Obama was a veritable Harry Truman. The problem with the AP was not that it leaked, but that it did not leak in a fashion and at a time of the administration’s own choosing. In other words, the Associated Press was a competitor when Obama wished a monopoly on the leaking franchise.
NSA?
No one knows much about the NSA mess. But already there are some disturbing developments. How can Director of National Intelligence James Clapper outright lie under oath without consequences after he assured the Congress that the agency did not monitor the communications of American citizens?
After the president’s press conference last week, an embarrassing paradox arose: the president promised all sorts of new NSA reforms. But why now, and for what reason the sudden worry? After all, Obama offered no new protocol to ensure that classified matters did not end up in the hands of a high-school dropout and highly ideological computer hacker like Eric Snowden.
Instead, the president de facto made Snowden’s case. It was only because of the illegal acts of Snowden that Obama promised future measures — not against the next Snowden, but against abuses promulgated by himself. Consider the logic: Snowden is supposed to be a criminal for leaking a top-secret intelligence gathering operation, but in response to that illegal conduct, Obama for the first time promises to address just the sort of abuses that Snowden outlined.
With enemies like Obama, the lawbreaking Snowden hardly needs friends.
Benghazi!
Of the four most prominent scandals — and by “four” I do not wish to deprecate “Fast and Furious,” or EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s fake email persona, or the arbitrary non-enforcement of the law, from ignoring elements of Obamacare to granting pre-election amnesty by fiat to over one million illegal aliens — Benghazi is by far the most disturbing; the scandal is insidious.
Death?
Four Americans were slaughtered under conditions that we still cannot fathom. It was rumored but not confirmed that Ambassador Stevens in extremis was either raped or brutalized, though those details remain murky — given that the assassination of an American ambassador is rare, and the vicious brutalization of his person is unprecedented. Witnesses of the attack on the CIA annex have either disappeared or gone silent. The families of the deceased have received conflicting accounts of how loved ones were murdered. All that we know for now is that the entire scene of the caskets arriving on U.S. soil — from the melodramatic assurances that the perpetrators would shortly feel American retaliation, to the demonization of Mr. Nakoula as the cause of the deaths — was a lie, and a cynical one at that.
Military protocol?
The American military takes incredible risks to come to the aid of its own beleaguered. When it does not — consider Wake Island in World War II — a national scandal erupts. For now, we know that those under assault requested aid; that sending such help was imminently feasible; and that no one yet can explain why such succor was not sent.
We are left with the suspicion that some official surmised that the reelection campaign did not want a Mogadishu-style shoot-out less than two months before the election, or a messy Libya, or the risk of beefing up security. The reelection mantra was instead that Osama bin Laden was dead; al Qaeda was nearly defunct; and that the “lead from behind” removal of Moammar Gaddafi had helped to energize the Arab Spring and lead to a new age of reform. No wonder someone ordered a stand-down to preserve that fantasy.
“Leading From Behind” has led to “Leaving Them Behind.”
If Obama can monotonously “spike the ball” on Osama bin Laden, cannot he offer a little clarity to the families of the deceased? Nearly a year after the murders, what happened to Obama’s reelection boast that he would bring the perpetrators to justice?
Cover-up?
Barack Obama, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton all falsely swore that the obscure amateur video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was guilty of prompting a mass riot at Benghazi. Nakoula — petty crook and loud opponent of Islam — was a fall guy right out of central casting.
A favorite topos of Barack Obama — consider the al-Arabiya interview, or the Cairo speech — is his courageous and principled opposition to supposedly ubiquitous Islamophobes. Beating up on the unsympathetic Nakoula killed two birds with one stone: it reminded the world that the multiculturalist Obama would not tolerate anti-Muslim thought on his shores, and it propped up the sinking narrative of an extinguished al-Qaeda.
There were absolutely no professional consequences for publicly lying — to the nation, to television audiences, to the relatives of the deceased, to the United Nations — that the Nakoula video was the cause of the deaths of our Benghazi personnel. Barack Obama was reelected. Hillary “what difference does it make” Clinton retired from the secretary of State post to congratulations and media frenzy about her likely 2016 presidential campaign. Susan Rice was promoted to National Security advisor.
There is almost no one left at his 2012 post. In addition to the above, General Carter Ham, in charge of Africa Command, has retired. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has retired. CIA Director David Petraeus has resigned.
How did it happen that just nine months after the attack, most all of the relevant decision-makers — Clinton, Ham, Panetta, Petraeus, Rice — have vanished from their jobs?
Ron Ziegler Redux
Jay Carney cannot be believed. He lied when he said that there were only “stylistic” changes made to CIA talking points, when in fact the administration’s revisions were both major and predictably aimed at serving a false narrative. Carney also did not tell the truth when he repeated on several occasions that Mr. Nakoula was the culprit for the violence, a fact that he knew at the time was false. And when Carney deprecated Benghazi as a “phony” scandal, we heard the ghost of Ron Ziegler stonewalling with “third-rate burglary.”
The Engaged President
We saw minute-by-minute pictures of Obama in command surrounded by advisors during the bin Laden raid. Why not the same level of photographed attention on the night of Benghazi? In a nutshell, in one operation we sent lots of soldiers after a few enemies, and in the other, lots of our enemies were sent after a few of our soldiers. Saving trapped Americans from a pre-planned al-Qaeda hit is not a photo-op in a way a preplanned American attack on al-Qaeda most certainly could be. Otherwise, I have no idea where the president was during that long tragic night, only that we will never know until he is well out of office.
“National Security”
The hallmark of most recent American presidential scandals — whether Watergate or Iran-Contra — has been the evocation of “national security” and often the supposed role of the CIA that must preclude full disclosures. For now, almost a year later, no one knows what exactly the CIA was doing in Benghazi, only that hiding whatever it was doing — perhaps gunrunning confiscated weapon stockpiles to insurgents of some sort in Syria — was of utmost importance, at least in the political context of late 2012. I have read the accounts of the original CIA talking points, reviewed the public statements of Gen. David Petraeus both before and after his resignation, collated the assertions of top administration officials — and the narratives cannot be squared. Someone at some point flat-out lied and thought it critical to hide American activity in Benghazi.
A False Campaign?
The election of 2012 may well have been altered by the Benghazi cover-up, in ways that transcend debate moderator Candy Crowley’s puerile and unprofessional efforts to shield Obama from Romney’s questioning about the deaths. Imagine the fallout on voters had we been told from the very beginning that an al-Qaeda affiliate had stormed our consulate — ill-prepared and unable to obtain needed beefed-up security, reliant for safety on local suspect tribal militias, in a country that had deteriorated into a failed society after our Libyan bombing — and slaughtered four Americans, apparently stationed in Benghazi to help in some way a covert CIA operation.
So here we have it: a beleaguered “consulate” that was refused additional security and relied on local militias, apparently due to administration worry over destroying an Obama campaign narrative of a reborn Libya and dying al-Qaeda. A CIA operation of some sort supplied something to someone, but what and why and to whom, we are not supposed to know. Four Americans, the very best the country had to offer, are dead, denied assistance when assistance could have saved them — the why and the how and the when of it all we are not told. We fear it might have been a crackpot cost-benefit analysis: four lives versus another Mogadishu and an Obama November defeat.
We know only that the dead were far more heroic than the leaders who chose not to aid them.
And in reaction to all this, we jail a petty video maker, who makes the perfect scapegoat as a supposedly right-wing Islamophobic hate monger whose take-down advances our president’s politically correct narrative of Muslim outreach. That yarn required a president, secretary of state, and UN ambassador to lie repeatedly. When we ask questions, witnesses are browbeaten, the knowledgeable fade into the Washington woodwork, the luminaries have all left their offices, and we are left with “phony” scandal and “what difference does it make.”
All in all — the mother of all scandals.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/08/13/Interview-Filmmaker-of-Movie-Blamed-for-Benghazi?utm_source=BreitbartNews&utm_medium=facebook
-
Sorry I do not have a citation, but on the Bret Baier Report today they reported that SecState returned the Benghazi 4 to work without their ever having missed even a paycheck while they were suspended. Furthermore Cong. Issa reports that the investigation never even interviewed any of them even once or any of their superiors. SHAME!!!
-
Reliability of this source is unknown:
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/08/31/benghazi-jihadists-directly-tied-to-obama-supported-syrian-rebels/
← Why Starting World War 3 In The Middle East Is A Really Bad Idea
Benghazi Jihadists Directly Tied To Obama Supported Syrian Rebels
Posted on August 31, 2013 by Tim Brown
Sept 11 2012 BenghaziWe all know what’s going to happen in Syria. Barack Obama is attempting to do a little dance to talk about “being concerned” and “considering carefully” what to do, but in the end we all know what his decision will be, in spite of the fact that there is no international coalition to strike Syria, nor is their constitutional authority to do so. However, the only people who benefit from a U.S. strike in Syria are the Obama supported Syrian rebels, who are a part of al-Qaeda and directly tied to the very al-Qaeda jihadists (Ansar al-Sharia) that attacked the diplomatic mission and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, leaving 4 Americans dead and dozens wounded.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials.
Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, another port city further east, said officials who discussed some details of the camps on condition of anonymity.
The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups, including the Al-Nusra Front, the most organized of the Islamist rebel groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.
The officials said the jihadist training is a clear indication that Ansar al-Sharia continues to conduct terrorist activities and is linked to jihadists in both Syria and North Africa.
Is this one of those “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenarios? Haven’t we learned by now that doesn’t work out well? I guess not.
Though Britain says that a strike on Syria is justified on humanitarian grounds, the British Parliament voted down an endorsement of military action against Syria on Thursday.
Russia and China also pushed away from a United Nations Security Council session which was discussing the draft resolution on Syria proposed by Great Britain. To top it off, a bi-partisan letter was sent from 116 congressmen to Barack Obama admonishing him to honor the Constitution and get congressional approval in order to strike Syria has gone out.
Is anyone else seeing a problem with this out of control criminal in the White House? It appears that Barack Obama is defying not only the Constitution of the United States, but even the international community. Obama is willing to stand against all opposition except Islamic jihadists.
Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/04/the-explosive-moments-when-a-gop-congressman-challenged-john-kerry-with-benghazi-questions-during-syria-hearing/
-
Woof All:
We are in the process of putting up our annual 9/11 memorial foto on the front page. I would like to include an iconic foto from 9/11 Benghazi. Suggestions for which one to use?
Marc
-
Woof All:
We are in the process of putting up our annual 9/11 memorial foto on the front page. I would like to include an iconic foto from 9/11 Benghazi. Suggestions for which one to use?
Marc
The ones where Amb. Stevens and the mob recreated the scenes from Pulp Fiction?
-
I was thinking maybe of the one where the AQ guy is waving his AK as he dances in front of the flames (URL needed) but I'd also like the URL of the one you suggest too.
-
I was thinking maybe of the one where the AQ guy is waving his AK as he dances in front of the flames (URL needed) but I'd also like the URL of the one you suggest too.
Nothing says 9/11/2016 in Benghazi to me like seeing our 2016 frontrunner throw up her arms during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and scream, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW?!
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Clinton-Benghazi-G1-620x362.jpeg)
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Clinton-Benghazi-G1-620x362.jpeg
-
Good one Doug!
Still hoping for someone saving me from the slog of finding the other URLs I mentioned :lol:
-
Nevermind, here it is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
-
I don't believe for one second that there were not capable military in the area that could have gotten there in time. Of course no one new in advance there would be ample time but military personnel could have been dispatched immediately upon calls for help.
It is also clear that Stevens was specifically picked to be sent to his post by you guessed it: Clinton.
And she left him there to die for her political career.
And we should trust her or Brock who will put their political reputation above lives? Did anyone think Reagan or either Bush would even dream of that?
-
Benghazi Whistleblower: I've Been 'Punished' for Speaking Out
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMi0Mr2xEV0&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/10/cbs-reporter-kerry-tells-congress-he-wont-make-benghazi-survivors-available-for-questioning-subpoenas-could-be-coming/
-
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345705
-
Actually, she may be acting correctly in this, but interesting nonetheless
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/12/Pelosi-not-confirming-nor-denying-White-House-Briefed-Her-About-Benghazi-CIA-Annex-Before-Attack
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/13/plans-to-try-benghazi-attackers-in-us-courts-latest-roadblock-in-case/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2etJqjMNd
-
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2663309678001
-
http://freebeacon.com/cia-employee-who-refused-to-sign-non-disclosure-on-benghazi-suspended/?print=1
-
Benghazi investigators gave Hillary Clinton heads-up on findings
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Adm. Mike Mullen, vice chairman of the accountability review board for the Benghazi investigation, said he thought a Hillary Rodham Clinton aide "would be a weak witness." (Associated Press)
The leaders of the State Department’s Benghazi probe defended their inquiry into the 2012 attack, but they acknowledged to Congress on Thursday that their mission was limited in scope and faced questions over why they gave Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton an advance look at their findings.
Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, vice chairman of the accountability review board, also acknowledged that he had warned Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff not to send a particular official to Congress because he thought “she would be a weak witness” who might have hurt the State Department’s stance.
Republicans said those moves called into question the motives of the review, which was supposed to be an independent look at what went wrong in the attack and how to prevent others.
“If this is so independent, why are you giving the State Department a heads-up about a witness coming in front of this committee?” said Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican. He said the warning came just days after Adm. Mullen had been appointed to the review board.
Adm. Mullen testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee alongside former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, chairman of the review board.
Also appearing before the committee were the parents of two of the Americans who died in the attacks. They said the government failed them and has not been truthful about the events surrounding the assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission, falsely blaming the attack on reaction to a YouTube video critical of Islam.
“I was told a few things, and they were all lies,” said Pat Smith, mother of State Department officer Sean Smith. She said President Obama and his top aides came up to her at the casket ceremony when her son’s body was returned to the U.S.
“Every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug, and I asked them what happened. Please tell me. And every one of them said it was the video. And we all know that it wasn’t the video. Even at that time they knew it wasn’t the video. So they all lied to me,” she said.
Also Thursday, Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the oversight committee, said he has signed subpoenas to demand testimony from two witnesses who he said talked to the review board but whom the State Department has refused to allow to talk to Congress.
“The State Department has not made those people available, has played hide-and-go-seek and is now hiding behind a thinly veiled statement that there is a criminal investigation,” Mr. Issa said.
The attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi and follow-up attack on an annex building left four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, dead.
The incident became a major controversy for Mr. Obama and his team, who first blamed a mob responding to the anti-Islam video before later acknowledging that the attack was a coordinated terrorist assault.
The review board was created to investigate the security lapses that led to the attack and the lack of response from the government during the two assaults, which spanned eight hours.
Mr. Pickering defended the conclusions, which identified a handful of department employees who failed at their jobs, and made recommendations about security precautions.
“I am aware that no report will ever be perfect, but I am proud of this one, which has been seen by many as clear, cogent and very hard-hitting, as it should be,” Mr. Pickering said. “New information is always welcome. I feel that this report is still on the mark, free of cover-up and political tilt, and will personally welcome anything new which sheds light on what happened and that helps us to protect American lives and property in the future.”
Adm. Mullen said board members interviewed everyone they thought was necessary, more than 100 people, to draw their conclusions.
He said the list of those they interviewed didn’t include Mrs. Clinton, who appointed four out of the review board’s five members, nor did they interview Tom Donilon, national security adviser at the time, because they saw no evidence that either of them made key decisions related to the attack.
“We followed the precepts that Adm. Mullen has just outlined for you, not to go for the people who didn’t make the decisions, but to go, following the will of Congress, to the people who made the decisions,” Mr. Pickering said. “And indeed, we went to the people who reviewed those decisions.”
Republicans weren’t satisfied.
“If the secretary wasn’t involved, I must be on another planet,” said Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican.
At another point Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, questioned why no military rescue mission had been mounted, saying the U.S. didn’t even ask for assistance from NATO allies who were close to the scene.
“I actually commanded NATO forces, and the likelihood that NATO could respond in a situation like that was absolutely zero,” Adm. Mullen fired back.
Democrats said Republican accusations of a whitewash were out of bounds.
“Based on all of the evidence obtained by this committee, this Benghazi review was one of the most comprehensive ARB reviews ever conducted,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “I’ve seen no evidence, none whatsoever, to support these reckless accusations.”
Ahead of the hearing, committee Democrats released a report concluding that there was never a “stand-down” order issued to Americans at the main embassy in Tripoli, Libya’s capital, who might have mounted a rescue mission. That contradicts a claim many Republicans have made.
But Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of the former SEALs who was killed in the attack, was not convinced.
“We need to ask the people that were there, not rely upon hearsay evidence as to whether or not there was an order to stand down,” he told the committee. “Ambassador Stevens was alive for a substantial period of time after he made that initial distress call. It’s very possible that there would have been no loss of life if that first order to stand down had not been given. We need to find that out.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/independent-benghazi-investigators-gave-clinton-he/#ixzz2fRob2Ag1
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
"The only real accountability for the Benghazi scandal will have to come in 2016"
There has never been accountability when we are speaking of the Clintons or for that matter nearly all national Democrat party figures:
*****September 20, 2013 12:00 AM
Truth and Consequences for Benghazi
Answers won’t come until 2016.
By Jonah Goldberg
The only real accountability for the Benghazi scandal will have to come in 2016.
Reading through the competing partisan reports and listening to the congressional testimony of various officials this week, it seems fair to say that no actual crimes were committed (though you never know what you don’t know).
There were, in at least a figurative sense, criminal lapses in judgment by senior officials. Many of those lapses are recounted in the Accountability Review Board report. It found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department” that “resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”
Translation: U.S. officials were caught by surprise by a terrorist attack on 9/11 in a country where our ambassador had repeatedly warned his superiors — including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — that security was grossly inadequate. That ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was vindicated in a pyrrhic sense when he was murdered by well-organized terrorists.
Clinton picked four of the five members of the “independent” board, and they were kind enough to show her a draft before they released it to Congress. The ARB assigned all meaningful blame to some mid-level officials. ARB members declined to interview Clinton because, according to testimony by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen (the chairman and vice chairman of the ARB) on Thursday, they determined at the outset that it wouldn’t be necessary. None of the people who were interviewed for the report were under oath.
For those who followed the still-unfolding scandal at the IRS, this might be significant. Initially, IRS official Lois Lerner tried to pin all of the blame on some low-level employees in Cincinnati. When employees were questioned by congressional investigators — away from their bosses and under oath — evidence was found to help prove Lerner’s account a well-orchestrated lie.
Congressional Republicans would like to get relevant witnesses to testify under oath, but they claim that the State Department and CIA are blocking that. CNN has reported that many potential CIA witnesses have been subjected to “frequent, even monthly” lie-detector tests to discourage them from leaking information. One insider told CNN: “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.” Said another: “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well” if you talk to anyone about what happened.
That’s all very ominous, and I’m at a loss as to why it’s outrageous for Congress to try to get to the bottom of what happened. But to listen to defenders of the administration and a lot of allegedly neutral journalists, this basic exercise in congressional oversight is a deranged and entirely fabricated partisan witch hunt. It’s an odd charge given that the only obvious fabrication in the whole affair was the relentless effort to cast the attack that killed four Americans as a spontaneous reaction to an obscure and shoddy YouTube video.
But we probably know what happened. In the midst of a hard-fought presidential election, the administration, and specifically the president, was caught embarrassingly flat-footed by a terrorist attack. And even when it knew the attack was still going on — without any possible knowledge of when it was going to end — it still failed to send any help. The ARB establishes that much.
In their testimony Thursday, Pickering and Mullen softened that criticism by noting that the U.S. military can’t be expected to defend every diplomatic outpost everywhere in the world all of the time. Fair enough. But maybe it’s not unreasonable for the military to be ready for an attack in, say, the Middle East on Septempber 11? Particularly in a country where officials knew security was a huge problem?
At the time, the Obama campaign had been touting its success in the War on Terror. The last thing it wanted less than 60 days before the election was to lose that issue. So, afraid of the political fallout, the White House and the State Department circled the wagons.
Hillary Clinton is a master of the passive-aggressive art of dragging out investigations until the press and public lose interest and spinners can use abracadabra phrases like “it’s all old news,” “let’s just move on,” and, most famously, “what difference does it make?”
The irony in this case is that it’s precisely that tactic that has now turned a political problem for Obama into a political problem for Clinton. And unfortunately, the only real accountability we can hope for on Benghazi will come when she runs for president herself.
— Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés, now on sale in paperback. You can write to him by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.*****
-
Where are the Pravdas on this?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obama-administration-changed-benghazi-survivors-name/
-
I heard some reports yesterday, including on Bret Baier, that a Congressional committee with secured hearings under its belt, has concluded that that in point of fact there were no assets in place that could have made a difference.
HUH? :? :? :?
This is quite contrary to what we have been hearing and covering here , , ,
-
I heard some reports yesterday, including on Bret Baier, that a Congressional committee with secured hearings under its belt, has concluded that that in point of fact there were no assets in place that could have made a difference.
HUH? :? :? :?
This is quite contrary to what we have been hearing and covering here , , ,
Anyone that buys that, pm me. I have some beach property in Arizona for sale.....
-
I don't believe that either. Wasn't there a time period of multiple hours?
And that doesn't excuse those who were in a position to respond for at least not sending help even if it got there late.
You send the help and hope they get there in time.
The crowd there was left to fend for their own. And the whole affair was covered up and a complete phony story made up as an excuse just before an election and to cover glamour gild Clinton for her run.
The military people don't get promoted for outing superiors. They fall in line (I think). No?
The silence of the mainstream media is so telling. The Republicans must get their act together and coordinated to respond and fight this propaganda war. They are getting trashed.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/27/report-first-western-eyewitness-in-benghazi-to-go-public-gives-account-attack/
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/benghazi/
MARC: Just in case this somehow disappears down the road, here is the content:
The following script is from "Benghazi" which aired on Oct. 27, 2013. The correspondent is Lara Logan. Max McClellan, producer.
60 Minutes Overtime
Voices from the Benghazi investigation »
When Chris Stevens was killed in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of September 11th last year, it was only the sixth time that the United States had lost an ambassador to its enemies. The events of that night have been overshadowed by misinformation, confusion and intense partisanship. But for those who lived through it, there's nothing confusing about what happened, and they share a sense of profound frustration because they say they saw it coming.
Tonight, you will hear for the first time from a security officer who witnessed the attack. He calls himself, Morgan Jones, a pseudonym he's using for his own safety. A former British soldier, he's been helping to keep U.S. diplomats and military leaders safe for the last decade. On a night he describes as sheer hell, Morgan Jones snuck into a Benghazi hospital that was under the control of al Qaeda terrorists, desperate to find out if one of his close friends from the U.S. Special Mission was the American he'd been told was there.
Morgan Jones: I was dreading seeing who it was, you know? It didn't take long to get to the room. And I could see in through the glass. And I didn't even have to go into the room to see who it was. I knew who it was immediately.
Lara Logan: Who was it?
Morgan Jones: It was the ambassador, dead. Yeah, shocking.
Morgan Jones said he'd never felt so angry in his life. Only hours earlier, Amb. Chris Stevens had sought him out, concerned about the security at the U.S. Special Mission Compound where Morgan was in charge of the Libyan guard force.
Now, the ambassador was dead and the U.S. compound was engulfed in flames and overrun by dozens of heavily armed fighters.
Although the attack began here, the more organized assault unfolded about a mile across the city at a top secret CIA facility known as the Annex. It lasted more than seven hours and took four American lives.
Contrary to the White House's public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it's now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.
Five months before that night, Morgan Jones first arrived in Benghazi, in eastern Libya about 400 miles from the capital, Tripoli.
He thought this would be an easy assignment compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. But on his first drive through Benghazi, he noticed the black flags of al Qaeda flying openly in the streets and he grew concerned about the guard forces as soon as he pulled up to the U.S. compound.
Morgan Jones: There was nobody there that we could see. And then we realized they were all inside drinking tea, laughing and joking.
Lara Logan: What did you think?
Morgan Jones: Instantly I thought we're going to have to get rid of all these guys.
Morgan Jones' job was training the unarmed guards who manned the compound's gates. A second Libyan force -- an armed militia hired by the State Department -- was supposed to defend the compound in the event of an attack. Morgan had nothing to do with the militia, but they worried him so much, he could not keep quiet.
Morgan Jones: I was saying, "These guys are no good. You need to-- you need to get 'em out of here."
Lara Logan: You also kept saying, "If this place is attacked these guys are not going to stand and fight?"
Morgan Jones: Yeah. I used to say it all the time. Yeah, in the end I got quite bored of hearing my own voice saying it.
Andy Wood: We had one option: "Leave Benghazi or you will be killed."
Green Beret Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, was one of the top American security officials in Libya. Based in Tripoli, he met with Amb. Stevens every day.
The last time he went to Benghazi was in June, just three months before the attack. While he was there, al Qaeda tried to assassinate the British ambassador. Wood says, to him, it came as no surprise because al Qaeda -- using a familiar tactic -- had stated their intent in an online posting, saying they would attack the Red Cross, the British and then the Americans in Benghazi.
===================================
Lara Logan: And you watched as they--
Andy Wood: As they did each one of those.
Lara Logan: --attacked the Red Cross and the British mission. And the only ones left--
Andy Wood: Were us. They made good on two out of the three promises. It was a matter of time till they captured the third one.
Lara Logan: And Washington was aware of that?
Andy Wood: They knew we monitored it. We included that in our reports to both State Department and DOD.
Andy Wood told us he raised his concerns directly with Amb. Stevens three months before the U.S. compound was overrun.
Andy Wood: I made it known in a country team meeting, "You are gonna get attacked. You are gonna get attacked in Benghazi. It's gonna happen. You need to change your security profile."
Lara Logan: Shut down--
Andy Wood: Shut down--
Lara Logan: --the special mission--
Andy Wood: --"Shut down operations. Move out temporarily. Ch-- or change locations within the city. Do something to break up the profile because you are being targeted. They are-- they are-- they are watching you. The attack cycle is such that they're in the final planning stages."
Lara Logan: Wait a minute, you said, "They're in the final planning stages of an attack on the American mission in Benghazi"?
Andy Wood: It was apparent to me that that was the case. Reading, reading all these other, ah, attacks that were occurring, I could see what they were staging up to, it was, it was obvious.
We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Greg Hicks: It was a frightening piece of information.
Lara Logan: Because it meant what?
Greg Hicks: It raised the stakes, changed the game.
Greg Hicks, who testified before Congress earlier this year, was Amb. Stevens' deputy based in Tripoli - a 22-year veteran of the Foreign Service with an impeccable reputation.
Lara Logan: And in that environment you were asking for more security assets and you were not getting them?
Greg Hicks: That's right.
Lara Logan: Did you fight that?
Greg Hicks: I was in the process of trying to frame a third request but it was not allowed to go forward.
Lara Logan: So why didn't you get the help that you needed and that you asked for?
Greg Hicks: I really, really don't know. I in fact would like to know that, the answer to that question.
In the months prior to the attack, Amb. Stevens approved a series of detailed cables to Washington, specifically mentioning, among other things, "the al Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings".
When the attack began on the evening of September 11, Amb. Stevens immediately called Greg Hicks, who was back in Tripoli.
Greg Hicks: Ambassador said that the consulate's under attack. And then the line cut.
Lara Logan: Do you remember the sound of his voice?
Greg Hicks: Oh yeah, it's indelibly imprinted on my mind.
Lara Logan: How did he sound?
Greg Hicks: He sounded frightened.
In Benghazi, Morgan Jones, who was at his apartment about 15 minutes away, got a frantic call from one of his Libyan guards.
Morgan Jones: I could hear gunshots. And I-- and he said, "There's-- there's men coming into the mission." His voice, he was, he was scared, you could tell he was really scared and he was running, I could tell he was running.
His first thought was for his American friends, the State Department agents who were pinned down inside the compound, and he couldn't believe it when one of them answered his phone.
Morgan Jones: I said, "What's going on?" He said, "We're getting attacked." And I said, "How many?" And he said, "They're all over the compound." And I felt shocked, I didn't know what to say. And-- I said, "Well, just keep fighting. I'm on my way."
Morgan's guards told him the armed Libyan militia that was supposed to defend the compound had fled, just as Morgan had predicted. His guards -- unarmed and terrified -- sounded the alarm, but they were instantly overwhelmed by the attackers.
Morgan Jones: They said, "We're here to kill Americans, not Libyans," so they'd give them a good beating, pistol whip them, beat them with their rifles and let them go.
Lara Logan: We're here to kill Americans.
Morgan Jones: That's what they said, yeah.
Lara Logan: Not Libyans.
Morgan Jones: Yeah.
About 30 minutes into the attack, a quick reaction force from the CIA Annex ignored orders to wait and raced to the compound, at times running and shooting their way through the streets just to get there. Inside the compound, they repelled a force of as many as 60 armed terrorists and managed to save five American lives and recover the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. They were forced to fight their way out before they could find the ambassador.
====================================
Not long afterwards, Morgan Jones scaled the 12-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al Qaeda fighters.
Morgan Jones: One guy saw me. He just shouted. I couldn't believe that he'd seen me 'cause it was so dark. He started walking towards me.
Lara Logan: And as he was coming closer?
Morgan Jones: As I got closer, I just hit him with the butt of the rifle in the face.
Lara Logan: And?
Morgan Jones: Oh, he went down, yeah.
Lara Logan: He dropped?
Morgan Jones: Yeah, like-- like a stone.
Lara Logan: With his face smashed in?
Morgan Jones: Yeah.
Lara Logan: And no one saw you do it?
Morgan Jones: No.
Lara Logan: Or heard it?
Morgan Jones: No, there was too much noise.
The same force that had gone to the compound was now defending the CIA Annex. Hours later, they were joined by a small team of Americans from Tripoli. From defensive positions on these rooftops, the Americans fought back a professional enemy. In a final wave of intense fighting just after 5 a.m., the attackers unleashed a barrage of mortars. Three of them slammed into this roof, killing former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Lara Logan: They hit that roof three times.
Andy Wood: They, they hit those roofs three times.
Lara Logan: In the dark.
Andy Wood: Yea, that's getting the basketball through the hoop over your shoulder.
Lara Logan: What does it take to pull off an attack like that?
Andy Wood: Coordination, planning, training, experienced personnel. They practice those things. They knew what they were doing. That was a-- that was a well-executed attack.
We have learned there were two Delta Force operators who fought at the Annex and they've since been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross -- two of the military's highest honors. The Americans who rushed to help that night went without asking for permission and the lingering question is why no larger military response ever crossed the border into Libya -- something Greg Hicks realized wasn't going to happen just an hour into the attack.
Lara Logan: You have this conversation with the defense attache. You ask him what military assets are on their way. And he says--
Greg Hicks: Effectively, they're not. And I-- for a moment, I just felt lost. I just couldn't believe the answer. And then I made the call to the Annex chief, and I told him, "Listen, you've gotta tell those guys there may not be any help coming."
Lara Logan: That's a tough thing to understand. Why?
Greg Hicks: It just is. We--, for us, for the people that go out onto the edge, to represent our country, we believe that if we get in trouble, they're coming to get us. That our back is covered. To hear that it's not, it's a terrible, terrible experience.
The U.S. government today acknowledges the Americans at the U.S. compound in Benghazi were not adequately protected. And says those who carried out the attack are still being hunted down.
Just a few weeks ago, Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi. We've learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and long-time al Qaeda operative, was one of the lead planners along with Faraj al-Chalabi, whose ties to Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan.
The morning after the attack, Morgan Jones went back to the compound one last time to document the scene. He took these photos which he gave to the FBI and has published in a book he has written. After all this time, he told us he's still haunted by a conversation he had with Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, a week before the attack.
Morgan Jones: Yeah, he was worried. He wasn't happy with the security.
Lara Logan: And you didn't tell him all your worries?
Morgan Jones: No. No, didn't want to--
Lara Logan: Why not?
Morgan Jones: I didn't want to worry him anymore, you know? He's a nice guy. I sort of promised him he'd be OK.
Lara Logan: You think about that?
Morgan Jones: Every day, yeah.
The U.S. pulled out of Benghazi and al Qaeda has grown in power across Libya. When a member of our team went to the U.S. compound earlier this month, he found remnants of the Americans' final frantic moments still scattered on the ground. Among them Amb. Stevens' official schedule for Sept.12, 2012, a day he didn't live to see.
-
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/sen-graham-slams-hold-on-all-nominations-til-admin-names-benghazi-folks/
From the article:
In a broad exercise of the senatorial privilege of temporarily stopping a nomination, known as a “hold,” Sen. Lindsey Graham announced this morning that he will not allow any Obama administration nominations to proceed.until he is told the names of those he calls the “Benghazi survivors.”
-
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/sen-graham-slams-hold-on-all-nominations-til-admin-names-benghazi-folks/
From the article:
In a broad exercise of the senatorial privilege of temporarily stopping a nomination, known as a “hold,” Sen. Lindsey Graham announced this morning that he will not allow any Obama administration nominations to proceed.until he is told the names of those he calls the “Benghazi survivors.”
Good for him. Politically, we may see Graham as a wimp but he is also a tough prosecutor and is facing a primary challenge in a state more conservative than he is. Nice that they don't leave all the heavy lifting for Ted Cruz.
A DEM should have done this! Is it partisan to want to know what happened to Americans 14 months later?
-
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/first-on-cnn-us-commandos-were-poised-for-raid-to-capture-benghazi-suspect/?hpt=hp_t1
From the article:
When U.S. commandos grabbed a former al Qaeda operative in Tripoli this month, American forces were just hours away from potentially launching a more dangerous covert raid to capture a militia figure facing charges in the deadly Benghazi terror attack, U.S. officials tell CNN.
U.S. special operations forces were ready, if ordered, to enter Benghazi and capture Ahmed Abu Khattalah, a leading figure in the Ansar Al-Sharia militia. But the mission never materialized.
The United States believes Ansar Al-Sharia was behind the September 2012 armed assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/john-kerry-tells-congress-that-he-will-not-allow-benghazi-survivors-to-testify
-
There is also video at this source
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/us-military-commandos-made-it-to-benghazi/?page=all#pagebreak
Masked from public view, two of the U.S. military’s elite special operations commandos have been awarded medals for bravery for a mission that further undercuts the Obama administration’s original story about the Benghazi tragedy.
For months, administration officials have claimed no special operations forces were dispatched from outside Libya to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012, al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex because none was within range. The Pentagon, under intense public criticism for not coming to the aid of besieged Americans, published an official timeline in November that carefully danced around the issue.
It said time and distance prevented any commandos outside Libya from reaching a CIA compound under attack. The timeline disclosed that a reinforcement flight 400 miles away in Tripoli contained two “DoD personnel” but did not describe who they were. Later, the official State Department report on Benghazi said they were “two U.S. military personnel” — but provided no other details. It made no mention of special operations forces. But sources directly familiar with the attack tell The Washington Times that a unit of eight special operators — mostly Delta Force and Green Beret members — were in Tripoli the night of the attack, on a counterterrorism mission that involved capturing weapons and wanted terrorists from the streets and helping train Libyan forces.
When word of the Benghazi attack surfaced, two members of that military unit volunteered to be dispatched along with five private security contractors on a hastily arranged flight from Tripoli to rescue Americans in danger, the sources said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the special operations forces’ existence inside Libya was secret.
The two special operations forces arrived in time to engage in the final, ferocious firefight between the terrorists and Americans holed up in the CIA annex near the ill-fated diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the sources added.
The two special operators were awarded medals for valor for helping repel a complex attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens, another American diplomat and two former Navy SEALs, but spared many more potential casualties.
“Yes, we had special forces in Tripoli, and two in fact did volunteer and engaged heroically in the efforts to save Americans,” one source told The Times. “The others were asked to stay behind to help protect Tripoli in case there was a coordinated attack on our main embassy.
“The remaining [special operations forces] were ready to dispatch the next morning, but by that time American personnel had been evacuated to the airport, local militias had provided additional security and it was determined there was no need for them to be dispatched at that point,” the source added.
Pressed why the Pentagon and administration officials did not publicly acknowledge the special operations forces’ contribution that tragic night, the sources said officials decided that their anti-terror work inside Libya was sensitive and closely guarded. In addition, U.S. officials did not have a Status of Forces Agreement in place that would have authorized the troops’ presence, the sources said.
The history of the Benghazi attack is infamous in part for what the White House and Pentagon did not do: no warplanes and no rescue troops from outside Libya.
The revelation that some special operations forces did make it to Benghazi the night of the attack is the latest to undermine a carefully crafted story line put out by the president and his aides in the weeks leading into the 2012 election. The administration has since acknowledged that parts of that story line were misleading.
“On the one hand, it is an indictment of the lack of contingency planning by both CIA and DoD, especially given the rising threat profiles in Libya that were well understood — and appropriately reported back to D.C. by agency reps on the ground,” said retired Army Col. Ken Allard. “So why weren’t there more than just two Delta Force guys to send? Above all: Where were the air and naval resources that should have routinely been included in any contingency planning worthy of the name?”
The original account misled the public about the role of al Qaeda. The White House falsely asserted that the attacks arose from a spontaneous riot spurred by an anti-Islam video, when the intelligence community had evidence almost immediately that the assault was planned by al Qaeda-linked terrorists.
The administration has blamed editing of “talking points” for the misleading accounts, the most famous of which was given on national television by Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, five days after the attack.
But a second thread of the administration’s story line was that no U.S. special operations forces were deployed to Benghazi because none was within range to arrive during the eight-hour onslaught.
“The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told Congress this year. “Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”
Mr. Panetta, who has since left office, eventually acknowledged that two soldiers were involved in the firefight, but he offered little detail.
“The quickest response option available was a Tripoli-based security team that was located at the embassy in Tripoli.,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. “And to their credit, within hours, this [seven]-man team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane, deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket-propelled grenades.”
What Mr. Panetta left unspoken in public, however, was why those troops were in Tripoli and who else accompanied them.
At the time of the al Qaeda attacks, the military was setting up a terrorist-hunting unit in Tripoli that included U.S. Special Operations Command’s super-secret Delta Force and Green Berets, the sources say.
Gregory Hicks, who was deputy chief of station in Tripoli, sent the reinforcements in conjunction with the CIA. On a night when Mr. Panetta decided he did not have enough information to commit troops, Mr. Hicks decided he did.
Delta Force is nation’s premier counterterrorism unit, along with the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, controlled by Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C. Delta has been working with the CIA to nab wanted terrorists in Libya.
More than a year after the Benghazi attack, on Oct. 5, Delta soldiers in Tripoli captured fugitive al Qaeda terrorist Abu Anas al Libi, the alleged mastermind of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
CBS’ “60 Minutes” reported Sunday that the annex was defended by two Delta soldiers. The Washington Times confirmed the information last week and learned that they were part of the small reinforcement flight from Tripoli. They were awarded medals for valor. The CIA also has bestowed medals to its employees who defended the mission and annex.
The charter flight proved ill-fated. After terrorists stormed the U.S. mission in Benghazi at 9:45 p.m. local time, killing Stevens and communications aide Sean Smith, surviving diplomats and State Department security personnel made a mad dash. In armored vehicles, they arrived just after midnight at the annex commanded by a retired Army officer turned CIA operative. A rescue team from the annex also brought back survivors from the mission.
The Hicks-ordered flight arrived in Benghazi in time to help at 1:15 a.m. — but they could not get various Libyan militias to provide transportation to the annex.
The annex inhabitants had plenty of weapons to hold off a direct assault, like the one that breached and burned the U.S. mission. Huddled there was a mix of CIA officers and security personnel, such as former SEAL Tyrone Woods, and employees of Britain’s Blue Mountain personal security team.
The Tripoli team finally arrived at about 5 a.m. Sept. 12. Exactly what the two Delta soldiers did is not contained in any public account. But it is known that ex-SEAL Glen Doherty, who was on the flight, joined Woods on the roof to man machine guns. Within minutes, five mortar rounds hit on or near the annex. Three hit the roof, killing both former SEALs and badly wounding State Department security officer David Ubben.
The State Department’s official account said men went to the roof and carried the dead and wounded defenders below.
A source said annex defenders killed at least 20 terrorists during an on-and-off firefight that lasted nearly eight hours. The terrorists who planned the mission attack also knew of the annex and were able to place mortars within striking range.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/politics/benghazi-cia-hearing/index.html
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/first-on-cnn-us-commandos-were-poised-for-raid-to-capture-benghazi-suspect/?iref=allsearch
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/minutes-unreliable-benghazi-source-176877.html?hp=l3
-
A just-released Fox News poll finds 65 percent of voters, more than two to one support, want lawmakers to keep investigating what happened in Benghazi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/fox-news-poll-65-percent-want-congress-to-keep-investigating-benghazi-attack/
(Not in the article: What the hell is wrong with the rest of you? Americans left to die. Help denied. A video blamed. Nation lied to. Don't care??)
-
Doug,
"Honesty" in government is low on the list of many Americans political imports.
Lying has become a no big deal - unless it affects an individual's bottom line.
It is more than ever all about the money.
To me honesty is even just as importance as competence.
That is the one thing I respected about Jimmy Carter. At least I believed he was honest.
The left certainly doesn't care about honesty. Look at the Clintons. Look at Brocks deceptions. 40% will defend them no matter what. Another 10 - 15 % jump on board as soon as they get the money train offered to them.
I certainly don't know how we can have a government that is not honest. No matter what they say, no matter when, one never knows if it is the truth or not. I agree. How can anyone not think that is a problem?
It suggests to me many people in general are dishonest. It also proves what I learned. When it comes to money forget about all else. Family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and the rest.
That is the reason Dems have lost some support. Not the lying. Just the fact that more people than expected are having to pay more. That's it. All about the freaking money.
-
CCP, You are right. The Benghazi lie is so much like the Obamacare lie. People knew it was a lie then. People know now. People tolerate it. Clarence Page (liberal columnist) said it aloud (about the keep-your-plan lie), it was a "political lie", meaning people expect that and he needed to do it to get bill passed and to get re-elected. The Benghazi lies were to get reelected, covering up a big hole in their foreign policy schtick. If 'we' want him re-elected, then it is okay. The IRS targeting was only about taking down opponents, that is still okay. But the keep-your-plan lie, as you say, now involves money out of our pockets. And the Benghazi lies involve deaths of people serving our country. The line has been crossed, even for the people with almost no political principles. The other factor is the media. After blowing it so badly and with reelection safely accomplished, they have a some credibility to re-establish. Now they are curious of what they previously ignored, even helped to cover up.
I still cringe at the image of Candy Crowley conspiring to sweep the Benghazi coverup under the carpet. That is when answers should have been forced out of this administration. Mr. President, where were you? Who ordered the stand down? Who approved the video excuse? What was the mission? Why wasn't security beefed up? A foreign policy debate in a Presidential election, and none of it asked! Instead she shot down the challenger with a blatant falsehood.
-
Show the Video, Mr. President!
They knew what was going on in Benghazi.
President Obama knew. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew. The heads of our military and intelligence services knew. They knew our brave former SEALs and diplomats were pinned down by an enemy attack. They knew sovereign U.S. territory was being brazenly violated by armed militias.
And. They. Did. Nothing.
Show us that video, Mr. President. Let us see the attack you neglected to stop. Let us see what our Department of Defense knew and when it knew it. Do it. Stand up and be accountable. Stop hiding behind your spokesmen, the State Department, and the military leaders you hold in utter contempt. Just once.
But we know you won’t because then everyone would see what you really think of America’s fighting forces. You won’t because it will reveal what those of us at Special Operations Speaks have known all along – that you are entirely unfit to command our Military.
You won’t because it will show that our leaders knew beyond any doubt we were being attacked – not by an angry mob over some obscure video but by a coordinated fighting force with a specific mission and sufficient command and control to destroy our facility and kill our people in Benghazi.
At SOS, we are former Special Operations soldiers. We know how these fights begin … and end. We know that in combat men are isolated from their support, and sometimes lost. We have never, though, witnessed the willful withholding of support from Americans in mortal distress. We have never seen a commander-in-chief wander from his command post, go to bed and then casually fly away next day to tend to his campaign ambitions.
We’ll never stop raising this issue... Barack Obama is our President. Hillary Clinton wants to be. They are both unfit – by virtue of their actions on this night alone – to lead our troops. When the red phone rang that night, no one answered. Unacceptable. We are going to make this egregious and shameful violation of the American warrior ethos public until everyone understands it.
But we need your help. We are a small organization with a tremendously complex and difficult mission – to ensure Americans understand the true character of those who now lead us and would aspire to do so in the future. Help us today. Your contribution of 100.00 or 200.00 or 500.00 will enable us to keep the heat on this most unfit presidents and his former Secretary of State and get us the answers the American people deserve.
This was an event of unprecedented consequences. No longer can our fighting men and women assume we will not leave them behind. They have to figure we might.
Because on that night in Benghazi, we did exactly that.
Sincerely,
Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-Founder of Special Operation Speaks
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/16/delta-force-marine-awarded-navy-cross-fight-cia-an/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/16/delta-force-marine-awarded-navy-cross-fight-cia-an/
All the surviving members of that unit might want to avoid all flying on the same aircraft.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/new-photos-benghazi-attack-aftermath-show-widespre/?page=all#pagebreak
video clip at this URL
By Christine Dolan - Washington Times Communities
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
New Benghazi Photos Released
Shocking new photos reveal devastation of Benghazi attack
The State Department has belatedly released dozens of photos of the aftermath of last year’s terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi after The Washington Times inquired about the authenticity of photographs it received from a Welsh security contractor assigned to the doomed American outpost in eastern Libya.
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, had requested all photos and videos of the besieged diplomatic mission under the Freedom of Information Act in December and February, and the State Department released only seven photographs in June.
PHOTOS: Shocking new photos reveal devastation of Benghazi attack
But this week, after weeks of inquiries by The Times about photos it received, the State Department released a trove of photographs showing buildings and vehicles ablaze during the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Other photos show ransacked offices, burned-out cars and Arabic graffiti scrawled on walls.
The State Department said it had forwarded the photographs to the FBI for its investigation into the attack and submitted them to the accountability review board, the independent panel that conducted the State Department’s mandatory probe of the Benghazi incident and events leading up to it. The department also shared the photographs with members of Congress looking into the Obama administration’s response to the attack.
Judicial Watch was incredulous over the sudden release of never-before-published photographs and criticized the State Department for withholding requested videos of the attack and its aftermath.
“The new photos reveal a level of total devastation thoroughly belying Obama’s original cover story that the carnage was perpetrated by a bunch of random malcontents upset over an unpleasant video,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Wednesday on the group’s website. “The fact that we’ve had to wait nearly a year and file a federal lawsuit for basic documentary material of the attack shows that this administration is still in cover-up mode. And now the Obama administration brings the Benghazi stonewall to a whole new level by withholding video of the attack using frivolous arguments such as ‘privacy.’”
Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, expressed outrage over the State Department’s delay in providing materials requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
“It’s inexcusable that members of Congress and the press who want to learn the truth about what happened in Benghazi have had to use FOIA requests to obtain answers. Absent the creation of a House select committee that will hold public hearings and have cross-jurisdictional subpoena authority, I don’t think the American people will ever learn the truth,” said Mr. Wolf, who has been calling for a Watergate-style committee to investigate Benghazi.
“To date, there have been too few answers and absolutely no accountability,” he said. “Just what exactly were the State Department and CIA doing in Benghazi that has led the government to go to such great lengths to obstruct requests for information?”
Days after the terrorist attack on the diplomatic compound and a nearby CIA annex, Obama administration officials publicly blamed the assault on spontaneous protests over an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. But intelligence personnel determined soon after the attack that it was carried out by heavily armed, trained militants conducting a well-planned assault.
Republicans have accused the administration of covering up the militants’ involvement because it would have contradicted a theme in President Obama’s re-election campaign — that al Qaeda had been decimated.
The photos obtained by The Times were verified as authentic by the State Department this week, and they offer mute testimony to the events of that night and lend urgency to questions still swirling about the U.S. mission and the Obama administration’s response to the attack and its aftermath. The Times previously reported that U.S. special operations forces were in Libya at the time of the attack and tried to rescue Americans at the CIA annex, contrary to administration statements. Two of those troops have received awards for heroism for their actions.
The Times received the photos from Dylan Davies, a specialist with the British security firm Blue Mountain Group, which was contracted by the State Department to train Libyans how to protect the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Using the pseudonym “Morgan Jones,” Mr. Davies was interviewed last month on CBS’ “60 Minutes” about the attack. His account of scaling a wall at the diplomatic compound and confronting a terrorist during the assault has been widely discredited.
But the photographs he took the day after the attack — and those taken during the onslaught by a local guard — have been submitted by the State Department to investigators looking into the debacle. Many of those photos are the same as those recently released by the State Department.
“The Blue Mountain Group had been under contract to provide local guard services at our compound in Benghazi,” said Alec Gerlach, a spokesman for the State Department. “As a contractor of the State Department, the Blue Mountain Group provided information, including photographs and an incident report, to department officials with whom they had been in regular contact throughout their contract agreement. These and other appropriate materials were provided to the FBI to assist in their criminal investigation.”
In an interview with The Times, Mr. Davies confirmed with documentation that he had been in contact with FBI and State Department officials in September and October 2012.
Since the recent publication of his book about the Benghazi attack — “The Embassy House,” co-written with Damien Lewis — Mr. Davies’ credibility has been widely questioned.
“The account in my book is consistent with what I gave to the FBI and U.S. authorities about what happened in Benghazi,” he told The Times, which has led an investigation to verify and confirm what he turned over to the State Department and the FBI.
An unsigned incident report, written in the first person, has been attributed to Mr. Davies and counters his claims about the night of the attack on the diplomatic mission.
Mr. Davies has denied writing or submitting an incident report. In all of his face-to-face meetings with U.S. officials, he said, he was never recorded or asked to sign any document.
According to a State Department official, the evidence that Mr. Davies turned over to the officials was included in the 25,000 pages of documents given to congressional committees, the FBI and the accountability review board. However, none of those materials has identified Mr. Davies as their source.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/new-photos-benghazi-attack-aftermath-show-widespre/#ixzz2lIdJX3Cw
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/new-photos-benghazi-attack-aftermath-show-widespre/?page=all#pagebreak
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Shocking new photos reveal devastation of Benghazi attack
(http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/11/07/benghazi-11_s630x354.jpg?51ec8d341491e4a9f66b5807c3cebaa0bf0a135b)
Or as the candidate for reelection told his media accomplices, al Qaida has been "decimated".
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0
No, Mr. President, Americans were decimated and help and rescue missions were ordered to "Stand Down".
-
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/11/cruz-demands-benghazi-investigation/
-
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/television/article/CBS-Lara-Logan-producer-ordered-to-take-leave-5013579.php
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/american-teacher-benghazi-international-school-sho/
-
http://conservativefiringline.com/they-all-lied-and-this-one-picture-is-the-proof-2/
-
http://conservativefiringline.com/they-all-lied-and-this-one-picture-is-the-proof-2/
It's not conclusive. What the provenance of the photo? Is it clear it's the ambassador? Lots of unanswered questions. Speaking of unanswered questions, where is the autopsy report on Amb. Stevens?
-
Agreed 100%, but in the absence of honest transparency from our government, we must consider other sources.
-
Agreed 100%, but in the absence of honest transparency from our government, we must consider other sources.
oh yeah, the most transparent administration evah sure isn't Funny that the Huffington post and professional journalist Martha Radditz aren't all over this story. Any explanation BD?
-
Yes, absent an American government account, we'll go with the photo. GM has been right on this, where is the autopsy report - it's been 15 months! Is it secret, do we need a Warren commission?
Who ordered the stand-down? How? When? Why?
Who came up with the youtube video story? Who said run with it? Why?
There was no protest. A blatant lie. There was no report at the time or in post-attack interviews of a protest. The lies about the protest and the video were put forward at least dozens different times by the highest officials intending only to obfuscate the truth. So what is the truth, start to finish?! We know where George Bush was when he learned of the 9/11/2001 attacks. They made a full length movie on it. Where was Pres. Obama? Where was Sec. Clinton? We paid for the cameras that filmed the attacks. Did they watch in real time. Did they have second thoughts on ordering the stand down. Two of the dead were defying stand down orders. Did they consider court-martial when they learned this? Was the Pres. working on his Vegas speech during the attack? Did he go to bed while Americans were under attack? Did he sleep well?
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/14/stand-down-cia-benghazi-team-clash-led-controversi/?page=all#pagebreak
-
http://ww.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/9/fitton-a-closer-look-at-the-benghazi-lie/
-
What do we make of this?
=========================================
No Qaeda Link Seen in Benghazi Attack; Interviews Show Militia and Insults to Islam Fueled Assault
The September 2012 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was accelerated in part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
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.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both challenges now hang over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi?emc=edit_na_20131228
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi
By David D. Kirkpatrick
December 28, 2013
Benghazi, Libya
A boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias.
It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.
“Since Benghazi isn’t safe, it is better for you to leave now,” Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. “I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.”
Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama’s support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald’s and KFC.
The diplomat, David McFarland, a former congressional aide who had never before met with a Libyan militia leader, left feeling agitated, according to colleagues. But the meeting did not shake his faith in the prospects for deeper involvement in Libya. Two days later, he summarized the meeting in a cable to Washington, describing a mixed message from the militia leaders.
Despite “growing problems with security,” he wrote, the fighters wanted the United States to become more engaged “by ‘pressuring’ American businesses to invest in Benghazi.”
The cable, dated Sept. 11, 2012, was sent over the name of Mr. McFarland’s boss, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Later that day, Mr. Stevens was dead, killed with three other Americans in Benghazi in the most significant attack on United States property in 11 years, since Sept. 11, 2001.
The Diplomatic Mission on Sept. 11, 2012
Four Americans died in attacks on a diplomatic mission and a C.I.A. compound in Benghazi.
As the attacks begin, there are seven Americans at the mission, including five armed diplomatic security officers; the information officer, Sean Smith; and Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Both Mr. Smith and Ambassador Stevens die in the attack.
The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.
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.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, was firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward. Many other Islamist leaders consider him an erratic extremist. But he was never more than a step removed from the most influential commanders who dominated Benghazi and who befriended the Americans. They were his neighbors, his fellow inmates and his comrades on the front lines in the fight against Colonel Qaddafi.
To this day, some militia leaders offer alibis for Mr. Abu Khattala. All resist quiet American pressure to turn him over to face prosecution. Last spring, one of Libya’s most influential militia leaders sought to make him a kind of local judge.
Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
The C.I.A. Annex
A 20-person team from the Central Intelligence Agency is in the compound known as the Annex, about a half-mile from the mission, where the security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty are later killed.
The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda, several officials who received the briefings said. Like virtually all briefings over that period, the one that day made no mention of Mr. Abu Khattala, Ansar al-Shariah or the video ridiculing Islam, even though Egyptian satellite television networks popular in Benghazi were already spewing outrage against it.
Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.
More broadly, Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/29/i-read-this-report-i-was-really-incredulous-ex-cia-analyst-rips-nyt-benghazi-report/
-
What do we make of this?
The spirit of Walter Duranty is still strong at the slimes.
=========================================
No Qaeda Link Seen in Benghazi Attack; Interviews Show Militia and Insults to Islam Fueled Assault
The September 2012 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was accelerated in part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
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.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both challenges now hang over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi?emc=edit_na_20131228
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi
By David D. Kirkpatrick
December 28, 2013
Benghazi, Libya
A boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias.
It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.
“Since Benghazi isn’t safe, it is better for you to leave now,” Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. “I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.”
Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama’s support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald’s and KFC.
The diplomat, David McFarland, a former congressional aide who had never before met with a Libyan militia leader, left feeling agitated, according to colleagues. But the meeting did not shake his faith in the prospects for deeper involvement in Libya. Two days later, he summarized the meeting in a cable to Washington, describing a mixed message from the militia leaders.
Despite “growing problems with security,” he wrote, the fighters wanted the United States to become more engaged “by ‘pressuring’ American businesses to invest in Benghazi.”
The cable, dated Sept. 11, 2012, was sent over the name of Mr. McFarland’s boss, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Later that day, Mr. Stevens was dead, killed with three other Americans in Benghazi in the most significant attack on United States property in 11 years, since Sept. 11, 2001.
The Diplomatic Mission on Sept. 11, 2012
Four Americans died in attacks on a diplomatic mission and a C.I.A. compound in Benghazi.
As the attacks begin, there are seven Americans at the mission, including five armed diplomatic security officers; the information officer, Sean Smith; and Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Both Mr. Smith and Ambassador Stevens die in the attack.
The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.
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.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, was firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward. Many other Islamist leaders consider him an erratic extremist. But he was never more than a step removed from the most influential commanders who dominated Benghazi and who befriended the Americans. They were his neighbors, his fellow inmates and his comrades on the front lines in the fight against Colonel Qaddafi.
To this day, some militia leaders offer alibis for Mr. Abu Khattala. All resist quiet American pressure to turn him over to face prosecution. Last spring, one of Libya’s most influential militia leaders sought to make him a kind of local judge.
Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
The C.I.A. Annex
A 20-person team from the Central Intelligence Agency is in the compound known as the Annex, about a half-mile from the mission, where the security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty are later killed.
The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda, several officials who received the briefings said. Like virtually all briefings over that period, the one that day made no mention of Mr. Abu Khattala, Ansar al-Shariah or the video ridiculing Islam, even though Egyptian satellite television networks popular in Benghazi were already spewing outrage against it.
Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.
More broadly, Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.
-
Just locals, with ties to al Qaida:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/middleeast/no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?_r=2&
Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the[Benghazi] attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/02/communications_with.php
Cairo's Al Yawm al Sabi first published one of the letters from Jamal to Zawahiri. The letter was apparently written in late 2011. The Long War Journal has obtained a translation of the original Al Yawm al Sabi account.
"My Dear Sheikh Abu Muhammad," Jamal begins, referring to Zawahiri by his kunya. Jamal goes on to call Zawahiri an "asset" for Islam and prays for Allah to enable Zawahiri to establish an Islamic state.
Jamal also thanks Allah "for the blessing of communication with my brother and teacher Sheikh Ayman." Jamal says he has greatly desired to see Zawahiri after his release from an Egyptian prison, "so that I can be by your side, which is an honor for me."
Because he was "banned for travel" and his "name was on a list of international terror in more than one Arab country," Jamal says, he could not reach Zawahiri. Jamal even tried, to no avail, to travel using fraudulent documents.
"So I resorted to send another person who was with me in prison," Jamal writes. "Agreement was reached on jihadist action inside Egypt, irrespective of the conditions inside the country. We believed in the necessity of establishing a jihadist entity in Egypt."
Jamal writes that he "encouraged the youths by virtue of my past record to work with you." Somewhat cryptically, Jamal notes that he does not know Zawahiri's "opinion of establishing an effective jihadist organization in Egypt against the Zionist-Crusaders... or exploiting the security vacuum for advocacy and religious media promotion." It is not entirely clear what Jamal means.
Jamal then summarizes his work to date. Jamal's letter reads like a request for additional resources, given all that he has accomplished thus far. Jamal says he had established "solid forces from the cadres we trust here and an advanced base outside Egypt in Libya to take advantage of the conditions in Libya after the revolution." This was done "in order to buy weapons and also attract elements not known in Egypt."
Jamal writes that he formed "groups for us inside Sinai," an especially interesting revelation given that some jihadist groups there have openly proclaimed their allegiance to al Qaeda.
Shortly after he was released from prison in early 2011, Jamal began work. He complains that he "received an amount of money from our brothers in Yemen," a reference to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), "but it was much less than what is required." Zawahiri is "aware" of the "huge amounts of money" needed to purchase arms, set up training camps, move vehicles into the Sinai Peninsula, and "provide for the families of the brothers who work with us."
Transporting small arms and missiles from Libya into Egypt is expensive, Jamal writes. "We point out that part of the strategy of international action relies on heavy weapons like mortars and Grad Missiles." It is therefore necessary for them, Jamal continues, to request assistance from brothers who are either "hard-pressed" or "miserly."
------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst part of this NY Times - Hillary Cover piece is that with a year of so-called investigations, besides getting it wrong, they don't even try to answer any of the unanswered questions:
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/the-ny-times-attempt-to-whitewash-benghazi-not-just-wrong-but-futile.php)
Why didn’t Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, respond to any of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ several requests for increased security? The Times offers no answer to this fundamental question. On the contrary, it sets Stevens up as the principal American expert on the various militias and terrorist groups operating in Libya. Which means that his pleas for more security should have been viewed as highly credible. Stevens obviously was correct when he told Clinton that Benghazi needed better security, yet she ignored his repeated pleas. Why?
Further: Where were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the night of September 11, 2012, and what orders, if any, did they give? The news media’s lack of curiosity as to what Obama and Clinton were doing during the seven or eight hours that went by while four Americans, including an ambassador, were under attack and ultimately were murdered, is remarkable. If we had a real president or a real Secretary of State, they would have been in control that night, and would have taken responsibility for the decisions they made. Instead, Washington did nothing to try to help the besieged Americans, and no one knows whether either Obama or Clinton ever made any decisions at all, or whether they were off partying somewhere. Or fast asleep.
And finally: Why haven’t the perpetrators of the murders been found and punished? President Obama vowed to find and punish those responsible for the murders of the Americans. One would think that Hillary Clinton, too, would be interested in identifying and punishing those who killed an ambassador who was serving under her. And yet, even though many of those who participated in that night’s carnage have been happy to give interviews to New York Times reporters and others, nothing has been done to bring justice to the perpetrators of the greatest outrage against American honor in recent years.
It is remarkable that the New York Times, with all its resources, cannot come up with an account of the Benghazi disaster that even addresses, let alone satisfactorily explains, the Obama administration’s principal failures.
-
See previous posts in this thread, Eli Lake has probably been the most thorough reporter on this story.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/29/yes-there-is-evidence-linking-al-qaeda-to-benghazi.html
Yes, There IS Evidence Linking al Qaeda to Benghazi
By Eli Lake
December 29th 20133:27 pm
Libyan militants tell the New York Times that al Qaeda is not behind the 2012 Benghazi attack. Some members of Congress have intelligence that says otherwise.
On Sunday, The New York Times published an investigation that concluded al Qaeda played no role in the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. For Democrats, this was welcome news considering the bruising investigations into the attack from Republicans in Congress. The piece was trumpeted by the progressive non-profit, Media Matters in a blast email as “bad news for Benghazi Hoaxers.”
But two members of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Adam Schiff, told Fox News on Sunday that U.S. intelligence assessments concluded al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. While no Republicans have asserted the Benghazi attacks were planned in a manner similar to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, evidence has emerged in the last year that does show the participation of militias and fighters with known ties to al Qaeda.
Abu Khattala: The Times focuses its reporting on Ahmed Abu Khattala, a militia leader who spoke to reporter David Kirkpatrick, last year and claimed to be at the scene of the Benghazi assault with no apparent worry that he would be abducted or killed by U.S. authorities. In his piece Sunday, Kirkpatrick fills in the rest of Abu Khattala’s story, revealing that he was a part-time construction worker who was publicly associated with the abduction and murder of a rival militia commander supported by NATO. In interviews with the Times, Abu Khattala denies any connection to al Qaeda. He does however say he admires the group’s vision. The Times also discloses that Abu Khattala was close to a leader of the militia the U.S. had entrusted to protect its facilities in Benghazi in light of an attack. But Abu Khattala was by no means the only person who participated in the attack.
“Sometimes though the intelligence which has the advantage of hearing to people when they don’t know they are being listening to, that can be misleading as well, when people make claims, they boast of things they were not involved in for various purposes.”
The Jamal network: Some fighters who attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi are believed to be from a group headed by a former top lieutenant to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda. When Egyptian authorities raided the home of Mohammed al-Jamal, who was an operational commander under al-Zawahiri’s terrorist group in the 1990s known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, it found messages to al Qaeda leadership asking for support and plans to establish training camps and cells in the Sinai, creating a group now known as the Jamal Network. In October, the State Department designated Jamal Network as a terrorist group tied to al Qaeda. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the participation of the network in the Benghazi attacks, and the group’s participation in the attacks has also been acknowledged in the Times. The New York Times Benghazi investigation makes no mention of the Jamal Network in their piece.
What militants say when they think no one is listening. On Fox News Sunday, Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the intelligence indicated that al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. The intelligence community knows this, he said, from insights gleaned from eavesdropping on the night of the attack. Speaking of the Times report, Schiff said “they did not have the same access to people who were not aware they were being listened to. They were heavily reliant obviously on people they interviewed who had a reason to provide the story they did.” But Schiff also said sometimes eavesdropping has its limits as well. “Sometimes though the intelligence which has the advantage of hearing to people when they don’t know they are being listening to, that can be misleading as well, when people make claims, they boast of things they were not involved in for various purposes,” he said. The Daily Beast first reported that an intercepted phone conversation from one of the attackers to a person connected to al Qaeda’s north Africa affiliates boasting of the attack. The Times says this intercept was the “only intelligence connecting al Qaeda to the attack,” a claim disputed this weekend by two U.S. intelligence officials. The Times reports the phone call showed the person connected to al Qaeda sounded “astonished,” suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.
Ansar al-Sharia: No one has disputed the participation of a local Islamist militia known as Ansar al-Sharia. The Times describes Ansar al-Sharia in Libya as a group formed in 2012 to protest the support other militias had for elections but an organization separate and distinct from al Qaeda. An August 2012 report commissioned by a Pentagon terrorism research organization found that Ansar al-Sharia “has increasingly embodied al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, as indicated by its active social-media propaganda, extremist discourse, and hatred of the West, especially the United States.” Not everyone however agreed. As The Daily Beast reported last year, Ansar al-Sharia was not a priority for U.S. intelligence collection in Libya The Times also drew a distinction between the Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Sharia and the Dernaa branch of the group that was led by a former Guantanamo detainee Sufian Ben Qhumu. Others however see Ansar al-Sharia’s activities in Libya more coordinated with al-Qaeda’s regional affiliates. In October, Tunisia’s Prime Minister told Reuters that “there is a relation between leaders of Ansar al-Sharia, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya.” The Times also states, “the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with al Qaeda’s international terrorist network.” On Fox News Sunday Rogers stuck to his guns. “Do they have differences of opinions with al Qaeda core? Yes,” he said. “Do they have affiliations with al Qaeda core? Definitely.”
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/30/intel-community-still-insists-on-al-qaeda-ties-in-/
-
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367247/times-benghazi-report-convenient-clinton-elliott-abrams
We’ll never know whom the Times thought it important to interview and whom it believed, but we do know that it had no access to the intelligence that members of Congress saw. And we are being told by members of Congress that the embassy staff had it right in saying the video was unimportant, and that there were some al-Qaeda links. So the much-ballyhooed Times story, based on months of reporting, seems to come down to this: Do you believe the intelligence our agencies collected and the reporting of our diplomats on the scene at the time, or do you believe what the New York Times was told by Libyans, many of them Islamic extremists and some of them terrorists, more than a year later?
The answer to that question probably depends on what position you hold in the Hillary Clinton campaign.
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/01/08/wapo-alqaeda-linked-former-guantanamo-detainee-implicated-in-benghazi-attacks-n1773600?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/world/africa/us-to-list-libyan-groups-and-militant-tied-to-benghazi-attack-as-terrorists.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140109&_r=0
-
New Declassified Docs Expose Obama’s Benghazi Lies
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On January 14, 2014 - www.frontpagemag.com
Newly declassified documents reveal that high-ranking members of the Obama administration were aware that the September 11, 2012 assault on the American consulate in Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” only minutes after the battle began. In classified testimony given on June 26, 2013 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Gen. Carter Hamm, former head of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) revealed he was the one who broke the news to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Hamm testified that he learned about the attack only 15 minutes after it began at 9:42 p.m. Libya time. Thus, the administration’s carefully crafted narrative that the attack was based on a video has once again been revealed for the lie it always was.
“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” the General told lawmakers. ”I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.” Hamm characterized the ability to meet with both men so soon after the attack occurred as a fortunate ”happenstance” because “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.”
That meeting had been pre-scheduled with the president for 5 p.m. EST. A Defense Department (DOD) timeline notes that the meeting occurred one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began, and even as the battle at the consulate was ongoing. The DOD also revealed that an unarmed drone arrived over the battlefield during that time. As both men revealed in subsequent testimony, the meeting with the president lasted approximately 30 minutes — after which they never heard from anyone in the White House again.
Hamm revealed that he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from that session.
Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) was the lawmaker who put Hamm on the spot regarding the administration’s video narrative. ”In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, was there any mention of a demonstration, or was all discussion about an attack?” McKeon asked. Hamm characterized the discussion of a demonstration as “peripheral,” but noted that ”at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith, unaccounted for.”
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed the General more forcefully on the nature of his conversation with Panetta and Dempsey. He expressed his concern “that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration” rather than a terrorist attack. Hamm noted their was some “preliminary discussion” of the point, but emphasized that they were aware of what was really going on. “But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” he testified. Hamm also reiterated that “with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”
Hamm, Dempsey and Carter were not the only ones aware that a terrorist attack was occurring. The declassified transcripts show that key officers, along with several channels of command throughout the Pentagon and its combatants commands, were equally quick to label the assault a terrorist attack.
Wenstrup took the approach with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region, that he did with Dempsey. Bristol testified he was in Dakar, Senegal when the Joint Operations Center called to tell him about “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol called Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli, who informed Bristol that Ambassador Stevens was missing and ”there was a fight going on” at the compound. ”So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack on the United States?” Wenstrup asked Bristol. ”Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack,” he replied.
When their investigations continue, staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee have indicated their desire to recall Panetta to ask him additional questions. ”He is in the president’s Cabinet,” Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), chair of the panel that collected the testimony, told Fox News. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives – is that the American people feel misled.”
Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush, echoed that assertion. ”Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” he insisted. ”The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”
As of now, the retired Panetta has resisted requests for further testimony.
Preliminary conclusions reached by those same staffers regarding Panetta’s earlier testimony that a rescue operation would have been impossible, agreed with the former Secretary’s assessment. But those same documents reveal it was because America’s assets in the region were badly arrayed. And not just with regard to Benghazi, but other Middle East hotspots as well. Transcripts from top military commanders paint a woeful picture of gaps in the position of assets worldwide. Examples of unpreparedness include the reality that no aircraft were put on high alert for September 11, and that the closet F-35 fighter jets to Benghazi, stationed in Aviano, Italy were unarmed. Moreover, the closest mid-air re-fuelers were 10 hours away in Great Briatin.
Other assets, including AC-130 gunships were 10 hours from Libya, and a unit of 23 special operators that comprise part of a discretionary, “in-extremis” force, were training in Croatia. According to testimony, they didn’t even make it to a staging base in Sigonella, Italy until 19 hours after the attack began.
Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), the Republican chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, addressed this disturbing reality. ”It does not appear that U.S. military forces, units, aircrafts, drones, or specific personnel that could have been readily deployed in the course of the attack in Benghazi were unduly held back, or told to stand down, or refused permission to enter the fight,” she concluded. “Rather, we were so badly postured, they could not have made a difference or we were desperately needed elsewhere.”
The newly released documents also reveal that Gen. Hamm had been left out of the loop in White House-led discussions regarding military preparedness and force posture on the eve of Sept. 11. This revelation undercuts White House assurances that then-counterterrorism adviser John Brennan had ”convened numerous meetings,” and the president and his national security principals discussed “steps taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad.”
Perhaps they they did. But it remains unknown why the head of AFRICOM would not be include in those discussions.
Hamm insisted that no one told him to stand down, there simply weren’t assets available to counter the attack. He repeatedly argued that having an F-16 do a fly-over in Benghazi wouldn’t have made any difference, despite that tactic being routinely employed to disperse enemy forces in Afghanistan.
AFRICOM and Pentagon officials insisted they were more worried about threats emanating from Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan on Sept. 11, 2012. “As I look back at the intelligence, I don’t see the indications of imminent attack in Benghazi,” Ham said. Yet Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, vice chief of operations on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon that night, seemingly confirmed the lack of military preparedness. ”We were postured as appropriately as we can be and we thought we should be around the world. It wasn’t just in Africa, in North Africa, that we had issues. We had issues around the world.”
“Appropriately postured”–but with “issues”?
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) remained skeptical of Hamm’s assessment. ”The extraction took an exceptionally long amount of time,” he noted. ”I still don’t understand, with two men down by 10:00 p.m. local time and then another attack at 5:00 a.m. the next morning, how at 6:05 in the morning the Department of Defense prepares a C-17 to go down, and that doesn’t actually depart Germany until 2:15 p.m. and doesn’t return back to Germany until 10:19 p.m. I have flown with you from Germany to Libya. It is not that far a flight.”
Another infuriating fact revealed by the documents regards a FAST team of Marines in Rota, Spain. They were apparently forced to deplane and change out of their uniforms before flying to Libya. “When we got people down do you really have — do you really actually let somebody push the military around and say, well, you are in the wrong uniform,” Chaffetz asked in disbelief. “Is that really a reason to delay the FAST team coming in to protect Americans, that they are not wearing a t-shirt?”
Nothing should surprise anyone with regard to Benghazi anymore. Not the administration’s wholesale lying about a video. Not the callousness of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wondered aloud in congressional testimony, “what difference at this point does it make?” regarding the how and why of the attack. Not the equal amount of callousness demonstrated by a president who handed off responsibility for the operations to Panetta and Dempsey, and promptly disappeared, even as he showed up at a Las Vegas fundraiser the next day with his oft-repeated campaign slogan that was also a lie: “A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead,” Obama told the audience.
That would be the same al Qaeda that, according to CNN, “appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.”
The can be no doubt any longer what the president knew and when he knew it. On September 11, 2012 four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. The president was aware of that reality shortly after 5 p.m. EST, even as a drone flew over the battlefield relaying video in real time. And despite all the lying, and incompetence, not a single person has been fired or held accountable, nor has even one member of the media asked the president where he was between the time he left Panetta and Dempsey, and boarded a plan for the fundraiser in Las Vegas.
Last Sunday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates may have inadvertently given America some insight in that regard. He was describing Obama with regard to Afghanistan. “As I write in the book, it was this absence of passion, this absence of a conviction of the importance of success that disturbed me,” Gates said.
Americans might ask themselves whether that lack of compassion and absence of conviction extended to Benghazi.
Or perhaps former Carter campaign worker Pat Caddell had it right at an Accuracy in Media conference in June of 2012, when he lambasted the media and their unrelenting efforts to cover for Obama. “If a President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!” he declared.
Perhaps that time is coming.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/
-
Not that I favor impeachment but funny that we take it off the table for political reasons before we know the offenses. Yet Dems bring it up on a lane closure.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/15/Devastating-Benghazi-Timeline-Reveals-Obama-MIA?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+January+16%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20140116_m118779005_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+January+16%2C+2014&utm_term=More
-
This is well-worth watching - a 12-minute damning indictment of Hillary Clinton and her State Department:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLKsHCDmWaA
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/benghazi-was-hillarys-fault-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
second post
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/18/Admin-Source-Told-Van-Susteren-To-Tell-Colleague-To-Halt-Benghazi-Coverage
-
second post
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/18/Admin-Source-Told-Van-Susteren-To-Tell-Colleague-To-Halt-Benghazi-Coverage
Chicago thug style.
-
And exactly WHY, may I ask, has Van Susteren not mentioned a word about this until now???
-
The very same question occurred to me as well.
-
Gregory Hicks: Benghazi and the Smearing of Chris Stevens
Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts. I know—I was there.
By Gregory N. Hicks
Jan. 22, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET
Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.
The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.
On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.
Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.
However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.
Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.
Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.
During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority. Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces. According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.
The SenateIntelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.
Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.
When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.
I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.
To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."
Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/23/gen-dempsey-failed-leader-scathing-senate-review-f/?page=all#pagebreak
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/25/delta-force-commando-awarded-second-highest-milita/
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs&feature=youtu.be
-
Woof All:
I am looking unsuccessfully for the recent reports about how it was known on the very first day that it was an attack and so reported to Sec Def Panetta, Sec. Clinton, and that they met with the president. Help please.
-
Again, help on this please. This is an important point and I really regret having missed posting it here.
-
Hillary's Benghazi Cover-Up
By Dick Morris - January 29, 2014
By saying that her main regret during her years as secretary of state is the terror attack on the Benghazi consulate and the deaths of four Americans, Hillary Clinton continues her cover-up.
Even as she expresses her regrets, she pretends that the reason she did not act to beef up security at the compound and that she lied afterwards, blaming the attack on the Internet video, was "imperfect" intelligence information.
In fact, as the records released by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee make clear, she had all the relevant facts before her and just ignored them
This is highlighted in the text of a recent interview.
"Oh, sure. My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi," said Clinton. "I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information. And you make them to -- as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn't mean that there's not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns."
However, "unforeseen consequences and unpredictable twists and turns" had nothing to do with her failure to secure the compound or to send adequate security to protect it. Rather, she got every sort of warning from her own ambassador, the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department. She just failed to act on them.
When you read the various pieces and bits of information she received in the weeks and months prior to the attack, it is hard to see how they could have been any more blunt or explicit in warning of the likelihood of future terror attacks in Benghazi:
According to the Senate Intelligence Committee:
On June 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency authored a report entitled: "Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests."
The report cited "growing ties between al-Qaeda regional nodes and Libya-based terrorists."
The DIA report said: "We expect more anti-U.S. terrorist attacks in eastern Libya [redacted], due to the terrorists greater presence there."
Six days later, according to the committee report, the Pentagon's Joint Staff daily intelligence report included a slide entitled: "Terrorism: Conditions Ripe for More Attacks, Terrorist Safe Haven in Libya."
It said: "[Redacted] support will increase Libyan terrorist capability in the permissive post-revolution security environment. Attacks will also increase in number and lethality as terrorists connect with AQ associates in Libya. Areas of eastern Libya will likely become a safe haven by the end of 2012."
A CIA report issued on July 6, 2012 -- "Libya: Al-Qaeda Establishing Sanctuary" -- was more declarative.
"Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups and associates are exploiting the permissive security environment in Libya to enhance their capabilities and expand their operational reach," said this CIA report.
Two months before Sept. 11, 2012 the CIA was already reporting that al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists had made parts of eastern Libya "their safe haven."
Soon after that, a CIA officer told State Department officials that al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists had training camps "within Benghazi."
On Aug. 15, 2012, the State Department's principal officer in Benghazi called together an "Emergency Action Committee" to discuss "the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi."
The next day, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., summarizing the points made at this meeting.
Stevens' cable said a CIA officer had "briefed the EAC on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi."
For Hillary now to say that she did the best she could on the basis of "imperfect information" and to blame the tragic outcome on "unforeseen consequences and unpredictable twists and turns" is such an act of distortion of the record that it takes one's breath away.
The plan fact is that this possible future president failed miserably in her first major administrative assignment: Running the embassies and consulates under her jurisdiction as secretary.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
COPYRIGHT 2014 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
-
CCP:
Thank you but this is not what I am looking for.
What I am looking for is the FOX report (about two weeks ago?)of govt. documents revealing that Sec Def Paneta knew THAT VERY DAY that it was a terrorist attack and so did Sec. Clinton (and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff too?) and that they met with the President i.e. he and Clinton ALWAYS KNEW FROM DAY ONE.
-
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=17D69AFC-744A-43DA-8BEA-D582975C1277
Jan 13 2014
Declassified Transcripts of Benghazi Briefings Released
Armed Services Committee Examined Actions Of Military Chain Of Command Before, During, and After Attack
WASHINGTON— The House Armed Services Committee today released a series of recently declassified transcripts of briefings on the September 11th 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The briefings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations then chaired by Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), though they were open to all members of the Committee and attended by Members off the Committee. The briefings, which took place over the course of several months, were part of the Committee’s examination of the actions of the military chain of command before, during, and after the attack. A report summarizing the conclusion of the HASC Oversight & Investigations majority Members draw from these briefings is expected to be released later this week.
Read the transcripts linked below
Permalink: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/1/declassified-transcripts-of-benghazi-briefings-released
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest
By James Rosen
• Published January 14, 2014 •
FoxNews.com
Facebook6604Twitter3604LinkedIn27
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.
According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta."
Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous "happenstance" that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, "they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House." Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee's hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.
Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night -- as Obama's hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch -- that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.
"In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta," McKeon asked, "was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham initially testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for."
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack."
The transcript reads as follows:
WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."
HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."
WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"
HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"
"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."
Ham's declassified testimony further underscores that Obama's earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.
The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show "The View," when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been "an act of terrorism," the president hedged, saying: "Well, we're still doing an investigation."
The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM's Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.
Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to "a considerable event unfolding in Libya." Bristol's next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that "there was a fight going on" at the consulate compound.
WESTRUP: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -"
BRISTOL: "Yes, sir."
WENSTRUP: "-- on the United States?"
BRISTOL: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack."
Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an "interim" report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible -- a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.
While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.
"He is in the president's Cabinet," said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. "The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what's going on, and I honestly think that that's why you have seen -- beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans' lives -- is that the American people feel misled."
"Leon Panetta should have spoken up," agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have."
Neither Panetta's office nor the White House responded to Fox News' requests for comment.
James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show "The Foxhole."
-
THAT is what I was looking for GM-- thank you!!!
-
My posting of GM's find has led me to this:
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/349231/%5Btitle-raw%5D-jim-geraghty
I have not read it fully yet but from what I have read it seems well worth a serious read.
-
Hat tip to Doug:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/112890-benghazi-cover-continues-smoking-gun-former-cia-director-morrell-editing-talking-points/
Hillary Campaign Adviser Lied About CIA's Role Editing Benghazi Talking Points
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cia-libya_n_2062131.html
The Journal's report placed the blame for many of the missteps in Benghazi specifically on CIA director David Petraeus
-
I suspect this will be put to bad use. The underlying point remains-- rescue efforts were prohibited against what was known then and there to be an attack.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/10/house-committee-no-stand-down-order-given-in-benghazi/
-
Well, well, well, it would appear some folks have been rather Clintonesque with their language.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/115028-house-report-benghazi-terror-attack-contradicts-2-diplomat-libya-stand-order/
-
Rove: The Endless Benghazi Coverup
Susan Rice's latest claims about the attacks are no more credible than the ones she made in 2012.
by Karl Rove
Updated Feb. 26, 2014 7:33 p.m. ET
The worst part of National Security Adviser Susan Rice's comments on Sunday's "Meet The Press" was that she expressed no regret for saying that the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi were "absolutely" the result of protests against a "very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world." (She made these comments while she was ambassador to the United Nations, less than a week after four Americans were killed.)
Almost as bad was Ms. Rice's statement that she was merely sharing "the best information that we had at the time." That is a contemptible falsehood. The government knew long before Ms. Rice went on five Sunday television shows that the assaults were carefully planned terrorist attacks unconnected to a video.
Gen. Carter Ham, then head of Africa Command, knew "this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack" within minutes of learning about the assault, according to testimony he gave last June to the House Armed Services Committee that was declassified this month. Gen. Ham almost immediately informed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey before their previously scheduled Oval Office meeting with President Obama. Mr. Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee last year that he informed Mr. Obama of the attack. "There was no question in my mind this was a terrorist attack," he testified.
Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks, America's No. 2 diplomat in Libya, told congressional investigators in April 2013 that "I never reported a demonstration." Instead, "everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning."
Acting Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones sent an email to State Department officials on Sept. 12, 2012, confirming that she had told the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. that Ansar al-Shariah, a terrorist group, "conducted the attacks." The CIA station chief in Libya sent an email three days later to the deputy director of the CIA and others at the agency that the attacks were "NOT, NOT an escalation of protests."
Yet Ms. Rice continues to insist that she gave the best available intelligence.
In the months since the Benghazi attacks, the role of then-Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell in shaping the administration's response raises important questions that need answers. What contact did Mr. Morell have with the CIA station chief and Mr. Hicks? Did they tell him it was a terrorist attack? If so, what did he say or direct them to do?
Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge reported earlier this month that there was a video conference within 72 hours of the attack among CIA officials in Washington, Libya and survivors. During that call, according to Ms. Herridge, Mr. Morell suggested that the attacks resulted from a demonstration. True? And if so, how did Mr. Morell come up with that concoction?
Another curiosity: Who chose Ms. Rice to go on the Sunday shows and why? After all, she wasn't involved in the post-Benghazi meetings and deliberations. Who briefed Ms. Rice and gave her the talking points about the video? From where did those briefers receive their instructions? Who did Ms. Rice talk to besides her (still unknown) briefers? She never talked to Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks, according to sources familiar with the situation. Did she talk to the CIA station chief? Did she see his email?
What was the role of the National Security Council's political people— Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor —and White House politicos, especially then-senior adviser David Plouffe ? They might have been more concerned with Benghazi's impact on the president's re-election than with the facts.
Mr. Morell left the CIA for a plum job at a consulting firm run by Hillary Clinton's close adviser, Philippe Reines, and a contract with CBS News, whose president, David Rhodes, is the brother of Ben Rhodes at the National Security Council. A less supine press corps would find this all rather curious and worth investigation.
It will be hard for Congress to get Ms. Rice to testify under oath. The White House will assert executive privilege. The way to start getting these questions answered is for the House Intelligence Committee to interview the CIA station chief, and then put Mr. Morell under oath.
The Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton desperately want Benghazi to go away, and the mainstream media continues ignoring it. But four Americans are dead. While Ms. Rice claims she has no regrets about misleading the country, she should. Americans are owed the truth, most of all the families of those who died in Benghazi in the service of their country.
Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads.
-
Look where Mike Morrell is working , , ,
http://beaconglobalstrategies.com/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/14/eckert-keeping-americans-in-the-dark-on-benghazi/
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/republican-chairman-has-huge-benghazi-conflict-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/29/bombshell-newly-released-emails-reveal-obama-admins-reaction-to-benghazi/
-
Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
April 30, 2014
White House E-Mail: 'Underscore that These Protests Are Rooted in an Internet Video'
KABOOM. In short, the Obama administration's lies about Benghazi came about exactly as we expected: one of the political guys telling the national security appointees what to say.
Republicans say e-mails released Tuesday on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, include "the smoking gun" that shows a White House official urged that the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest that never happened.
The e-mails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request, include one in which White House official Ben Rhodes lists "goals" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice to meet in explaining the attack and protests occurring across the Middle East that week to the American public.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the assault, which the White House subsequently acknowledged was an al-Qaeda-linked terror attack.
The e-mail, sent to various officials including White House spokesman Jay Carney, said one goal was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
Another goal was "to reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
Rhodes is assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communication and speechwriting.
During appearances on five Sunday news programs, Rice did blame the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, on a protest against an anti-Islam video produced by an American. So did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and President Obama would not say whether it was a terrorist attack until several days later.
The CIA station chief in Libya reported from the beginning that the attack was an al-Qaeda-linked operation and that there was no protest. Though there was some dispute over the manner of the attack, former CIA deputy director Mike Morell testified earlier this month that he had no idea where the story about a video protest came from when he saw Rice make the claim on television.
Well, now we know.
Yes, Rhodes' speechwriting always focused in the foreign-policy realm. He was a longtime assistant to Lee Hamilton, then joined Obama as a speechwriter in 2007. But this guy's not an expert on Libya. There's no way he was in any position, from Washington, to overrule the assessment of the folks on the ground. He's a message guy. And he quickly concluded -- accurately -- that the administration's obvious ill-prepared presence in Libya and failure to organize timely rescue efforts on the 9/11 anniversary represented a serious threat to the president's reelection. They needed a scapegoat; the video was the best option at hand.
A perfectly ironic quote from a 2010 profile: "I very much wanted to be a fiction writer." Guess he finally got that chance.
-
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/04/RhodesEmail022.jpg)
-
We have more important things to focus on, like racist sentiments from an octogenarian NBA owner.
Squirrel!
-
The Missing Benghazi Email
New evidence that Ben Rhodes told Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to blame the video.
April 30, 2014 7:05 p.m. ET
Most of the media refuses to cover what happened in Benghazi in 2012, and Congressional Republicans have been less than skillful in their probes. But the story isn't going away despite the best efforts of the Obama Administration and the Hillary for President campaign.
The latest revelation comes from White House emails in the days after the September 11, 2012 terrorist strike on the U.S. mission in Libya's second largest city. These emails weren't included last year in what the Administration claimed was a complete set of documents about its handling of the attack and its aftermath. They were released Tuesday after the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request. We can see why the Administration tried to keep them under wraps.
A September 14, 2012 email from Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, sets out the Administration's view of the cause of the Benghazi attacks. He wrote it to prepare U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and current national security adviser Susan Rice for her appearances on the Sunday news shows two days later. As Mr. Rhodes wrote, the Administration wanted her "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
In fact the attack on the diplomatic compound and CIA annex was a planned and well-coordinated assault by Islamist groups with ties to al Qaeda that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Within hours, State and CIA officials at the Embassy EMYB 0.00% in Tripoli, Libya's president and video footage made that clear. Yet the Administration settled on deceptive spin and stuck to it for over a week.
Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, on Sept. 14 blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest against an obscure anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Two days later, Ms. Rice returned repeatedly to the video in her appearances on the Sunday shows, saying on Fox News that "what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world."
Enlarge Image
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton AFP/Getty Images
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also pushed the video fiction, telling the public on Sept. 14 at Andrews Air Force base as the remains of the four dead were returned that, "We have seen rage and violence directed at American Embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
The White House also found a scapegoat in the intelligence community, blaming the CIA for drawing up the faulty "talking points" used by Administration officials. Last May it released drafts of emails from the CIA, with input from State and the White House, that spontaneous protests had "evolved into a direct assault." Yet those talking points never mentioned a video, and earlier this month former acting CIA Director Mike Morell said he didn't understand why Ms. Rice had mentioned it.
Mr. Rhodes's email provides the answer. The message directive came directly from the White House and was followed to the word. Mr. Rhodes alluded to the video in five spots in his email. On Wednesday, Mr. Carney still insisted Ms. Rice had "relied on points about the Benghazi attack that were produced by the CIA." He must think the press corps is stupid.
The Rhodes email shows a White House political operative trying to protect his boss two months before Election Day. Mr. Obama's campaign said al Qaeda was on the run and it was time for "nation-building at home." The terror attack on Americans in Benghazi didn't fit this story. It did, however, expose the "broader failure of policy" (to use Mr. Rhodes's phrase) in North Africa in the wake of the Arab political upheavals in 2011.
After the election, the Administration was slow to cooperate with congressional investigations. The "talking points" emails were released last May only after parts were leaked to the press. The Rhodes email was subpoenaed last August, but the White House blocked release until it seemed obvious it would lose its attempts to keep them secret.
All of this bears directly on Mrs. Clinton's qualifications to be President. Her State Department overlooked repeated warnings about a growing militant threat in Benghazi, denying requests for improved security. And the father of a CIA contractor told media outlets that Mrs. Clinton tried to comfort him by promising that the maker of the YouTube video would be "prosecuted and arrested," though the video had nothing to do with his son's death.
The several congressional investigations into Benghazi have been undermined by turf battles and shoddy work. We long ago advised that a select committee could focus the effort and bring overdue clarity to a shameful episode in American history. It still could.
-
Benghazi Smoking Gun Exposed
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 1, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com
The idea that the Obama administration willfully orchestrated a disinformation campaign with regard to the attacks in Benghazi has now been confirmed.
An email written by then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and obtained by Judicial Watch contained four bullet-point “Goals” outlined as part of the strategy to contain the political damage engendered by the murder of four Americans on September 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. One bullet-point in particular revealed the Obama administration’s deliberate crafting of a deceitful narrative following the incident. According to the Judicial Watch emails, the objective of the Obama administration was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
The email was part of a series of 41 new Benghazi-related documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed June 21, 2013. That effort was aimed at gaining access to the documents used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for her September 16 appearance on five different Sunday TV news programs. Rhodes’ email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012 at 8:09 PM. It contained the following subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”
“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”
Rhodes’ email was sent to several members of the administration’s inner circle. They included White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.
Another critical email contained in the documents was written by former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf. It was addressed to Susan Rice and sent on Sept. 12, 2012, at 5:42 PM. It provided a brief summary of the attack, and further revealed that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland had characterized the compound assault as “clearly a complex attack.” This characterization undermined Rice’s contention that the attacks were “spontaneous.”
Nonetheless when Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN she insisted, as she specifically stated on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” that “based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.”
Sen. John McCain, who immediately followed Rice’s appearance, revealed the utter nonsense of her assertion. “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration,” he explained. “That was an act of terror, and for anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is really ignoring the facts.”
Not ignoring the facts. Making them up. As Judicial Watch explains:
The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:
The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.
This revelation appears to contradict written testimony given by Morell to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last April, during which he insisted that “there is no truth to the allegations that the CIA or I ‘cooked the books’ with regard to what happened in Benghazi and then tried to cover this up after the fact.” Morell also claimed it was Rice, not the CIA, who linked the video to the attack. “My reaction was two-fold,” he told Committee members, “One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.”
Rhodes’ email blows Morell’s allegation out of the water, but a critical question remains unanswered: who did brief Rice in the aforementioned “prep call”?
A letter sent Monday night to the House and Senate foreign affairs committees from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and John McCain (R-AZ) addresses that issue. It asks both committees to compel the Obama administration to explain who briefed Rice for her talk show appearances, and whether anyone from the State Department or White House was involved. “How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor,” the letter inquired.
Graham characterizes the latest emails as “a smoking gun,” indicating White House efforts “to shape the story” of the Benghazi attacks and “to put a political stance on a disaster six weeks before an election.”
The White House says otherwise. In an explanation that strains credulity, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed the White House withheld Ben Rhodes’ email from Congress and the media because it didn’t deal directly with the Benghazi attack. “This document was explicitly not about Benghazi, but about the general dynamic in the Muslim world at the time,” he insisted. “The overall issue of unrest in the Muslim world and the danger posed by these protests … was very much a topic in the news.”
Yesterday, in a testy exchange with ABC News White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Carney further declared that the White House urged Rice to focus on the video because her TV appearances were ostensibly supposed to address all of various protests sparked by that video, not just the murders in Benghazi. Karl ridiculed that assertion and reminded Carney that he had lied repeatedly in the past. “You stood there, time after time, and said that she was referring to talking points created by the CIA,” Karl stated. “Now we see a document that comes from the White House, not from the CIA, attributing the protests to the video.” In response, Carney continued to insist the protests outside American embassies were just as big a story, that Rice relied on CIA talking points, and the Rhodes’ email was part of the preparation to respond to the protests in general, not Benghazi.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who believes the newly released emails completely undermine President Obama’s 2012 campaign narrative (i.e. “Al Qaeda is on the run”), also believes a more thorough investigation of Benghazi is warranted. “I think the Republicans have something here that really ought to be looked at,” he said Tuesday. “I just don’t know if there’s gonna be any interest in the mainstream media. They should, because this exposes a cover-up of a cover-up. The fact that it was redacted when the documents were asked for and only revealed by a court order is telling you this is a classic cover-up of a cover-up, and that is a serious offense.”
What Krauthammer is referring to is the reality that Rhodes’ email wasn’t included in the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May, when Republicans refused to confirm John Brennan as CIA director until the “taking points” memos were released.
Yet Krauthammer’s other point about a lack of mainstream media interest is just as germane. Some of that lack may be driven by the reality that Ben Rhodes’ brother is CBS News President David Rhodes, who was not enamored with former CBS investigative report Sharyl Attkisson’s reporting on the attack, despite the fact that she had been one of the few reporters to follow the story wherever it led. Yesterday in interview with Glenn Beck, Attkisson said she was glad to see “a little more light” shed on that relationship, even as she bemoaned the incestuous relationship between Big Government and Big Media, and the increasing level of intimidation aimed at journalists who refuse to abide that collaboration.
Unfortunately, many in the media are still willing to carry water for the White House. The George Soros-funded Media Matters insists Fox News is “distorting” the use of Ben Rhodes’ memo “to falsely suggest that the administration was lying about the Benghazi attacks for political gain.” Slate’s Dave Weigel claims the email “was largely redundant” and that the talking points blaming the attacks on a video “came from the CIA,” apparently ignoring Morrel’s testimony. Politico Magazine Deputy Editor Blake Hounshell tweeted, ”Can you point me to a credible, authoritative story saying the WH knowingly pushed a false narrative?” demonstrating a willful obliviousness to the efforts undertaken by Attkisson, Karl and Fox’s Catherine Herridge.
That’s water-carrying by commission. There’s also water-carrying by omission. On Tuesday, when this story first broke, CBS This Morning was the only network broadcast to cover it. ABC, CBS and NBC completely omitted the story from their evening broadcasts.
Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) spokesman, Catherine Frazier, expresses what must occur going forward. “This administration must be held accountable to telling the truth so that we can find closure, bring our attackers to justice, and prevent future attacks — and Hillary Clinton’s regrets are not enough,” she said. “All witnesses with knowledge of the attack including administration officials should be called to testify before a joint select committee so we can once and for all know the truth about what happened.”
A select committee on Benghazi has been thwarted by House Majority leader John Boehner (R-OH), who as recently as April 7 still insisted that the four separate committees — Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight — are sufficient to investigate the matter. “There are four committees that are investigating Benghazi,” Boehner told Fox New’s Megyn Kelly “I see no reason to break up all the work that’s been done and to take months and months and months to create some select committee.” “But your own people want it,” Kelly countered. “You got 190 House Republicans whose say they need it.”
Boehner remained resolute.“I understand that,” he said. “At some point, that may — that may be required.” We are now at the point, Mr. Boehner.
-
Yep. This is clearly a bigger scandal than Watergate ever was. Only difference is that now it is *their* guy, so the MSM refuses to do anything about it.
Yet we here over and over again about Sterling's private conversations that were illegally taped and released to the media. It is really terrible how the NBA players are treated isn't it? :-P
-
Why Are We Still Talking About Benghazi? Concerned Democrats Want to Know
It's hard to overstate the importance of the smoking gun in the Benghazi case -- the White House emails revealing that the administration's narrative after Benghazi was cravenly political. To sum up the scandal, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by a terrorist, and the administration subsequently explained it away with a bogus story about a protest over a YouTube video in order to preserve Barack Obama's campaign narrative. Then they covered up talking-points alterations to avoid the appearance of politicizing it.
Commentator Charles Krauthammer says this is critical, and he likened it to the only scandal ever to take down a president: Watergate. "t's the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes," he said, which is to say that it's hard to argue that Barack Obama didn't know about the cover-up.
Not that the White House won't try to downplay it. In fact, White House Propaganda Minister Jay Carney tried to say that the Benghazi emails "were not about Benghazi. They were about the general situation in the Muslim world." Sometimes even we're amazed by the brazenness of their lies.
Meanwhile, former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor says none of this is a big deal and we should move on. "Dude," he said to Fox News' Bret Baier Thursday, "this was two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane thing." He wasn't exactly referring to the murder of a U.S. ambassador when he said that, but that is, after all, what matters, and it's hardly "mundane."
Other Democrats are likewise trying to move focus away from the scandal. "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi," that's all the media want to talk about, complained House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "Why aren't we talking about something else?" Because the 9/11 terrorist attack at Benghazi and the White House's botched response and subsequent cover-up is one of the biggest political scandals in decades, that's why. Well, she added, "If you all want to sit around and talk about Benghazi you can sit around and talk about Benghazi." Addressing the subject later, she said, "I don't think there's anything new there." Just keep repeating that BIG Lie.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seems to grasp the importance of the new revelations, saying the administration "saw Benghazi as a political problem seven weeks before the election and they formed a political answer." To do that, he said, "The White House created a narrative completely different from the intelligence. ... The answer given about Benghazi by Susan Rice was a political answer and disconnected from the facts. ... They were more worried about the president's re-election than they were about telling the American people the truth. They did not give a damn about the intelligence. ... When Susan Rice said, 'I have no regrets, I gave the American people the best evidence available,' that's a bald-faced lie."
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership questions about Benghazi, with a few exceptions, have been so disjointed that most folks listening to them have probably yet to understand the gravity of the lies and cover-up. It's so bad that Democrats may actually want Republicans to keep the Benghazi issue going because it's a good distraction from the Obama economy and the ObamaCare fiasco.
It's time to put this case into the hands of either a joint congressional select committee or special prosecutor who can investigate this White House deception professionally.
Perhaps something good will come of the fact that House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) has subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry "to answer questions about your agency's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack." Issa also noted, "The State Department's response ... has shown a disturbing disregard for the Department's legal obligations to Congress." Disturbing disregard definitely gets to the heart of the problem.
-
Benghazi - just "right wing" hysterics because "they can't come up with anything else so says MSLSD's Chris Hayes pounding the table today @ the same time Fox is covering the story in an honest and legitimate way.
This is just as much BS as the Black Caucus Congressman saying anyone opposed to Obama is not opposed to him because he is a lying, manipulative, pompous, arrogant asshole who deceives, distorts, cons, robs, breaks laws, hates Jews, hates whites, hates America, hates capitalism, is a Communist, is a megalomaniac, but because, get this, he's black.
No Congressman, you can talk stupid but many of us are not as dumb as you.
-
CCP,
I heartily second your thoughts! :-D
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/348932.php
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/348932.php
https://explore.data.gov/dataset/3-meet-with-Potus-NO-TIME-LISTED-9-11-12/hg5b-q3e9?no_mobile=true
Someone needs to subpoena Michael Donilon, David Ginsburg and Ron Klain.
-
http://akpdmedia.com/partners/mike-donilon/
http://www.revolution.com/our-team/ronald-a-klain#.U2Uk1XnnYiE
http://www.crunchbase.com/person/david-i-ginsberg
-
Coming Soon: The Benghazi Select Committee
Trey Gowdy
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will chair a select committee tasked with investigating the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up by the Obama administration. In announcing the decision, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that the administration's continued stonewalling "compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen," including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Last week's bombshell report on internal White House emails proves that the narrative after the attack was cravenly political, and a select committee is the necessary next step. Boehner called the revealed emails "the straw that broke the camel's back." For Democrats who complain of GOP political games, the only reason this is political is that the administration made it so.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf blasted Boehner's move, saying, "We've produced tens of thousands of documents. We've done nine hearings, 46 briefings. How many more taxpayer dollars are we going to spend trying to prove a political point that in 18 months they haven't been able to prove?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) chimed in, similarly complaining, "For Republicans to waste the American people's time and money staging a partisan political circus instead of focusing on the middle class is simply a bad decision."
So Democrats are suddenly concerned with how taxpayer dollars are being spent?
Reid also brought it all back around to his new favorite pastime -- bashing the Koch brothers. He said, "Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work."
Gowdy, a former prosecutor, is just the man for the job of heading the select committee. He's a no-nonsense conservative whose aim is to uphold Rule of Law, and choosing him means this committee may actually produce results. He demonstrated this already over the weekend, saying, "I have evidence that, not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it. I can't disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress. If you want to have [former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli] Greg Hicks and the station chief from Tripoli and Hillary Clinton all sitting at the same table, you need to have a committee that has the power to do that. And a select committee would have that power."
It may be "political" to say so, but Clinton should be disqualified from being president of the United States after her disgraceful performance in this whole fiasco.
Of course, it remains to be seen if the select committee can successfully hold the Obama administration accountable -- as in heads rolling at the very least -- for its failed immediate response to the attack, the subsequent lies to cover-up that failure, and the further lies to cover the lies.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/05/ben-rhodess-brother-the-day-after-benghazi-the-government-thinks-this-could-be-a-coordinated-attack-not-a-video-protest/
Ben Rhodes’s brother, the day after Benghazi: The government thinks this could be a coordinated attack, not a video protest
posted at 5:51 pm on May 5, 2014 by Allahpundit
Ben Rhodes’s brother is of course David Rhodes, the president of CBS News — although, if you’re a CBS viewer, maybe I shouldn’t assume that you know that. Anyway, a nifty catch here by John Sexton of Breitbart. The key bit comes 50 seconds in. Quote:
“Our government thinks that, you know, there’s a really good chance this was not just a spontaneous mob reaction to what some thought was an offensive film but actually a coordinated effort timed to the 9/11 anniversary.”
Two days later, Sexton reminds us, Ben Rhodes sent out an e-mail ahead of Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances urging her “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” What changed between the time his brother said this on September 12th and the time he sent that e-mail on September 14th? Sharyl Attkisson asked a similar question last week, noting that an e-mail chain at the State Department shows that the feds’ earliest suspicions after the attack had focused on Ansar al-Sharia, the jihadi group that had claimed responsibility for it online, rather than a mob driven to fury by the Mohammed video. Somehow the conventional wisdom shifted from the “planned attack” to the “spontaneous protest” theory in 48 hours. And since, it seems fair to assume, David Rhodes’s knowledge of what “our government” thinks was relayed to him at least in part by his brother Ben, it’s more accurate to say that Ben Rhodes’s thinking in particular shifted during those 48 hours. Why?
Depending upon how closely you want to parse David Rhodes’s language here (specifically the word “just” in the quote above, and hedging with “there’s a really good chance”), you can argue that he’s not ruling out the protest theory, just stressing that there may have been more than one group outside the consulate that night. I don’t read it that way; the “just” sounds like a synonym for “merely,” as if he was dismissing the protest theory and offering the attack theory as a substitute. Maybe Trey Gowdy should ask him. Would CBS cover that or would it be blackout time again?
You know what the real irony of Ben Rhodes’s e-mail is? It sets up an either/or between “the protests were caused by a YouTube video” and “the protests were caused by a broader failure of policy” when in reality there was no need to make that move. The fact that Islamists were screaming outside the embassy in Cairo on the anniversary of 9/11 shouldn’t, rationally, be thought of as a “failure of policy.” Screaming outside a U.S. embassy, especially on the day of AQ’s big victory, is what Islamists do. It’s especially goofy to imagine the White House fretting about policy failures when their policy in Egypt to that point had been to support the Islamists’ “democratic” aspirations to power. The Cairo embassy protest took place two months after a member of the Muslim Brotherhood had become president, with U.S. backing; the people protesting were thus hardcore fanatics (among them Ayman al-Zawahiri’s brother) whom no policy would placate. But Obama got elected promising he’d rebuild America’s reputation in the Middle East, so naturally a raucous, ultimately dangerous protest in Cairo — where he’d given his famous speech a few years before — looked bad for him, proof positive that America was still the Great Satan to some people there despite the Lightbringer’s best efforts. If he hadn’t overpromised so much as a candidate, Ben Rhodes might not have been so panicked in shunting blame off onto a video instead of the fact that jihadis hate America no matter who’s president. But he did overpromise, so here we are.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zdbgMFbPE&safe=active[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zdbgMFbPE&safe=active
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/06/pelosis-demand-for-the-benghazi-committee/
-
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/25527
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-to-do-the-benghazi-hearings-right/2014/05/08/86c2a49a-d6e3-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377137/awol-commander-chief-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1
-
Apparently the CIC feels it is none of the public's business where he was.
Could anyone imagine the MSM accepting that as an answer if it were Nixon?
-
Special Panel on Benghazi Needed for Answers
by John Price
AmbassadorJohnPrice.com
May 12, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4383/special-panel-on-benghazi-needed-for-answers
.
We could have learned a lesson from the terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Lebanon and Kuwait in 1983. The State Department did not heed these early warnings. In 1998 terrorists again attacked two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
The State Department needed to protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, but instead turned a blind-eye on that fateful night in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, when brutal Islamists killed the ambassador and three other Americans. This is a serious matter that needs answers, since the credibility of the White House and State Department are on the line.
After Muammar Gadhafi's downfall, in the chaos that followed, extra security precautions should have been taken by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. The U.S.-led incursion into Libya in 2011 to oust Col. Gadhafi led to an unstable environment. Intelligence sources knew that Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda had infiltrated the region and were taking control of large swaths of eastern Libya. The interim government did not have the capability to provide protection for our diplomats.
The State Department should have assigned additional security personnel to the embassy in Tripoli. Instead in August 2012 temporary security resources were ordered to leave. The "February 17 Martyrs Brigade" militia with ties to al- Qaeda, was hired to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Reportedly members were warned in August of a possible attack on the compound. The State Department's decision to withdraw security staff was a major mistake. Hiring the local Islamist militia for protection in Benghazi was like "inviting a fox into the hen house".
Ambassador Stevens should not have gone to Benghazi without adequate security, since the weak Libyan government could not control the well-armed Islamists embedded in the area. U.S. military resources nearby should have been notified of his travel plans in the event of an emergency, knowing the vulnerability to attacks by the Islamists. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in a recent discussion noted that Ambassador Stevens was a highly experienced diplomat—a gregarious individual-- who felt comfortable traveling everywhere to meet with people. He knew the culture well and spoke the language, but probably was too trusting under the circumstances. He wanted to connect with the Libyan people, and foster U.S. relations.
The President's Letter of Instruction to Ambassador's states that the Secretary of State "has responsibility for the coordination and supervision of all U.S. government activities and operations abroad" and "must protect all United States Government personnel on official duty". Congressional hearings, and data uncovered regarding the September 11, 2012 attacks revealed that the State Department ignored the danger signals, failing to uphold its commitment to protect the diplomatic corps.
As a former U.S. ambassador I was appalled by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's insensitive remarks: "What difference at this point does it make...." It makes a big difference, since Ambassador Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by heavily armed Islamists that overran the Benghazi diplomatic compound and assaulted the nearby CIA annex. Diplomats know the risks of serving in hot spots, but with al-Qaeda's on-going jihad against the United States the State Department needed to be better prepared.
After the 1983 U.S. embassy bombings an Advisory Panel led by retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman issued recommendations for security upgrades at all diplomatic posts, especially in high risk regions. The report called for the formation of the Diplomatic Security Service (DS) to oversee security at all overseas operations. An assigned regional security officer (RSO) would be the principal adviser at each embassy to oversee protection matters, and to interface with local police and military authorities.
In October 2012, Deputy Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb, who oversaw the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that she opposed keeping the temporary security team at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. Ms. Lamb had told the embassy's RSO "not to bother asking for additional help when the security team was sent home [in August]." Mr. Nordstrom had requested that the team of fifteen security staff and a six-agent training team remain until mid-September--after the 9/11 anniversary. Ms. Lamb further noted, "It would not have made any difference in Benghazi" adding, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time...."
Gregory H. Hicks the deputy chief of mission (DCM), Eric Nordstrom the RSO, and Mark Thompson the acting deputy assistant secretary of state for counterterrorism (CT) all testified that the State Department failed to protect Ambassador Stevens. During my service I had confidence in the embassy's DCM and RSO, since they would do everything in their power to protect the ambassador.
In Benghazi there had been previous attacks by Islamists on the U.S. consulate and several Western diplomats, so extra security was necessary-- especially since the compound was a neighborhood residence with few security amenities. The Obama Administration had a myopic view of Libya, and the consequences of the international military incursion that had destabilized North Africa and the Sahel region. Islamists have since overrun a number of towns and are attempting to gain control of governments in several countries.
Then Secretary Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, intelligence and military sources all knew in "real time" that Islamist attacks on the consulate were taking place. Yet no help was sent! Disguising the disastrous attacks by the Islamists as motivated by an anti-Islamic video was a political decision. Gross negligence and incompetence would be an understatement for those involved in making this unfortunate decision.
We are living in the most crucial time in modern history since the Cold War. At least then we could see our enemy, which is no longer the case. Today's enemy has no name, no face, no uniform, not even a standing army. The Islamists want to take control under Sharia, the brutal Islamic law. They would like to take us back to the twelfth century when Islam controlled much of North Africa and the Middle East. Al-Qaeda and Islamist affiliates are bent on destroying the Western way of life--with the United States foremost on the list.
The Islamists will continue to undertake terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. The Global War on Terrorism is not over. The message was quite clear after the Benghazi attacks, with signs reading: "America has long been an enemy to Islam" and "Death to America"--which tell a chilling story. The White House and several Congressional leaders have stated, "Why waste any more time on Benghazi...."
We need the Benghazi Select Committee to uncover the real facts, and peel back the layers of deceit. People must be held accountable. The families of the four Americans killed deserve answers--as do all Americans-- as to why our government stood by with blinders on. Hopefully with the lessons learned we can avoid the next major Islamist attack!
John Price served as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Mauritius, Republic of Seychelles, and Union of the Comoros from February 8, 2002 to June 17, 2005, and currently serves as a Resident Scholar at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. He is the author of the book "When the White House Calls", and regularly writes commentaries on Africa and the Middle East.
-
Of course I never expect any real objectivity from Eleanor Clift. I only bother to post this crazy piece to highlight how the left simply refuses to recognize and criticize a cover-up just before an election. Just outrageous. It really is like mafia. Simply bribe voters with taxpayer money and we have half the population agreeing to ignore this:
*******Eleanor Clift
05.15.14
My Benghazi Scandal
I may be under fire from conservatives for saying Ambassador Stevens wasn’t murdered in Benghazi, but I’m not backing down. Here’s why I said what I did.
After getting hammered by the right for remarks I made on the McLaughlin Group last weekend, I’d like to put what I said into the context that my critics omit. My information came from a former ambassador who lamented that complex and chaotic events in Benghazi are being way oversimplified. He pointed out that Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation in the safe room of a CIA outpost, that he wasn’t murdered in the sense that word is normally used. I thought this was an appropriate observation and still do, despite the hysteria my saying so has ignited on the right.
There is shared blame for the fact that Stevens wasn’t properly guarded and defended, but the chaos of that night and the days following stemmed from herculean efforts to keep the CIA’s involvement secret. Stevens was a very brave and assertive ambassador. He knew the language and the people, and he took risks he shouldn’t have. The former ambassador whose views I relied on believes that Stevens was in Benghazi to confront the CIA about prisoners they were holding and interrogating at the outpost. He speculates the attack on the facility was to free the prisoners.
If these are the kinds of questions that the select committee examines, maybe it will be a worthwhile exercise.
In the meantime, for perspective, I urge everyone to read Jane Mayer’s article “Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi,” which recounts a series of terrorist attacks in Beirut beginning with the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in April 1983, when 17 Americans, including seven CIA officers, were among the 63 killed. In October 1983, a truck filled with explosives rammed a Marine compound, killing 241 unarmed Marines in their sleep. Next was the torture and murder of the CIA station chief in Beirut, followed by yet another bombing of a U.S. outpost in September 1984, two months before the presidential election.
No administration is immune to tragic events in troublesome spots in the world, and not every tragedy is a scandal.
A House investigation of the Marine barracks bombing found “very serious errors in judgment” and recommended additional security measures around the world. When the September ’84 bombing occurred nearly a year later and the security was not yet in place, Democrats did not see it as an opportunity to score political points. Instead they accepted President Reagan’s explanation that repairs take time: “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”
Today no one in either party would accept such a benign explanation for a lapse in security, nor should they. But no administration is immune to tragic events in troublesome spots in the world, and not every tragedy is a scandal. Poking around for partisan gain in what lawmakers now know were clandestine activities for answers to questions that for the most part have already been answered is the scandal
-
Smoke inhalation? The autopsy report hasn't been released.
How would she know?
-
I wondered about that too. Wasn't he sodomized according to reports? I suppose she would conclude it was necrophilia.
-
Morris now catches up to the questions I was raising here 18 months ago.
http://www.dickmorris.com/how-benghazi-could-lead-to-obamas-impeachment-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Hillary Stacks the Benghazi Select Committee
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 23, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com
On Wednesday, Democrats deigned to join Republicans on the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi, primarily to protect Hillary Clinton’s reputation in particular, and the Obama administration’s in general. Toward that end they will likely do what they always do whenever their party is threatened: denigrate the investigation as it unfolds and obstruct it as much as possible.
Thus, it was completely unsurprising that even as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed five colleagues to the panel she dismissed the need for it. “The Republican obsession with Benghazi has not been about the victims, the families or the country,” she insisted, adding that it is “not necessary” to participate in a “partisan exercise once again.”
So why participate at all? A Politico story reveals the reason for the Democrats’ sudden change of heart. According to “sources familiar with the conversations,” Hillary Clinton informed several House Democrats and aides that she preferred that they participate rather than leave her open to unanswered “enemy fire” from House Republicans. “Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton contended. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”
Leading Democrats endeavored to stay “on message.” “The creation of this committee is solely for propaganda, for politics,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). “It’s rather cheap, in my opinion, because after all the other committees held hearings and looked at the issue, and there was nothing there. But Republicans are trying to make a scandal where there is none.” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) noted that “even a kangaroo court would be better off with a defense attorney,” and panel member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) believes “Republicans will attack Hillary Clinton by any means necessary.”
Cummings is the top Democrat on the Committee that also includes Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff (D-CA); Ways and Means Committee member Linda Sanchez (D-CA); and Armed Services Committee member Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). Cummings insisted he decided to participate because we’ve “seen firsthand how abusive the Republicans have been during this investigation” and because Congress owes it to the families of the victims “to bring some minimal level of balance to this process and check false claims wherever they may arise.”
Perhaps they could start with Nancy Pelosi. Even as John Boehner (R-OH) announced the formation of a select committee, Pelosi claimed that family members of the slain Americans asked her not to launch another investigation. “Two of their families have called us and said, ‘Please don’t take us down this path again,’” Pelosi said during a weekly press conference. “It’s really hard for them. It’s very sad.” Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) office also insisted that a family member from the maternal side of Tyrone Woods’ family ostensibly agreed with Pelosi. Tellingly, none of the family members were named.
On the other side of the equation, Pat Smith, and Charles Woods, parents of slain diplomat Sean Smith and Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, respectively, expressed a clear and unambiguous desire to move forward and get to the truth behind the slaughter of their children.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who will be chairing the Committee, appears to be a man determined to ferret out that truth. Ten days ago in a devastatingly effective putdown of the mainstream media, the man who spent six years as a federal prosecutor handling cases that included drug trafficking rings, bank robberies, and child pornography cases, indicated he will bring that experience to the investigation. After quoting Obama’s promise to bring the perpetrators of the Benghazi murders to justice (though no one has even been arrested to this point), he laid out a series of unanswered questions that should embarrass any members of the media who consider themselves investigative journalists. They included the following:
–Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?
–Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?
–Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that?
–Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true.
–Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?
These and other equally probing questions severely undercut the contention by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats that everything about what happened in Benghazi is already known. This was the position still taken on Tuesday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). “The pertinent questions have been asked and answered again,” he insisted.
Joining Gowdy on the Republican side of the Committee are Reps. Martha Roby (R-AL), House Armed Services Committee member; House Intelligence Committee member Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA); House Oversight and Government Reform Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH); Mike Pompeo (R-KS); Boehner confidante Peter Roskam (R-IL); and Susan Brooks (R-IN).
In contrast to Democratic hysteria, Gowdy maintained that the Committee members selected by Pelosi were “great picks.” “The ones that I know well are very thoughtful and very smart, and I have a great working relationship with them,” Gowdy added. He declined to offer any specifics on the nature of the hearings, noting that closed depositions tend to elicit more information from witnesses, while open hearings allow the public to decide who is more truthful. When asked which method (or both) would apply to Hillary Clinton, Gowdy refused to answer. “I’m not foreclosing any avenue of information,” he said.
Hillary Clinton’s reputation remains in the forefront. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) further illuminated that sentiment, insisting his fellow Democrats must prevent the hearings from being “made about one person.” “I think the American public feels that Hillary Clinton did an outstanding job as secretary of state and if Republicans are using Benghazi to blemish her record, I don’t think it will stick,” he contended.
If the public feels that way about Clinton, it stands in stark contrast State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. During an interview, Psaki couldn’t cite a single specific accomplishment attributable to that outstanding job. Nor could Clinton herself when she spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City on April 3. “I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense,” she generalized.
Perhaps Gowdy and his fellow Republicans will focus on the details of that leadership—or lack thereof—but Democrats are counting on Cummings to blunt any such efforts. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Cummings outlines a three-fold strategy aimed at minimizing damage for Clinton and other members of the Obama administration. The first aspect will be to “figure out exactly what (Republicans) are looking for … to focus on not who I am up against, but what I am searching for.” The second aspect is to “constantly raise the issues,” followed by an effort to “not allow any untruth to go unchallenged.” Yet even the Huff Post admits that Cummings’ real value to Democrats is his “combativeness.”
Cummings proved that during the IRS hearings when he attempted to turn a hearing where Lois Lerner asserted her right not to testify for the second time into a sideshow after hearing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) adjourned the meeting and cut off Cummings’ mic. Issa did so when it became apparent Lerner would have nothing to say and Cummings refused to voice the question he claimed he wanted to ask. Cummings subsequently accused Issa for “efforts to re-create the Oversight Committee in Joe McCarthy’s image.”
Yet just as damning emails revealed greater Obama administration involvement in the IRS’s efforts to target conservative tax-exempt groups, so too did damning emails reveal the extent to which the administration was willing to go to “tailor” the facts on Benghazi. It was those emails that forced Boehner’s hand on forming a select committee, especially since it took a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch to obtain them.
Nonetheless, Cummings remained reliably obstructionist. “I do not believe a select committee is called for after eight reports, dozens of witness interviews and a review of more than 25,000 pages of documents,” he declared. Whether those documents include the series of 41 documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of forcing the administration’s hand in court remains unclear.
Thus the so-called battle lines are drawn. Democrats and their media allies have made sure that their participation will be characterized as an effort to blunt Republican hyper-partisanship, even as they willfully ignore the reality that while the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign has been thoroughly shredded, not a single individual has been held accountable. Their other tactic consists of focusing, not on what happened in Benghazi, but how to prevent a reprise of that atrocity. “We hope that we can shine a light on where our focus should be, preventing tragedy like Benghazi from ever happening again.”
Sorry, no sale. The focus should be on what happened, and why it was necessary to cover it up. And if this is the so-called witch hunt Democrats say it is, no doubt they will be more than willing to hear from the 20-30 Benghazi survivors. It’s been almost a year since CNN reported that frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations were being employed to keep them from from talking to the public or Congress. Moreover, it’s utterly absurd that anyone could insist all Benghazi questions have been asked and answered when the Commander-in-Chief has yet to account for his whereabouts that night. Former Secretary of State Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that they spoke to Obama only once during the attack, and Clinton testified she spoke with him at 10 p.m. EST.
Shortly after that phone call the State Department issued the following statement:
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.
It is the commitment to the truth, toxic as it likely is for both Clinton and the Obama administration, that should drive the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
-
I love Cong. West, but recognize he can be bombastic on occasion. "A guy on the airplane" is not real great sourcing, but it is interesting how closely what this "guy" said tracks the theory raised here within weeks of the actual attack.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/27/allen-west-on-benghazi-potentially-treason/
-
I love Cong. West, but recognize he can be bombastic on occasion. "A guy on the airplane" is not real great sourcing, but it is interesting how closely what this "guy" said tracks the theory raised here within weeks of the actual attack.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/27/allen-west-on-benghazi-potentially-treason/
RUMINT can often be very accurate.
-
Trey Gowdy should be very interesting to watch. He is a former prosecutor, and the definition of a pit-bull. Unless he is somehow restrained by Republican "leadership" - and I'm not sure he can be - he will get to the bottom of this. I understand he has plenty of evidence and a detailed plan of attack regarding subpoenaing witnesses, including Hillary. I can't wait to see these people squirm.
-
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-shoe-drops-in-benghazi-scandal.html?m=1
-
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-shoe-drops-in-benghazi-scandal.html?m=1
Hillary's State Department tried to turn over advanced anti-aircraft weapons to anti-Khadafy forces -- this is what appears to have been happening in Benghazi -- and they ended up with the Taliban.
If congress declared war in Libya weren't they just taking necessary risks to execute national policy... Oops
The 'gaffe' that takes down Hillary might already have been made.
-
Why is it that we are having to read of this in a UK source? Is it true he has been Mirandized already? Why the hell is this not a military process instead of US criminal?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660904/How-elite-Delta-Force-took-Benghazi-suspect-without-firing-shot-tricked-way-compound-BIN-LADEN-STYLE-RAID.html
"Despite knowing exactly where Khattala was, senior US officials told The Daily Beast that they had to exercise patience in their execution of the mission while the Justice Department gathered evidence needed for his prosecution, which will likely happen in Washington D.C."
O.M.G. :cry:
"It also emerged this week that the U.S. justified the capture to the UN with intelligence that Khatallah was planning further attempts on American lives."
We have to justify defending ourselves to the UN?!?
:-P :x :x
-
Because Obama and his cronies think America is the problem. It's crystal clear - and has been since before he took office. Read his two books (the second of which most experts believe was ghost-written by William Ayers.) This man hates America as it was founded and told us he planned to "fundamentally transform" it. He is succeeding faster than many expected he could. When Rush Limbaugh famously stated "I hope he fails" upon Obama's election, this is what he was talking about. The man is NOT failing. He is enacting his malevolent agenda for America just as he intended.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/why-delta-force-waited-so-long-to-grab-a-benghazi-ringleader.html
-
This is good but it doesn't let Brockary off the hook.
#1 Why did they apprehend this guy if they continue to claim Benghazi was due to "digusting" video? Was this the guy that made the video?
#2 Why did they or their minions lie about the whole affair for years starting just before an election?
-
What I get from the article is this:
We are in a war not with an immoral tactic ("terrorism") but with Islamic Fascism. Gitmo and the military justice system are eminently suitable for this war, yet Baraq insists on it being waged as a matter of police arresting criminals-- hence the delay while FOX and CNN and others readily interviewed this guy within weeks of the attack-- so a "criminal case" could be prepared and the UN notified!!? Are you fg kidding me?!? :x :x :x
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysQl4aW7tME
-
What I get from the article is this:
We are in a war not with an immoral tactic ("terrorism") but with Islamic Fascism. Gitmo and the military justice system are eminently suitable for this war, yet Baraq insists on it being waged as a matter of police arresting criminals-- hence the delay while FOX and CNN and others readily interviewed this guy within weeks of the attack-- so a "criminal case" could be prepared and the UN notified!!? Are you fg kidding me?!? :x :x :x
They were busy feeding IRS hard drives into blast furnaces.
-
"They were busy feeding IRS hard drives into blast furnaces"
All the shysters men will be out claiming IRS was just following protocol and or just a snafu.
We should be able to confiscate WH hard drives to get the evidence. Good luck with that.
Of course other then 10 minute discussion between Anderson Cooper and Jeff Tobin there will not be one peep from the same media that went wild after Nixon. There was no end to their congratulating themselves over getting him impeached.
Now for fully worse crimes total silence.
-
Ummm , , , this is the Benghazi thread gents.
-
Details filed of planned conspiracy to commit a terror attack against the United States of America, maliciously damaging and destroying US property by means of Fire and Explosive, resulting in death.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/ahmed-abu-khatallah-indictment-in-us-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia/1063/
Oddly, no mention of a video. No comment from the ladies who said attack was caused by provocative video.
-
YouTube defense? Perhaps we will finally get to see the ambassador's autopsy report in the discovery?
-
New book asserts Iranian influence...
http://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/
-
New book asserts Iranian influence...
http://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/
Very interesting!
-
You may remember I brought up this possibility a very long time ago on the basis of what an unusually well-informed friend said when I asked him about "foreign accents" speaking Arabic amongst the attackers.
-
So, we're the Iranians extra upset by the YouTube video?
-
So, we're the Iranians extra upset by the YouTube video?
They were a leader in this area, pissed about unreleased 2013 videos since 1979.
-
@ GM, "LOL"
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381971/how-not-indict-terrorist-andrew-c-mccarthy
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/us-libya-violence-idUSKBN0FJ0ZT20140714
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/15/Benghazi-Suspect-Found-Dead-In-Eastern-Libya
-
Islamic Militias Declare Control of Benghazi
City's Streets Empty as Residents Stay Indoors
Associated Press
July 31, 2014 1:02 p.m. ET
CAIRO—Islamic hard-line militias claimed to have taken control of Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, after defeating army units, taking over military barracks and seizing tanks, rockets and hundreds of boxes of ammunition.
The extent of the militias' control of the city was not clear. On Thursday, the city's streets were nearly empty, with residents staying indoors and shops closed—but with also no sign of checkpoints by either militiamen or security forces. The main police headquarters was still smoldering after it was hit by militia shelling a day earlier, and smoke rose from the barracks of the Special Forces, once the strongest security body in the city until it was overrun by militiamen.
The militia victories in the city are part of a powerful backlash by Islamist forces in Libya after setbacks earlier this year. The militiamen's sweep through Benghazi was also a heavy reversal for Gen. Khalifa Hifter, a renegade general who for months had led army units and other fighters in a self-declared campaign aimed at stamping out armed Islamic militant groups. After forces loyal to him lost their bases inside Benghazi the past days, his loyalists now appeared to only hold the airport on the city's edges.
The armed groups that overran the city belong to a newly-formed umbrella group called Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries, made up of multiple armed factions led by Islamic extremist commanders. Among the factions is Ansar al-Shariah, the group accused by the United States of leading a Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a diplomatic facility in the city that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
"We are the only force on the ground in Benghazi," a commander of one of the coalition's factions told The Associated Press on Thursday. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press. He said the coalition's fighters had driven all army forces and fighters loyal to Hifter out the city.
In a video put out by Thursday by Ansar al-Shariah, its commander Mohammed al-Zahawi congratulates his followers on "this victory and conquest." He was shown standing in front of a tank inside the base of the Special Forces. Another militia commander, Wissam bin Hamid, was also shown in the camp in the video, proclaiming in front of his masked fighters, "We will not stop until we establish the rule of God."
-
When is Andrez heading over there to explain to them that Islam is peaceful?
-
This poem was written by a MARINE CORPS Officer (ANON)
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 Obama didn't give a damn.
Just two dead seals who carried the load?
No thanks to us.........we were just "Bumps In The Road".
-
Very powerful writing!
We hear again of the orders to stand down:
http://www.businessinsider.com/book-benghazi-stand-down-order-2014-9
-
Superb one hour documentary by Bret Baier this weekend on FOX called "Thirteen Hours" featuring intense interviews with three men who were there. If someone can find a link for it, please post it here.
-
Superb one hour documentary by Bret Baier this weekend on FOX called "Thirteen Hours" featuring intense interviews with three men who were there. If someone can find a link for it, please post it here.
Try this link for part 1 of 5 and for links to the rest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTOeU1HaeFQ
I have not seen this but it seems the truth of what happened is far worse than we imagined.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hear is another report on the book, 13 Hours, followed by interviews with the surviving witnesses. I will predict that a movie based on this book will be next year's blockbuster. Good luck to the lame duck and his JV former Sec State getting this avoidable tragedy and the cover up to fade into the background. As they say at the end, you are hearing what happened for the first time.
http://spectator.org/articles/60385/reliving-benghazis-13-hours
SPECIAL REPORT AND INTERVIEW
RELIVING BENGHAZI’S 13 HOURS
Five survivors of the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, speak out.
By Ross Kaminsky
On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”
Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.
But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.
In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.
The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.
The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.
The book, written by New York Times bestselling author Mitchell Zuckoff in collaboration with the remaining members of the Team, is a riveting account of heroism and tragedy, something that you might expect to find (and equally not be able to put down) in a Tom Clancy novel and from which there will no doubt be a most adrenaline-pumping movie.
After all, how could a director improve on Oz, his body pounded and his left arm shredded by a mortar blast, about to be carried on a stretcher to the evacuation airplane, standing up and saying “Hell no! I walked into this country and I’m going to f***ing walk out of this town”?
Of the five surviving Team members, three use their real names in the book: Mark “Oz” Geist (Marines), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Army), and John “Tig” Tiegen (Marines). Two others use pseudonyms, going by Jack Silva (Navy) and Dave “D.B.” Benton (Marines). Each of them, including Rone, is a father, making even more remarkable the risks they took for their countrymen and more scandalous the reasonable conclusion that but for poor decision-making by high-ranking State Department and others the deaths in Benghazi, and perhaps the attack itself, might never have happened.
The book begins with Jack’s arrival in Benghazi, being wary of surveillance as soon as arriving at baggage claim, and being shown to the CIA Annex by Rone, who “told Jack that the summer in Benghazi would be his last job for the GRS… he wanted to spend more time with his wife and to help raise their infant son.”
After descriptions of the other team members — in which you really feel as if you know them at least a little bit — and an introduction to Ambassador Stevens, whose “optimism was tested from the start by instability and violence,” 13 Hours moves quickly into the violent events of the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12, 2012, beginning with the State Department Compound’s Libyan gate security fleeing — though they were unarmed in any case — allowing in “armed invaders ([who]… roamed freely through the dimly lit Compound, firing their weapons and chanting as they approached the buildings in packs, some stealing what they could carry, all trying to find the Americans.”
Your next enthralling hour or two of reading is of battles and tactics and bravery and confusion which for civilians is only imaginable as a 21st century Alamo — under attack by al Qaeda instead of Santa Ana’s army: “As Tig moved to join in, a [friendly] 17 February militiaman on the west side of Gunfighter Road fired two rocket-propelled grenades toward the men outside the Compound gate. The grenade-firing militiaman was positioned about twenty yards behind Tig, who heard the alarming sound of shells whizzing over his head. The grenades didn’t faze the attackers, who kept firing.”
And while I’ve offered an example involving John “Tig” Tiegen, every member of the team demonstrated almost inconceivable — again, at least to civilians — courage and determination. They would (and do) say that it’s simply what they were trained to do. Which does not lessen my admiration for them by even the smallest measure.
Yet despite everything, and this is the intention of the surviving members of the Team, if one person comes through the book as most memorable and, although I hesitate to suggest degrees of heroism, a man whom the other heroes themselves see as a hero, it is Tyrone “Rone” Woods, whom everyone on the team liked, trusted, and respected, and who lost his life in a terrorist mortar attack on a roof in Benghazi:
The former SEAL with the King Leonidas beard, who’d extended his stay in Benghazi to help protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who intended to retire from GRS operator trips to work with his wife, who was eager to raise his infant son and see his two older boys grow into men, who instinctively and compulsively watched over his fellow operators, who led the rescue charge into the Compound, who searched through a burning building for two missing men, and who answered the first two explosions by rising with a machine gun and returning fire, had absorbed the deadly concussive force of the explosion.
13 Hours recognizes but deliberately avoids partisan politics. Regarding some of the most common questions about what happened in Benghazi, such as “During the attack, was the U.S. military response appropriate, and if not, why not?”
Most answers have fallen on one side or the other of a partisan divide… Media reports have run the gamut on who, if anyone, in Washington deserves blame and punishment, and whether the attacks should be considered a tragedy, a scandal, or both. However, by early 2014 one conclusion had gained considerable traction across partisan lines: The attacks could have been prevented. That is, if only the State Department had taken appropriate steps to improve security at the Compound in response to the numerous warnings and incidents during the months prior.
Yes, the brave men of Benghazi are simply telling their story, but the words of Pericles ring as true as ever: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Simply as a matter of “the buck stops here” management responsibility, one can’t avoid the feeling that 13 Hours means that Hillary Clinton has more ’splainin’ to do if she seeks to be the next president of the United States.
As you look beyond the incredible story, the events in Benghazi offer as many questions as answers. Again, one cannot help but ask questions that might have political implications despite the authors’ explicit declarations that they are not trying to make political statements but simply to get the truth of that night’s events into the public sphere.
On Monday, in an exclusive interview for The American Spectator, I asked a few of these and other questions of Mark “Oz” Geist, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, and John “Tig” Tiegen — three men who after enduring Benghazi have been willing to risk their own now-civilian privacy in order to tell their story:
Ross Kaminsky: Many aspects of that night seem like they might have been preventable. Let’s start with the initial situation on the ground. What did you make of it at the time and what do you make of it in retrospect?
Mark Geist: It was about like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city. After the fall of Gaddafi, it was controlled by several different militias and they were all vying for control of various entities within the city, like the airport, the port, commerce, things like that, so they can make money.
RK: Did you think that the State Dept. security people, the State Department more broadly, even the CIA, had taken their own security seriously enough and done enough to be prepared for what could happen in a lawless city, much less in a lawless city on September 11th?
John Tiegen: Our side, we took measures, from the get-go, when we first got into Benghazi. For the State Dept. guys I’d say no. Even the very first trip that I did down in Benghazi, they were shorthanded. There’d be only like two Americans on that Compound, no principal officer, just two RSOs [Regional Security Officers] sitting there, not doing anything. Or they’d go on a move and only leave one American on the Compound. They were always understaffed and basically no security. I mean, the guys at the gate, they had no weapons; I don’t even think they had batons. There was a total lack of security over there.
RK: Did you think at the time that there was an unsafe reliance on Libyans for the security at the Compounds?
MG: My personal opinion is because of the relationship that people felt they had with the Libyans — most of the Libyans who lived there were supportive of us — it gave a false sense of security to some people. You have a town that’s controlled by militias. The militias weren’t friendly. At best, they were neutral to us. Some of them I guess were quasi-friendly but not somebody you’d want to trust your life to.
RK: One thing that I don’t really know even after reading the book: What was your team’s explicit responsibility, if any, for the State Department Compound?
JT: We had no requirement to go rescue them or do anything with them. We were augmenting our time to even escort the ambassador to the different events he was attending, just so they’d have extra security.
RK: During the attacks, you told the Team Leader that you wanted aerial military support as well as surveillance. What happened and didn’t happen when you made that request?
JT: It was Tanto who made that request. He made it pretty quick. He requested the IR and a Spectre gunship within 10 or 15 minutes. They just kinda said “Roger that. We’ll look into it.” All we ever got was the IR (drone surveillance), obviously.
RK: Did you ever figure out why?
JT: No.
RK: What do you make of the fact that you never figured out why?
MG: I think somebody was either afraid to make the decision or they felt that the situation wasn’t as grave as it was, which could lead you to the conclusion that maybe that’s [also] why they had us stand down and hold off for 30 minutes. Because they thought it could be handled in an easier manner, or they didn’t want the exposure or something.
RK: It’s not as if you guys are the type of people to call and say you need help except in the absolute worst possible situations. I just can’t imagine who would hear a call from any one of you and say “Well, maybe it’s not that serious.” I suppose that’s more of a comment than a question…
Multiple voices: I would agree. I would agree with that.
RK: You talk in the book about the CIA station chief in Benghazi, whom you call “Bob,” and who refused to be interviewed for the book, as I gather from the book’s notes. Bob made some decisions which you’ve made clear you believe cost American lives. What did Bob do or not do, and what were the impacts of his actions or inactions, and perhaps you can include any thoughts on why he did what he did.
JT: Initially it would be to coordinate with [supposedly friendly militia] 17th Feb[ruary] guys so they knew we were coming. But it doesn’t — it shouldn’t — take 30 minutes to coordinate. That’s just “Hey, we have guys coming over. Don’t shoot at them…” kind of thing.
RK: In the book, you go a little further… it really seems that you guys think that Bob was a bit of a coward.
JT: Well, there were quite a few incidents in Benghazi before this where somebody would get tied up at a checkpoint, even at gunpoint, and he wouldn’t let the QRF team leave, not even just to get to the area. We don’t just rush in and start shooting people just because something happened. We go in, assess the situation, and then we adapt to it. And he just never would — I don’t know, maybe he just didn’t know what our capabilities really were. He just blatantly didn’t want us to ever do anything.
[Note: The Daily Beast reported in May 2013 that “Bob” received “one of the [CIA’s] highest intelligence medals.”]
RK: Tell us what that time was like from the moment when you guys got into the vehicles to get ready to go [from the CIA Annex to the State Department Compound which was under attack], waiting for Bob to give you the “go,” and what happened over the next 30 to 40 minutes.
JT: A lot of anger. A lot of us were getting extremely pissed off.
RK: What did Bob say to you?
JT: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”
RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?
JT: He used the words “stand down.”
RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?
JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.
Kris Paronto: Yes.
MG: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die.
RK: So Bob was a CIA guy. One thing I’m still trying to understand is why was there a relatively significant CIA presence in Benghazi at that time?
JT: They’re trying to gather information on terrorists. [Islamic radicals] were all over [the port city of] Derna [about 150 miles northeast of Benghazi]. Derna was pretty much overrun by [terrorists] months before Benghazi. So they’re out there collecting intel.
KP: Initially, they were out there trying to find the yellow cake [uranium] that Gaddafi had.
RK: Some people wonder whether the CIA was trying to send arms to Syria through Libya. Do you have any opinion about that?
JT: I’ve been there three trips and I never once even heard them talk about running AKs or anything. Yeah, they would try to find the shoulder-fired missiles, but they did that in just about every country, so [terrorists] couldn’t shoot down airliners. But for running AKs and stuff, I even went to the port with them and that never came up, and I was in a meeting there and they were just discussing the situation at the port. That’s all it was.
[Note: Another new book on Benghazi continues to assert that the State Department and Ambassador Stevens were involved in highly secret arms transfers, both within Libya (to keep large quantities of weapons out of the hands of the most radical militias) and from Libya to Turkey and then on to Syria.]
RK: Did this experience change how you think about government and bureaucracy?
MG: I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. We don’t do the job that we do because of government or higher-ups in the chain of command. We do it because there’s a need to serve people and protect people. To me, it’s a calling. It’s just something I do. Like a firefighter who runs to the fire instead of away from it. We’re the same way.
RK: Does the government understand national security?
KP: This administration, I’d say no.
RK: I know what you’re going to say but I’m going to ask you anyway: What goes through your mind when someone calls you a hero?
JT: I’m no hero. I mean, this is something we’ve been trained to do. We all joined the military and we like doing it. We like protecting people, obviously.
MG: It seems to me that everybody should just be this way, be there to help people who can’t help themselves. If doing that… that’s just helping other people. That ain’t being a hero.
RK: How are you guys doing now? Are you happy? Do you miss that aspect of your life? Do you feel like that was just a chapter of your life and now you’re on to a new one, or do you feel as if you’re missing something fundamental?
JT: We’re always going to miss it. I mean, you’re working around people who think the same. The camaraderie that was there. I mean, God, I miss it every day. It was fun. I enjoyed it.
RK: So did you give it up mainly because you have kids?
JT: I’d probably say yes. That’s one of the main reasons. I mean, I went back. I did two trips. My twins are only two and a half. They weren’t even six months old when Benghazi happened. The first trip was kinda hard. The second trip was even harder. I just said, “That’s it.”
MG: I can’t work doing that anymore, at least not in that capacity, due to my injuries. It’s hard to say why… but I’d go back in a heartbeat. But I also am glad that I’m able to be home now because out of — I started contracting in 2004, so since 2004 I’ve probably been gone for two thirds of that time. So my two older kids, one who’s 18 and one who’s 13, I’ve missed a lot of their growing up. So it’s really nice to be home but there’s always that — like we said — camaraderie, being around people who think like you and can understand why you think the way you do and why you look at things the way you do. You, having grown up on a military base, probably understand that a little more than most. But the civilian population doesn’t think like we do.
KP: Plus it’s a job where you get to take out terrorists. I mean, you’re taking out the bad guy. It’s not as if you’re sitting around not accomplishing anything. It’s a very rewarding job even though the public doesn’t get to know about it.
RK: Last question for you: What question should you be asked that people are missing and not asking you?
MG: The thing that should be asked is, “Why did we write the book?” And the answer to that is because it’s the story that hasn’t been told. The media has talked about the beginning and what should have been done and they’ve talked about all the things that happened since and why people did what they did. But nobody’s asked the question of what happened during those 13 hours. Not because we care about some political thing — but because we want people to know what happened on the ground. And to honor Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and the sacrifices they made to try to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. And to honor them, too. Because they were serving their country, in a different way than we did, but they were serving their country and they died doing it. You know, no one has honored them the way they should be honored, all four of them who died.
Published today, 13 Hours may indeed set the record straight on what really happened during a night which has itself become a political RPG and could threaten the presidential aspirations of the next would-be President Clinton, whose infamous “what difference at this point does it make?” should be disqualifying, even if her failure to protect Ambassador Stevens were somehow overlooked.
More importantly, 13 Hours is also an incredible, harrowing, engrossing story of American warriors demonstrating heroism and bravery at a level that most of us can barely imagine — fighting against a much larger, well-armed radical militia force and saving the lives of many despite cowardice, cynicism, and incompetence all around them.
-
a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/benghazi-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/
by Sharyl Attkisson (formerly of CBS)
...
“Basement Operation”
Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.
When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.
“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.
“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”
Did Hillary Clinton aides withhold damaging Benghazi documents?
A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.
In an interview Monday morning on Fox News, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, named the two Hillary Clinton confidants who were allegedly present: Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff and former White House counsel who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial; and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who previously worked on Hillary Clinton’s and then Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.
-
I saw about this-- let's stay on it!
-
I saw about this-- let's stay on it!
Who knows where the truth lies, but... this is a named source, a key player, telling what they saw and heard first hand, and a reporter who actually is a "professional journalist". This is exactly the kind of story CBS didn't want Sharyl Attkisson working on.
Once again, if true, a Clinton has underlings doing their dirty work for them while she stays out of the building and above the fray. Maybe you can't convict her, but you can't trust her either.
-
I posted this on my FB page
http://conservativeamerican.org/top-50-hillary-clinton-benghazi-lies/
and just got this in reply:
========================
Boy, these folks really need to update their list of misrepresentations and lies....
Even things as simple as whether it was believed that a video spurred the incident is still on the list....
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
ALL prior investigations of Benghazi have concluded no wrongdoing EVERY TIME, including:
Senate Intelligence Committee review:
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
The House Armed Services Committee:
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve...
And the State Department's legally mandated Accountability Review Board investigation led by Ambassador Tom Pickering and retired Adm. Michael Mullen, former Reagan and Bush administration officials:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
Despite protestations otherwise, there is no "there" there. Benghazi was a terrible tragedy, but there was no cover up, no stand-down order, and no dereliction of duty.
I would also like to point out that Republicans were caught falsifying emails in their attempt to create the scandal out of Benghazi:
http://www.cbsnews.com/.../wh-benghazi-emails-have.../
Republicans were also warned that cutting funding for embassy security by Hillary Clinton would increase security risks; Republicans cut the funding anyway....
http://thinkprogress.org/.../chaffetz-absolutely-funding.../
And that during the Bush administration there were TWO embassy/consulate attacks prior to the death of U.S. diplomat David Foy and there was never a claim by Republicans about dereliction of duty on the part of President Bush, nor "outrage" at Mr. Foy's death. It was simply viewed as the tragedy it truly was, and was not made into a political football.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/01/karachi.blast/
In fact, here are 13 different "Benghazi" incidents that happened under Bush:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../13-benghazis-that...
None caused outrage. The evidence is compelling that Republicans don't actually care about the safety of the U.S. diplomatic corps. Benghazi is nothing more than a political football, and is only being dragged out in order to harm Hillary Clinton's chances in the election.
========================
We are in the final days before the Gathering and I am super busy. Anyone care to handle the response? Remember we are looking to persuade the readers, not the opposing poster.
-
second post of day-- but please do note my request for help in answering the FB questions posed to me in my prior post:
==================
http://washingtonexaminer.com/nine-reasons-trey-gowdy-was-chosen-to-head-the-house-select-committee-on-benghazi/article/2553458
-
1. Benghazi was not blamed on a video?
A poster can say this avoidable tragedy was not blamed on a video, and Candy Crowley can say something akin to that to the nation, but I was watching live when they did exactly that - on every network. No string of links will change that. And Susan Rice was no loose cannon; she was reciting a State Dept and administration script. The President repeated the same inference to the UN and Hillary and staff were the likely authors of it. That they spoke out of the other sides of their mouths at other times mentioning other things such as possible terror does not make this false talking point (LIE) go away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGXy_yhOfNg It's only a minute; WATCH IT.
The issue was not only relevant, but crucial to them to not let the exploding Middle East derail their foreign policy mantra and their chance to serve a second, failed term. This was the line to get them through the 2012 election. Hillary chose not to be the face going forward with this DELIBERATE LIE and did not to speak up later to correct it. Instead she said to grieving families that they would get the person who made that video, and later more publicly she proclaimed, when pressed, the famous, "WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MAKE...". Honorable Madam Secretary, it matters when our government lies so boldly to our face!
2. There was no wrongdoing? Joking, right? He must mean provable criminally prosecutable wrongdoing and in that case, the evidence of document purging is just now surfacing and was not part of the committee reports cited. No list of links changes the fact that we put an Ambassador in a war zone on an unnamed mission with UNARMED "security" at the gate, on the feared anniversary of 9/11. Was that wrong? We didn't dispatch help from the start. Was that wrong? We lied to the American people and the world. Was that wrong? A hyper-partisan can say there wasn't enough Republican authorized funds in a 500 Billion dollar defense budget or her million mile State Dept budget to give these guards a gun or to fly in assistance, but it just isn't so. The poster says this is about Hillary. Yes it is. This all happened on her watch. She claims she had too many underlings to manage, and too many incoming emails to know that Ambassador Stevens was out there crying for help. And now, like Susan Rice, she deserves a promotion??
3. There was no stand down order? The book, "13 Hours", with the account from the inside says otherwise. That was the order on the ground, where it mattered, "Stand Down". People died defying that order. Perhaps that order did not come from the Commander in Chief or the mystic situation room; we don't even know the President's whereabouts during the 13 hours. Then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton was not returning calls to Benghazi during the crisis while they were desperate to hear back. They couldn't reach her and she probably could not reach the President or at least couldn't get the right response. The compound burned and the Ambassador suffered a slow, smoke inhalation death, while a few others fought, with no back up on the way. Stand down was not only true, but perhaps unprecedented in US history.
4. This has already been fully investigated? That is a great one, right out of the scandal management play book. Those who claim that can answer the unanswered questions - which is pretty much everything to do with this tragedy, before, during and after. The links provided certainly don't do that.
5. Speaking of truthiness, the poster re-directs blame to George Bush, lol. Good grief. This happened 13 times under Bush? No. Nothing like this happened under Bush, and if it did, how would that change anything?
The alternative route that this President and administration opted against was the truth. They could have said: 'We made a mistake allowing the Ambassador to be there, unguarded, in the first place. We misjudged the time length of the multiple attacks on multiple facilities when we decided not to fly in more resources from further away to at least intimidate the attackers. The attack was never about a video. Al Qaeda and its offshoots are not defeated, nor on the run. In fact, our intelligence says they are about to take over nearly all of the Middle East in our second term because of our failed policies and neglect in the region. Please vote for us anyway.' The campaign nixed that idea.
And when Hillary saw Susan Rice lie to the nation, she could have spoken up and said she will not part of this lie. She could have resigned in disgust and distanced herself. Instead she left the administration with their mutual, back-slapping non-interview on 60 Minutes.
It was Hilary who famously put forward the 3am question for any potential President: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg It's only 30 seconds; WATCH IT. The call came and she did not take it or call back. She can say that HE was President, but if she would have done differently than President Obama, before, during or after this crisis, she could have said so and she didn't. Now Hillary is neck deep in it and still digging. And her defenders are grasping at links to say that what is right in front of our face is not true.
-
Thank you Doug.
I would add that the Clintonian dodge of "No stand down order" is that since no order to go was given, there was no stand down order. However the fact is that the operators at the CIA annex were trying to go and told not to. See my post earlier in this thread about Bret Baier's interview with the three men in question.
Also, if I remember correctly, there were some troops on a plane headed out but they were told to get off and change their uniforms.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=657019364353951&set=vb.141513472571212&type=2&theater
-
Is this new or is it the one for which CBS apologized last year?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFleTc_fKo
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pnlbFIkDCo
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/22/leading-republican-wants-senate-to-join-house-probe-benghazi-attack/
-
Strange that the House panel report has Republicans vindicating perhaps Hillary while not believing the story of the eyewitnesses on the ground. When the truth finally gets sorted out, the ones who failed to act will point back to this report for cover. I'm all for the truth; I doubt if this is it. IBD lays out how this report makes no sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112414-727811-house-intel-report-challenged-by-benghazi-team.htm
House Intel Benghazi Report A Lie Agreed Upon
Scandal: The Benghazi annex security team that fought on the building's rooftop to save its lives and those of others begs to differ with the House Intelligence Committee claim that there was no stand-down order.
To say that Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen, three CIA contractors who on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, battled with terrorists from the roof of the CIA's Benghazi annex building, do not agree with conclusions of the House Intelligence Committee report released Friday is putting it mildly. In a tweet, Paronto called the report "a pile of crap."
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham was equally eloquent during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," agreeing the report was "full of crap."
"I know Benghazi pretty well," he said Sunday. "I don't think that the report is accurate."
Neither do we, for it flies in the face of testimony from the three CIA operators and Gregory Hicks, U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya, who were on the ground in Libya on that fateful night.
The report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said the committee "found no evidence that there was either a stand-down order or a denial of available air support." Yet Paronto and his teammates who were there tell a quite different story.
Paronto and Geist appeared on C-Span's Book TV on Saturday along with Tiegen, who remained off-camera. During the interview, a caller from Sanford, Fla., accused the trio — as Rep Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who sits on the committee, has done — of lying about what happened to boost sales of their book.
"Ma'am," Paronto said, "during the House Intel subcommittee I looked at Mike Rogers in the eye and I said, 'If we would have not been delayed, which we were delayed three times — (I have no doubt) that we would have saved the ambassador's life and Sean Smith's life.' "
Paronto added: "Why he came out with the report, I don't know what to tell you on that. You're going to have to ask him. What we said in the book is what happened on the ground, and that is the truth."
To believe the committee report, we'd have to believe Paronto, Geist and Tiegen are liars. Somehow we don't think so. "All we're going to do is keep telling what actually happened that night," Paronto told the C-Span caller. That's all we can ask, even if the old boy network in Washington is unwilling to listen.
-
"Hope and change"! Most transparent administration ever!
Phonier than the Styrofoam Greek columns.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-report_820665.html
The Benghazi Report
An ongoing intelligence failure
Dec 15, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 14 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES and THOMAS JOSCELYN
After a long day on November 13, 2013, Speaker of the House John Boehner walked down the marble hallways of the Longworth House Office Building to the personal office of Representative Devin Nunes for a drink, a cigarette, and maybe a brief reprieve.
Boehner’s visit was not a social call. He was there to see three CIA officers who had fought in Benghazi, Libya. Their identities were unknown to all but a small group of U.S. government officials with high-level security clearances, and the details of their harrowing stories were unknown to virtually everyone who was not a colleague or relative.
And the fact that the meeting was taking place at all was unknown to the man who, under different circumstances, might have been expected to host it. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was not invited.
Rogers was sick of Benghazi. Some of his Republican colleagues had spun themselves into a frenzy of conspiracy theorizing, publicly making wild claims that had no basis in fact or hinting at dark conspiracies that had the president of the United States willfully and eagerly arming its enemies. Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, long the Republican face of Benghazi investigations, accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving a “stand-down” order to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Representative Louie Gohmert claimed that Senator John McCain deserved some of the blame for Benghazi because McCain, like Barack Obama, had supported opposition forces in Libya. Normally responsible Republicans pretended that Hillary Clinton’s famous “what difference at this point does it make” line was not so much a tone-deaf question about how the attacks happened, which deserved the criticism it earned, but a declaration of indifference that the attacks happened, which was absurd. Rogers complained about these excesses regularly to his staff and colleagues.
This frustration, however, wasn’t the reason Boehner and Nunes cut him out of the meeting with CIA officers. They shared his frustration, as it happened.
Their concern was deeper. Rogers had long been reluctant to commit more time and resources to investigating Benghazi. At a meeting of intelligence committee Republicans in early 2013, just four months after the attacks, Rogers laid out his priorities for the new Congress. Not only was Benghazi not on that list, according to three sources in the meeting, he declared to the members that the issue was in the past and that they wouldn’t be devoting significant time and resources to investigating it. Whatever failures there had been in Benghazi, he explained, they had little to do with the intelligence community, and his intelligence committee would therefore have little to do with investigating them.
In the months that followed, more troubling details about the Benghazi story emerged in the media. Among the most damaging: Internal emails made clear that top Obama administration officials had misled the country about the administration’s role in the flawed “Benghazi talking points” that Susan Rice had used in her Sunday television appearances following the attacks, and that former acting CIA director Michael Morell had misled Congress about the same. Other reports made clear that intelligence officials on the ground in Benghazi had reported almost immediately that the assault was a terrorist attack involving jihadists with links to al Qaeda—information that was removed from the materials used to prepare administration officials for their public discussion of the attacks. A top White House adviser wrote an email suggesting that the administration affix blame for the attacks on a YouTube video.
The revelations even roused the establishment media from their Benghazi torpor and generated extraordinarily hostile questioning of White House press secretary Jay Carney by reporters who had trusted his claims of administration noninvolvement.
None of this convinced Rogers to make Benghazi a priority—a fact that frustrated many of the committee’s members. Boehner received a steady stream of visits and phone calls from House members who complained that Rogers wasn’t doing his job. In all, seven members of the intelligence committee took their concerns directly to the speaker or his top aides. Boehner’s presence at the secret meeting in Nunes’s office demonstrated that he shared those concerns long before he decided to impanel a select committee to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the Benghazi attacks. And what happened to the CIA officers as they attempted to share their story with congressional oversight committees suggests that those concerns were well founded.
===========================
As lawmakers headed home for Thanksgiving two weeks ago, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a report concluding that there were no intelligence failures related to the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi and otherwise bolstering claims by the administration and its defenders that the controversy surrounding the attacks and their aftermath was rooted more in the imaginations of critics than in reality.
For many of those who had been following the story closely, the report was bizarre and troubling. Key events were left out. Important figures were never mentioned. Well-known controversies were elided. Congressional testimony on controversial issues was mischaracterized. The authoritative tone of the conclusions was undermined by the notable gaps in evidence presented to support them.
“If this was a high school paper, I would give it an F,” says John Tiegen, a former CIA officer who fought on the ground that night in Benghazi and lived through many of the events the report purports to describe. “There are so many mistakes it’s hard to know where to begin. How can an official government report get so many things wrong?”
It’s a good question. Representative Tom Rooney, a Florida Republican who serves on the committee that produced the report, disputes the premise.
“I don’t think this is the official government report. It’s Mike Rogers’s report,” says Rooney. “The members of his own committee don’t even agree with it.”
Indeed, several committee members we reached distanced themselves from the report released in their name, some on background, others on the record. “I probably would have written it differently,” says Representative Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas who will assume the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee in the new Congress. “And it’s important to remember that this is a narrow look at just one part of the Benghazi story. All of the talk that this report answers this, that, and the other? It doesn’t. That’s the reason that Boehner appointed the select committee.”
Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York, signed an “additional views” statement but was unhappy with the report itself. “It was nowhere near the report I would have written,” King told us. “I agreed with some of the key findings—that the State Department was told about threats, that the intelligence community determined almost immediately that it was a terrorist attack. And I thought to reject it altogether wouldn’t have been smart; better to get some of that out there. But the best interpretation is that it was an attempt to be bipartisan. And that’s the best interpretation.”
Committee members say the staff ignored their objections. Rooney says he was angry when he first read a draft of the report, raised several substantive concerns, and sought to have his questions answered. “I actually sat down with the attorney for the committee and went over the language they were using in the report versus my understanding of what actually happened,” said Rooney, a former prosecutor. “I said: ‘I don’t agree with this finding, I don’t agree with this finding, I don’t agree with this finding.’ He was like: ‘Okay, we’ll take that into consideration.’ ”
If committee leadership did, in fact, take his objections into consideration it’s not evident from the report. Rooney says the report reads today just as it did before he complained.
Representative Joe Heck, a Republican from Nevada, says that while he believes the 15 “findings” in the main report are “valid,” the report should have been stronger. Heck, a brigadier general in the Army Reserve who was given a seat on the intelligence committee as a freshman in 2011, singled out the section on the Benghazi talking points as particularly weak. “The report was not as hard-hitting as it should have been,” he says.
Representative Mike Pompeo, Republican from Kansas, backs the conclusions of the report but says it is necessarily incomplete. “The facts that are contained in there—I have not heard anybody dispute the facts.” But Pompeo noted that he also serves on the Benghazi Select Committee, which is in the early stages of its investigation, and added: “There are still lots of documents to be made available, many witnesses yet to speak with outside the land of the intelligence community.”
The strongest support for the report came from Mike Conaway, Republican from Texas, who praised Rogers’s investigation as thorough and said: “I think the report is reflective of the facts we found.”
=====================================
-
part 2
Not surprisingly, Rogers strongly disagrees with his critics. The committee provided a long list of its Benghazi-related activities and noted that Rogers has been critical of the Obama administration on Benghazi. Asked why Rogers told committee Republicans in early 2013 that there was no need to investigate further, Susan Phalen, a spokesman for the committee, did not dispute that her boss made the comments but argued instead that the committee held 56 “oversight events related to Benghazi” in 2013.
Although the House Intelligence Committee report claims to be the definitive statement of the House of Representatives on matters of Benghazi and intelligence, interviews over the past week make clear that it’s not even the consensus position of Republicans on the committee.
It’s not hard to see why. Although it adds to our overall understanding of Benghazi, even a cursory read reveals sloppy errors of fact and numerous internal contradictions. For instance, on one page, the report has a top intelligence officer sending an email from Benghazi on September 15, before a crucial White House meeting on the Benghazi talking points. A few pages later, the report has the same email sent on September 16 and arriving the day after that White House meeting. Elsewhere, the report informs readers that the first CIA assessment of the Benghazi attacks, an Executive Update published internally on September 12, reported that “the presence of armed assailants from the incident’s outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest.” One paragraph later, however, the report tells us that Morell, the agency’s point man on Benghazi, testified that the first word there was no protest came on September 14. And later still we are told that the intelligence community didn’t have confirmation that there was no protest until surveillance video was recovered on September 18—a full week after the attacks.
Those are minor errors, however, compared with the major omissions and mischaracterizations that mar the report. In a section on the controversy over the inaccurate talking points, for example, the committee inexplicably relies on Morell as its key fact witness and arbiter of truth. But nowhere in the body of the report is there even a hint that Morell misled Congress repeatedly about his involvement in those talking points for eight months after the attacks. The report also attempts to clear the CIA of allegations that the agency made personnel sign special nondisclosure agreements related to their work in Benghazi. To do so, the authors ignore public, on-the-record claims of the attorney for those officials directly contradicting that conclusion. Mark Zaid, a veteran national security lawyer representing five CIA officers who served in Benghazi, told The Weekly Standard last year that his clients were presented with nondisclosure agreements that were “legally unnecessary” and intended to send a message. “There is no doubt that the NDAs would not have been presented to them had it not been for Benghazi,” Zaid said at the time. “That is their impression and my analysis based on 20 years’ experience.” Curiously, the report seeks to exculpate a Libyan militia that provided security to the U.S. mission in Benghazi. But doing so requires the authors to omit key evidence that the group was compromised, including video evidence acquired since the attacks of a leader of that militia fighting alongside Ansar al Sharia—the al Qaeda-linked group that took part in the assault on the U.S. facilities.
The report begins by asserting that it is a “comprehensive” look at Benghazi resulting from an intensive investigation of nearly two years. Neither claim is true. Instead, the report is a reflection of a dysfunctional committee and the reluctant, ad hoc approach to Benghazi of its leadership and top staff.
Kris Paronto remembers joking with John Boehner about his tan.
It was mid-November, but the former CIA officer asked the speaker if he’d been doing a lot of golfing. Boehner laughed and responded with a joke about golfing less than President Obama.
It was nearly 9:00 p.m., and the Longworth building was mostly empty. Paronto was joined in Representative Nunes’s office by two others who had fought in Benghazi—Mark Geist and “Jack,” the pseudonym for a former Navy SEAL who doesn’t want his name made public—as well as Zaid, their lawyer. The men sipped port from Portugal, the country of Nunes’s ancestors, and red wine from the Alpha Omega winery in his home state of California.
The 45-minute meeting with the speaker was mostly taken up with small talk—about family, Congress, the military. There were two exceptions. The first came when Boehner asked about persistent rumors that the CIA was involved in weapons transfers from Libya to Syria. Paronto reported that he had never seen any evidence to support those claims. He made clear that he couldn’t rule it out, but could speak with certainty only about what he’d seen and done—and that didn’t involve moving arms. Boehner, who was intensely interested in Benghazi but not inclined to chase conspiracies, seemed satisfied. The second serious moment came near the end of the meeting, when Boehner told the men that he fully supported Nunes and his efforts to have them testify before the House Intelligence Committee.
Nunes, who will succeed Rogers as chairman in the new Congress, had spoken with some of the CIA officers before, including a six-hour session in his office on the occasion of their first meeting. The stories these men told affirmed the Obama administration’s version in some respects and contradicted it in many others. Before their appearance, the full committee had heard from only one CIA officer who was on the ground in Benghazi. There was no way to conduct a serious investigation without hearing from these eyewitnesses and others like them, yet the committee never contacted them.
In the late summer of 2013, after the men had made clear to Nunes their willingness to testify, Rogers exchanged several letters with Zaid, who represented not just Paronto, Geist, and “Jack” but also two others who had been on the ground in Benghazi, John Tiegen and “D.B. Benton,” another pseudonym. The men had begun collaborating on a book, 13 Hours, which would be published in September 2014. Written by Boston University journalism professor Mitchell Zuckoff, it offers a detailed and decidedly nonpolitical account of what happened in Benghazi. Each of the men fought throughout the night to repel the attacks, some of them sustaining major injuries. Geist nearly had his arm blown off by a mortar as he fired on attackers from the roof of a building at the CIA annex early on September 12. Tiegen arrived moments later to find Geist trying to hold his tattered arm in place and both Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty dead.
Zaid wrote Rogers that his clients were eager to share their story with the committee, and he made several routine requests in preparation, according to the correspondence, obtained by The Weekly Standard. “On behalf of my clients and the memories of their fallen colleagues, thank you for your interest in this event,” Zaid wrote, later noting that his clients “are looking forward to providing assistance to the Committee’s investigation.”
He asked the committee to permit him to sit in on the hearing and upgrade his security clearances accordingly, and he requested that the committee subpoena his clients to give them some cover for their testimony. Zaid asked that the transcripts of the testimony not be made public until after September 1, 2014, when their book was due to be published. Zaid also requested that his clients receive the usual reimbursement for any reasonable travel and lodging expenses.
Zaid received a response from Rogers dated September 26, 2013. It opened with a threat to subpoena his clients if they refused to testify voluntarily—something they’d already agreed to do if the committee met their perfunctory requests. “We had hoped your clients would voluntarily assist the Committee’s investigation of the September 11, 2012, attacks against U.S. interests in Benghazi, Libya. If, however, your clients are not willing to participate voluntarily, we will issue subpoenas to require their attendance before and testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.”
The threat struck Zaid as odd. He had made clear that his clients were testifying voluntarily, and he’d asked for the subpoenas.
The letter also noted that the closed hearing would allow for questioning from “any member of the full committee, as well as certain committee staff,” an unremarkable passage that would soon take on added significance.
But it was another line that angered Zaid and his clients. “The Committee will not reimburse witnesses for travel expenses.”
Asked about the committee’s initial refusal to cover the expenses of the witnesses, spokesman Susan Phalen told The Weekly Standard: “At no time did the committee refuse to cover the costs of travel and lodging for the witnesses.”
In a response dated September 26, 2013, Zaid not only expressed his displeasure at the refusal to cover routine expenses, but also noted the committee’s “sudden interest” in Benghazi and scolded the panel for not seeking their testimony earlier. “I am, however, quite disappointed that the Committee has refused to reimburse my clients, who are now private citizens residing far outside of the Washington, D.C., area, for their out-of-pocket travel and lodging costs. Of course, had your Committee sought their testimony while they remained in the employ of the U.S. Government, this would have been a nonissue. Indeed, my clients always expected to hear from Congressional investigators, but no inquiries ever came to their attention.”
Zaid says lawyers for the committee told him that they would not reimburse his clients for expenses unless he agreed to drop his request for subpoenas. Issuing subpoenas, they told him, was an administrative hassle and they were unnecessary because his clients were volunteering to testify. Zaid agreed and dropped the request for subpoenas.
Phalen says House rules “do not allow the Committee to pay per diem to witnesses who are compelled to appear.” When staff explained this to Zaid, she says, he agreed to drop his request.
Zaid doesn’t remember it that way. “As far as I recall, I was never told that subpoenaed witnesses could not be provided per diem expenses. If I had been, there is no issue to discuss nor any dispute. The arrangement as negotiated was a quid pro quo agreement that our request for a subpoena would be withdrawn in exchange for the reimbursement of expenses.”
The parties agreed that Tiegen would testify alongside the CIA team leader, still employed by the government, on November 13, 2013, and Paronto, Geist, and “Jack” would testify the following day.
The first day of testimony was unremarkable. The second was not.
The hearings with Paronto, Geist, and “Jack” started well enough, with members of the committee from both parties, including Rogers, thanking the men for their heroism. The questioning from members of the committee, particularly the Democrats, was challenging but usually respectful. But the tone changed dramatically when the members were called away to the House floor for a vote and staff took over, according to six sources familiar with the testimony.
The top lawyer for Democrats on the committee, Michael Bahar, went first. He wanted to know about the debate between these CIA officers, who had wanted to move quickly from the CIA annex to the diplomatic compound, which was under attack, and the CIA’s chief of base in Benghazi, who had ordered them to wait while he telephoned for additional support from local security forces. The CIA officers had grown increasingly impatient as they listened to the desperate pleas of State Department personnel under attack at the compound less than two miles away.
Finally, the CIA officers decided they had waited long enough. Their primary obligation was to those under attack, they reasoned, so they jumped into their vehicles and departed for the compound.
The committee declined to release full transcripts of the hearings involving the CIA officers, so the exchanges below are based on the recollections of six individuals familiar with the testimony.
Bahar asked Paronto which branch of the military he had served in before his work with the CIA.
When Paronto responded that he’d been an Army Ranger, Bahar asked about the rules for defying orders in the Army. He asked Paronto if he routinely disregarded his superiors during his time as a Ranger.
Paronto was furious, but Bahar continued with a line of questioning that implied Paronto and his colleagues might be guilty of insubordination.
“He was trying to pin [Paronto] down on—‘So you disobeyed an order,’ ” recalls Geist, who was seated next to Paronto. “It was uncalled for.”
The accusatory tone of the questions did not end when Republican staff took over. Two top GOP staffers began to grill the witnesses about whether they had met with any members of Congress before their appearance before the committee.
The witnesses mentioned their meetings with Devin Nunes, an admission that generated additional inquiries and an implication that Nunes might have been guilty of witness tampering. The questioning continued.
Q: Anyone else?
A: The speaker.
Q: What speaker?
A: The speaker of the House. John Boehner.
The words filled the room until they were replaced by an anxious, apprehensive silence.
“Yeah, that ended the questioning pretty quickly,” says Paronto.
Was it somehow inappropriate for Boehner and Nunes to have spoken to the CIA officers about their experiences? Susan Phalen, the spokesman for the committee, seemed to chastise Nunes but not Boehner. “It was not inappropriate for any witness to have contacted or met with a member of Congress before their testimony before the committee. It is inappropriate for a member of a committee conducting an investigation into an event to discuss evidence or testimony with a witness prior to that witness’s appearance before the committee.”
To date, the committee has heard from fewer than a third of the U.S. government officials who were on the ground in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. If the committee has subpoenaed any of them, as Rogers threatened to do to the authors of 13 Hours, it has not resulted in any additional witness testimony.
Late in the afternoon of November 26, 2014, one of the CIA officers, John Tiegen, postponed the beginning of his Thanksgiving holiday for what we had agreed would be a brief interview.
Tiegen is soft-spoken and a man of few words. Testifying before the committee, he answered the questions he was asked and volunteered little else. In an hourlong special about 13 Hours with Bret Baier of Fox News, Tiegen sat for a joint interview with Paronto and Geist. Again, he said little, but he produced the interview’s most memorable moment when Baier asked him about having to watch as the bodies of his two dead colleagues were dumped from the roof of a two-story building so that they could be returned to the United States. Tiegen tried to answer but couldn’t speak.
When we interviewed him last month, we started with the obvious question: “What did you think of the report from the House Intelligence Committee?”
He told us, in great detail, and after a nearly page-by-page deconstruction of the report that lasted almost 90 minutes, the interview ended. Tiegen pointed out dozens of things that he said were mistakes or mischaracterizations. Some of them, he acknowledged, were inconsequential and had little impact on the narrative other than to diminish its overall credibility.
At one point, the report describes a member of the diplomatic security service taking fire as he entered a window of the diplomatic compound early in the attack. “If he was taking fire there, he’s dead,” says Tiegen. The window is so located that it cannot be seen from a distance. “That window is in a place where it’s impossible to take fire unless the shooter is within about 10 feet. He’d be dead.”
But some of the problems in the report were more significant and, to Tiegen, deeply personal. The report attempts to settle the much-debated question whether anyone on the ground that night was given an order to “stand down”—to abort an attempted rescue before it began. The report resolves the debate, as it does virtually every disputed point, in favor of the intelligence community leadership.
“Although some security officers voiced a greater urgency to depart for the [diplomatic compound], no officer at CIA was ever told to stand down,” the report concludes.
This is categorically false, says Tiegen. “I was told to stand down. [The chief of base] was looking directly into my eyes when he said it. He used those words.”
Why wasn’t this in the report? Good question. Tiegen doesn’t remember whether he was asked directly about the alleged stand-down order when he testified, but he insists he would have been clear about it if he had been. Others familiar with his testimony tell us that, while there was a discussion of the delay before Tiegen and his team left the CIA annex to attempt a rescue at the diplomatic compound, no one asked Tiegen directly if he had been told to stand down.
Tiegen expressed bemused frustration at the sentence summarizing the evidence supporting the conclusion that there was no stand-down order. According to the report, “the evidence from eyewitness testimony, ISR [drone] video footage, and closed-circuit television recordings provides no support for the allegation that there was any stand-down order.”
“The drones and building surveillance cameras don’t have audio. How could they possibly provide evidence one way or the other?” Tiegen asked.
And the report gets the eyewitness testimony wrong, he says, when it claims that “one officer felt that the 21-minute delay was too long” but dismisses his concerns because, the authors write, his testimony on the timeline is “internally inconsistent” and contradicted by others.
It’s simply not the case that only one officer felt that the delay was too long. Again, the committee did not release the transcripts of the hearings featuring the CIA officers, so we don’t know exactly how they testified. But if they said then what they’re saying now, at least four of them believed the delay was too long. “One officer?” says Tiegen. “I felt it was too long. Jack and DB did, too.” Paronto says that while he did not hear the words “stand down,” that’s what they were told to do. He remembers testifying that Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith would likely still be alive if his team had been allowed to leave earlier.
Paronto and Geist are frustrated by the report, too.
“I try to take the high road on it,” says Geist. “But it’s ironic that Mike Rogers shook my hand and said: ‘Thanks for coming in, I found you guys very credible.’ If we were so credible, why did he write a report that ignored so much of what we said?”
“I would like to sit down with Rogers and go over the report line by line and have him defend what’s in there. He couldn’t do it.”
On May 20, 2013, four of the CIA officers who had fought to repel the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi arrived at the grounds of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Tiegen, Paronto, Geist, and “Jack” had returned to Washington to honor two of the men who had fought and died in those attacks, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Shortly before the service began, an agency representative approached the four and asked them for a moment of their time. They were led away from the public gathering space near the CIA museum through one office, then through another, until they finally arrived at a back room far removed from the quiet murmurings that preceded the ceremony.
When the door shut behind them, a CIA official handed each man a small packet of papers and with very little explanation asked them, one by one, to review and sign the documents. As the men began to read the papers they’d been handed it did not take long for them to understand what was happening. The documents were nondisclosure agreements, and several of the CIA officers quickly concluded that they were meant to send a message.
Geist, who was moving to a new job at the agency, says he had always assumed he’d have to sign another NDA and didn’t think much of the request. His colleagues had another view.
“That was a bunch of bulls—,” says Paronto. “We were pissed. We didn’t have anyone outside the agency there with us—no lawyers, no one. That’s just not right.”
The men quickly signed the papers, in part because they were already covered by existing NDAs and in part, they say, so that they wouldn’t be late for the ceremony. After the memorial service, the men stopped for drinks and remembered their fallen comrades in a less formal way. Paronto says it didn’t take long for the NDAs to come up.
“I remember Jack sitting there—he looks at us and says: ‘That was pretty f—d up, wasn’t it?’ ”
Two months later, on August 1, 2013, CNN aired an hourlong special on Benghazi that reported, among other things, that the CIA “is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing remains a secret.” Among those efforts, according to CNN, the CIA was asking Benghazi survivors to sign additional nondisclosure agreements. There was no mention of the memorial service.
Two days after the CNN investigation aired, we obtained a letter that the new CIA director, John Brennan, had sent to all CIA-affiliated personnel who were on the ground in Benghazi during the attacks. The letter was dated May 30, 2013, some eight months after the attacks.
We were given the letter as part of an obvious attempt to push back on the CNN special. The letter, as we reported on August 3, 2013, “conveyed a message the CIA leadership was willing to support and facilitate communications between the CIA employees involved in the Benghazi attacks and congressional oversight committees.”
Our coverage initially made no mention of the NDAs at the memorial service for Woods and Doherty because our sources had never mentioned them.
As we continued to follow the Benghazi saga, the story changed repeatedly.
First, the claim was that there had been no effort whatsoever to keep anyone from talking, that no one was asked to sign an additional nondisclosure agreement, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was lying. When presented with evidence that some CIA officers involved in Benghazi were asked to sign additional NDAs, the story changed. Okay, maybe some officers were asked to sign additional NDAs, but those NDAs were standard operating procedure. When presented with claims that some of the NDAs were legally unnecessary, the story changed again. Okay, it’s possible some of the NDAs were redundant, but they had nothing to do with Benghazi. But when presented with evidence that some Benghazi officers were asked to sign NDAs at the memorial service honoring CIA officers killed in Benghazi, the story changed once more. Okay, but the NDAs didn’t actually mention Benghazi, and they were necessary in order to process payments for the officers to attend the memorial service.
That is apparently the final position of the CIA, as reflected in the House Intelligence Committee report. The report acknowledges that the memorial service might have contributed to the “perception” that the NDAs were related to Benghazi and acknowledges that three of the CIA officers testified that they found the request “odd.” But the report nonetheless concludes that the requests, however “ill-timed,” were in no way “improper.”
Paronto says he told the committee he didn’t feel “pressure” to sign the NDA and didn’t find it intimidating. “F— no, you don’t intimidate me,” he says. But he says the committee is playing semantic games. “It was very odd, since I hadn’t signed one in six years and then had to sign two in a few months. And when I say ‘odd’ I mean of course we were under ‘pressure’ to sign.”
Zaid told us: “The request, indeed demand, by CIA to have its security team members execute new NDAs was entirely out of the norm. The documents were legally unnecessary as the team was already bound by prior NDAs and any reasonable interpretation was that it was intended as an explicit reminder not to speak, if not implicit threat. I am dumbfounded that the committee is not troubled by that fact.” Zaid adds, “I told committee members and staff that based on 20 years of experience with the CIA there was no reason they had to sign the agreements.” Zaid’s claim is not in the report.
On November 15, 2012, Michael Morell testified for several hours before the House Intelligence Committee. Morell had been elevated to acting CIA director after the resignation of David Petraeus six days earlier and was eager to keep the job. Despite repeated questions about who had changed the talking points prepared for members of the committee, Morell never acknowledged any involvement. The talking points became controversial after Susan Rice relied on them during her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows five days after the Benghazi attacks. Rice’s presentation to the public was inaccurate in virtually every key detail.
Representative Peter King told reporters afterwards that none of the senior U.S. intelligence officials who appeared before the committee that day had admitted editing the talking points.
A Reuters report described the testimony. “When U.S. intelligence officials testified behind closed doors two weeks ago, they were asked point blank whether they had altered the talking points on which U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice based her comments about the Benghazi attacks that have turned into a political firestorm. . . . Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, acting CIA Director Michael Morell and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen each said no, according to two congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
A partial transcript released last month along with the House Intelligence Committee report suggests that the questions weren’t quite that direct. But what is indisputable—both in contemporaneous accounts and the transcript—is that even as lawmakers sought to understand who changed the talking points, Morell did nothing to help them.
“I’m not sure he misled us as opposed to not being as forthcoming as he could have been,” says Representative Heck.
A similar scenario unfolded before a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee the same day, where much of the session also focused on how the talking points were changed. Again, no top U.S. intelligence official, including Morell, acknowledged any role in making the changes that turned a largely accurate, forward-leaning summary of the Benghazi attacks into a vague, inaccurate, and misleading account of the attacks.
For eight months—from October 2012 through May 2013—questions about who changed the talking points were at the center of the Benghazi controversy. In private meetings with lawmakers, both at CIA headquarters and on Capitol Hill, Morell stated directly that he had nothing to do with the changes.
One such meeting took place at 10:00 a.m. on November 27, when Morell accompanied Rice, rumored to be Obama’s top choice to serve as the next secretary of state, to an appointment with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte. The senators hadn’t been expecting Morell. Rice had been the subject of considerable public criticism for her misleading comments on the talk shows.
According to Graham, Rice told the senators that she’d brought Morell to address the talking points, which she had relied on for her appearances. “She said: ‘He will help you understand what was going on with the talking points,’ ” Graham told The Weekly Standard.
That was the first question of the meeting: Who changed the talking points? Morell told the senators something they had not heard before. “He told us that the FBI made the changes because they were the ones on the ground talking to people and they didn’t want to jeopardize their investigation,” Graham recalled.
The claim wasn’t true. Graham called FBI leadership to share Morell’s accusation with them. “They went apesh—,” he recalls, and denied, without qualification, that they had made the changes. Graham reported this to the CIA, and hours later, a representative from the agency called the senators to indicate that Morell had “misspoken” and that the CIA had made the changes.
To state the obvious: It’s not misspeaking to deny responsibility for something you’ve done and blame someone else. It’s lying.
This was Morell’s Oreo moment. Who finished the cookies? he was asked. And Morell, with black smudges across his face and crumbs hanging from his lips, said: Somebody else.
For months, and despite repeated questions, lawmakers remained in the dark about how the talking points had been edited. The Obama administration refused to provide documents related to the talking points that Congress was demanding.
The administration’s intransigence softened when the White House indicated that President Obama wanted to appoint John Brennan the next CIA director, and Republicans threatened to block the nomination unless they were given access to the documents they’d been seeking. The administration made available more than 100 pages of emails on a “read-only” basis—meaning House and Senate intelligence members and staffers could examine them in a secure facility but could not make copies or otherwise take possession of them.
Those emails confirmed what many lawmakers had long suspected: Despite his unwillingness to acknowledge his role in testimony and despite his repeated denials, Mike Morell played a major role in changing the talking points.
None of the facts above are in serious question. Indeed, when the White House released the emails, Morell conducted the background briefings for reporters on behalf of the administration. He told them that he had taken it upon himself to edit the talking points and assured reporters that it was merely coincidental that his changes tracked closely with complaints from top officials at the State Department and the White House.
A report by Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee accused Morell of misleading Congress. His dishonesty was so cavalier that several senators, including two of the top-ranking Republicans on the committee, ranking member Saxby Chambliss and incoming chairman Richard Burr, took the unusual step of going on the record to accuse Morell of rank deception.
“I went back and reviewed some of his testimony the other day and he’s gotten himself in a real box,” Chambliss said last spring. “It’s really strange. I’ve always thought Mike was a straight-up guy, gave us good briefings—factual, straightforward. I mean, this has really been strange the last few weeks—all this now being uncovered.”
Burr said he went down the line, asking all of the top intelligence officials at the hearing who had changed the word “attacks” to “demonstrations.” Morell denied making the change. “I think that Mike answered what he felt he was asked,” says Burr. “But there was clearly enough that he knew that he could have shortcut this process.”
Graham was more blunt. “He knew when he met with us that it wasn’t the FBI who had changed the talking points. He lied.”
Remarkably, the House Intelligence Committee report mentions none of this. Readers learning about the “talking points” controversy from the body of the report alone would have no idea that Morell had been caught misleading Congress—passively, by failing to acknowledge his role when asked about it, and actively, by blaming others for revisions he had made himself.
The report concludes only: “Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell made significant changes to the talking points.”
Not only does the committee report fail to include the history of Morell’s untruthfulness, it rather inexplicably treats Morell as a reliable fact witness on the very subject about which he’d been caught lying. Indeed, much of the section of the report that deals with the talking points assumes the veracity of a thoroughly discredited witness.
Morell is now an adviser at Beacon Global Strategies, a consultancy run by, among others, Philippe Reines, a top adviser to Hillary Clinton, and Michael Allen, who served until August 2013 as the staff director for Mike Rogers on the House Intelligence Committee.
The House Intelligence Committee report concludes that there “was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.” The claim itself is not persuasive, and the report, in its efforts to substantiate it, makes clear that something close to the opposite is true: The intelligence failure on Benghazi continues to this day.
By any reasonable standard, there were intelligence failures leading up to the night of September 11, 2012. And these failures made possible the terrorists’ success. The U.S. intelligence community did not detect the assaults on the U.S. mission and annex beforehand. If it had, four Americans would likely be alive today.
Why do the authors of the House Intelligence Committee report deny the intelligence failures? They write: “In the months prior, the [intelligence community] provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the [intelligence community] did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.”
The committee’s reasoning is specious. By this standard, the only way the intelligence bureaucracy can fail is by ignoring or otherwise mishandling intelligence in its possession that indicates a pending attack. But the failure to generate a “specific, tactical warning” before an attack is an intelligence failure. The lack of forewarning indicates significant blind spots about our enemies’ intentions. The general warnings issued before September 11, 2012, did not stop the terrorists from executing their specific designs. The intelligence community plainly failed to stop a terrorist attack in Benghazi.
It is worth noting that the House Intelligence Committee’s formulation could equally apply to the far more devastating September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Beforehand, the intelligence community “provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment,” but did not offer a “specific, tactical warning” of the hijackings. Yet, no one can seriously claim that there weren’t intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.
The report’s conclusion becomes even more problematic in light of the facts recognized in the body of the report. Remarkably, the intelligence failure is ongoing. The intelligence community still can’t answer basic questions about what transpired.
“To this day,” the report reads, “significant intelligence gaps regarding the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers remain.” The report points to a September 23, 2012, intelligence assessment authored by the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center that noted the “fragmentary and contradictory reporting about who organized the attack” and said it is “unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control and if the extremist group leaders directed their members to participate in the attacks or the attackers did so on their own.” There is no indication in the report that these key issues—including the identification of a possible ringleader—have been resolved.
According to the report, the intelligence community still isn’t sure how much planning the terrorists did. The report notes: “The sophistication of the attacks does not necessarily imply lengthy pre-planning.” Of course, considerable “pre-planning” is possible. The intelligence community doesn’t know; it is guessing.
The “intelligence assessments continue to evolve to this day,” reads another sentence in the report, “and the investigations into the motivations of the individual attackers are still ongoing.” While it is noteworthy that the House Intelligence Committee claims the intelligence community still doesn’t know what motivated all the attackers, the question of inspiration is something of a red herring. Several al Qaeda groups took part in the attack; al Qaeda’s motivations for attacking U.S. interests were first set forth plainly almost two decades ago.
In conjunction with the report, the House Intelligence Committee released partially redacted transcripts of its hearings with some U.S. intelligence officials. Reading through the transcripts, one quickly sees that at least some of the “significant intelligence gaps” still plaguing the Benghazi investigation are rooted in the lack of human intelligence. Without sources inside the organizations responsible, or the ability to interrogate individual attackers, the intelligence community cannot piece together anything close to a complete picture.
During a hearing on November 15, 2012, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lamented the fact that the intelligence community had not yet been able to interrogate any Benghazi attackers. “It would be very useful actually to have the opportunity to interrogate some of the participants, in terms of what we don’t know,” Clapper said. “We don’t know who commanded this or who controlled it. There are still a lot of things we don[’t] know.”
Matthew Olsen of the National Counterterrorism Center elaborated on Clapper’s point, saying, “We don’t know the motivations of the attackers. We don’t know exactly—we don’t know command and control. We know some of the individuals, we don’t know all of the individuals. And we don’t know exactly how much pre-planning there was.”
The situation has not improved much since Clapper and Olsen testified. The report notes that the intelligence community has produced six assessments identifying the attackers. The “most recent of those six assessments” identifies “85 individuals who had some level of participation in the attacks and an additional 4 known extremists who are affiliated with the suspected attackers.”
Only 1 of these 89 individuals is in U.S. custody—a Libyan known as Abu Khattala. It is likely that the United States has participated, in some capacity, in the interrogations of the few other Benghazi suspects who have been held by foreign governments. But most of the attackers have never had to answer to any authority.
The Obama administration has been lax in its efforts to kill or capture the dozens of terrorists who assaulted the U.S. mission and annex. (Several Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee, including Chairman Rogers, make this point in their “additional views” appended to the report.) The administration has also failed to stop some of the Benghazi attackers who were held abroad from being set free by allied governments. This is a failure of American leadership, first and foremost, but it has undoubtedly contributed to the intelligence community’s “gaps.”
The more we learn about the one Benghazi suspect in U.S. custody, the bigger the intelligence failures before the attack appear to be—and the report’s insistence that there weren’t any becomes even more inexplicable.
In October, the Justice Department released a “superseding indictment” in Khattala’s case. The materials released by the House Intelligence Committee make it clear that the CIA was using the Benghazi annex to track extremists, including al Qaeda operatives, in eastern Libya. But according to the indictment, the jihadists were also hunting the CIA. This spy-vs.-terrorist, terrorist-vs.-spy part of the story—which the indictment cites as a main reason for the attacks—is entirely missing from the House Intelligence Committee’s supposedly comprehensive investigation.
At some point, according to the indictment, Khattala learned that there was an “American facility in Benghazi posing as a diplomatic post,” and “he believed the facility was actually being used to collect intelligence.” Khattala “viewed U.S. intelligence actions in Benghazi as illegal,” and “he was therefore going to do something about this facility.” Khattala wanted to oust the United States from Benghazi “through the use of force and the threat of force.” The indictment includes another reason for the attack that has received little attention: Khattala and his fellow jihadists wanted to “plunder property from the Mission and Annex.” Shortly before midnight, Khattala “entered the Mission compound and supervised the plunder of material from the Mission’s Office, including documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information about the location of the [CIA’s] Annex.” Khattala then absconded to an Ansar al Sharia camp, where he is believed to have taken inventory of the stolen materials. Not long after, the CIA’s annex came under fire.
Several parts of the indictment stand out, especially when contrasted with the committee’s report. The indictment makes it clear that Khattala learned of the CIA’s covert footprint, meaning the agency failed to keep its presence secret. This failure in tradecraft was not mentioned by the committee, but it is an intelligence failure. That Khattala and his fellow jihadists wanted to “plunder” materials from the U.S. mission and annex adds to the evidence of “pre-planning,” which the committee also failed to note. And the indictment makes clear that Khattala obtained “sensitive information,” raising the possibility that some of America’s secrets (beyond the location of the CIA’s annex) were compromised. The report makes no mention of Khattala’s role in stealing the materials, although it is possible that it is included in one of the few lines redacted in the section dealing with Khattala.
The allegations contained in the indictment further undermine the notion that the House Intelligence Committee has conducted a thorough investigation. The indictment has been a matter of public record since October, but the committee did not even bother to incorporate it into its own report.
At its core, the Benghazi story is a simple one. Multiple terrorist organizations belonging to al Qaeda’s international network attacked State Department and CIA facilities on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. But President Obama and his top advisers blamed the violence on an anti-Islam Internet video.
The House Intelligence Committee’s report confirms that from the very hours after the attack the intelligence community had evidence indicating that al Qaeda was “likely,” “probably,” or “possibl[y]” involved. An unidentified CIA officer who spoke during one of the committee’s hearings explained that the agency “first indicated that Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qa’ida members, [and] AQI [al Qaeda in Iraq] members were linked to the attack in a wire that was available to this committee on the 12th.” Olsen, the former counterterrorism director, testified that he talked about “AQIM [al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] individuals” during a briefing on September 13. And, according to Morell, intelligence analysts concluded on September 13, “based on [signals intelligence, or intercepts], that extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida were involved in the attacks.”
The evidence of al Qaeda’s role in the Benghazi attacks has since only grown stronger.
Despite this, President Obama and his closest advisers have consistently defined al Qaeda down. And Benghazi is a perfect example of this pattern of behavior. The president’s erroneous descriptions of the Benghazi attackers continued long after September 2012.
In a speech at the National Defense University on May 23, 2013, Obama described the Benghazi attackers as an example of the “localized threats” we face. They were “local operatives,” who may operate in “loose affiliation with regional networks,” Obama said. But there was no hint from Obama that many of the attackers belong to al Qaeda’s international terrorist network.
The House Intelligence Committee report confirms that members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN), Ansar al Sharia, and the Abu Abaydah Ibn Jarah Battalion (UJB) all participated in the assault. There is nothing “local” about these groups, nor are they loosely affiliated. Collectively, these organizations had a presence that stretched from North and West Africa through the heart of Arabia and the Levant into Iraq.
AQIM and AQAP are regional branches of al Qaeda. Their leaders have sworn personal bayats (oaths of allegiance) to Ayman al Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, and they remain loyal to him to this day. The head of AQAP, Nasir al Wuhayshi, is a protégé of Osama bin Laden. Zawahiri named Wuhayshi al Qaeda’s global general manager in the summer of 2013.
At the time of the Benghazi attack, AQI (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq) was a formal branch of al Qaeda as well. AQI has since split in two, with the bulk of the organization evolving into the Islamic State, an al Qaeda offshoot that controls large portions of Iraq and Syria. The remainder of what was once AQI is now known as Jabhat al-Nusrah, which is al Qaeda’s branch in the Levant and openly subordinate to Zawahiri.
The MJN was named for its founder, Muhammad Jamal, an Egyptian who was first trained by al Qaeda in the late 1980s and swore bayat to Zawahiri years ago. When Jamal was captured in late 2012, Egyptian authorities discovered his correspondence with Zawahiri. Jamal wrote of his operations in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere. During one House Intelligence Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence Clapper described the MJN as “an al Qaeda in Egypt upstart.” Jamal was seeking to build his own branch of al Qaeda, under Zawahiri’s leadership, when some of his men helped launch the attacks on the U.S. mission and annex in Benghazi.
Ansar al Sharia (AAS) is based in eastern Libya, but has well-established ties to al Qaeda terrorists throughout the region. In mid-November, the U.N. added AAS to its al Qaeda sanctions list, noting that AQIM supports AAS’s suicide operations. The leader of AAS in Derna, another Libyan city known as a hotbed of extremism, is a former Guantánamo detainee named Sufyan Ben Qumu. According to leaked files prepared at Guantánamo, U.S. military and intelligence officials found that Ben Qumu was an al Qaeda operative. Information found on a laptop owned by the al Qaeda terrorist responsible for financing the 9/11 attacks noted that Ben Qumu was receiving a monthly stipend from al Qaeda. The House Intelligence Committee report concludes that Ben Qumu “probably played some role in the [Benghazi] attacks, even though reliable intelligence indicates that Qumu was not in Benghazi on the night of the attacks.” The Abu Abaydah Ibn Jarah Battalion (UJB) was led by the aforementioned Abu Khattala, who merged the group with AAS in 2011.
Another Benghazi suspect briefly mentioned in the House report is Faraj al Chalabi, who was known to be an al Qaeda operative as early as the 1990s. The report does not note that Chalabi is believed to have served as a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden. According to U.S. intelligence officials we contacted, Chalabi is also suspected of taking materials from the U.S. compound in Benghazi to Pakistan, where he met with al Qaeda’s senior leadership.
Even a cursory examination of the parties responsible shows just how misleading President Obama’s descriptions of the attackers have been.
Oddly, the report says that Qaddafi loyalists were also among the Benghazi attackers. The only support for this assertion is an article containing a spurious claim by a Libyan official immediately after the attack. No other evidence is introduced to support the involvement of Qaddafi loyalists, who were, of course, fighting against the al Qaeda coalition that carried out the Benghazi assaults.
The name Wissam Bin Hamid is also missing from the House Intelligence Committee report. This is noteworthy because multiple published accounts have explored his role in the security failures surrounding the attacks. In August 2012, a Defense Department analysis included a discussion of Bin Hamid’s ties to al Qaeda’s network in Libya. Bin Hamid is a veteran of the jihad in Iraq, where he likely fought on behalf of al Qaeda or an allied group. But Bin Hamid’s suspicious past did not stop him from meeting with State Department officials just two days before the Benghazi attacks to discuss security. A declassified State Department cable identifies Bin Hamid as a leading member of the Libyan Shield, a militia that both the U.S. and Libyan governments relied on for security.
After the attacks in Benghazi, Bin Hamid spoke openly with reporters, granting interviews to the New York Times and Washington Post, among others. Bin Hamid acknowledges his presence at the U.S. mission shortly after the attacks started. He claims, improbably, that he merely watched the attacks as they unfolded, standing alongside Abu Khattala, the one person in U.S. custody for his role in the attacks. The House Intelligence Committee report notes: “Ample intelligence reporting from multiple reporting indicates Khattala’s role in the attacks,” but it does not connect him to Bin Hamid.
The report also notes that a security team from Tripoli, comprising five Americans from the CIA and two from the U.S. military, made their way to Benghazi. They originally intended to “locate and rescue Ambassador Stevens.” The House Intelligence Committee reports that the Tripoli team, while “holding” at the Benghazi airport, “was approached by about 30 militiamen from different groups offering assistance,” but it was “not entirely clear . . . which groups were present, which were trustworthy, and which posed a threat.” According to the New York Times, Bin Hamid was one of the militiamen who met the Tripoli team at the Benghazi airport.
In all, the Tripoli team was delayed for approximately three and a half hours at the Benghazi airport. The circumstances surrounding the delay are not made clear in the House report.
“After much review, [the House Intelligence Committee] uncovered no evidence that the Libyan Shield militia played a role in the final attack [on the CIA’s annex] or tipped off the attackers of the Tripoli Team’s presence,” the report concludes. It cites some evidence that members of the Libyan Shield were helpful during the attack. But it does not account for Bin Hamid, a known Libyan Shield leader. The report does not address Bin Hamid’s presence at the U.S. mission shortly after the first attack began, or his association with Abu Khattala. Nor does the report address claims that Bin Hamid met up with the Tripoli team at the Benghazi airport, where the Americans were delayed for an inordinate amount of time.
Today, Bin Hamid openly fights alongside Ansar al Sharia, one of the al Qaeda groups responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Ansar al Sharia advertises Bin Hamid’s leadership role in videos and pictures disseminated on its official Twitter feed.
The absence of bin Hamid, the exclusion of the Khattala indictment, the whitewashing of intelligence failures, the spinning of NDAs, the reliance on discredited witnesses, and the mistreatment of credible ones—these are just some of the problems with the House Intelligence Committee’s report on Benghazi.
The report seeks to bring an end to the committee’s work on Benghazi, but it’s clear that in this, too, it fails. A spokesman for Devin Nunes says the incoming chairman “is looking forward to cooperating with Representative Gowdy’s select committee, which will be the definitive report on the events surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.”
Defenders of the Obama administration have suggested that the intelligence committee’s report makes the work of the select committee unnecessary, but a senior Republican leadership aide, reached on the day the intelligence committee’s report was released, made the opposite argument.
He said: “Rogers proved today why we needed a special committee.”
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies.
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/may-seen-trey-gowdys-benghazi-probe-go-off-rails-didnt-just-happen/#dliBlKdi5PXprjsv.97
-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/27/congressman-blows-a-hole-in-attkissons-benghazi/202276
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84838260&x-yt-ts=1422327029&v=dFA_nQ3T8x0
-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/29/karl-rove-compares-attacking-hillary-clinton-ov/202325
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/washington-times-bombshell-tapes-confirm-citizen-commissions-findings-benghazi/#Ve3Urcd3IXM6B1HE.97
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all#pagebreak
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Updated: 7:29 p.m. on Monday, February 2, 2015
The chairman of a special House committee created to investigate the 2012 Benghazi tragedy on Monday instructed his staff to review secretly recorded tapes and intelligence reports that detail Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in advocating and executing the war in Libya, opening the door for a possible expansion of his probe.
Rep. Trey Gowdy’s decision to seek a review of the materials, first highlighted in a series of Washington Times stories last week, carries consequences for the 2016 election in which Mrs. Clinton is expected to seek the presidency. It could also move the committee to examine the strained relationship between the State Department and Pentagon, which sharply disagreed over the 2011 war in Libya and the response to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi a year later.
The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support Mrs. Clinton’s story of an impending genocide in Libya that she used to sell the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. The newspaper also unveiled secretly recorded tapes from Libya that showed that the Pentagon and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich so distrusted her stewardship of the war that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime.
SEE ALSO: Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war
The tapes included candid conversations and allegations that Mrs. Clinton took the U.S. to war on false pretenses and was not listening to the advice of military commanders or career intelligence officers.
“Chairman Gowdy and the committee are aware of the details reported by The Washington Times, and we are reviewing them as part of the committee’s inquiry into Benghazi,” Benghazi Committee spokesman Jamal Ware announced Monday.
The emergence of the tapes and a new line of inquiry immediately had repercussions, especially on the political front where the 2016 president race has heated up.
SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a 2016 GOP hopeful who has been intensely critical of Mrs. Clinton’s handling of the 2011 Libya intervention, said the stories demonstrate she is not the right person to lead the country or the nation’s military.
“Hillary’s judgment has to be questioned – her eagerness for war in Libya should preclude her from being considered the next Commander in Chief,” said Sen. Paul, who opposed the Libyan intervention at the onset.
“We want someone in that office with wisdom and better judgment… We created chaos in Libya – as a result many arms have gone to Syria which are now aiding jihadi terrorists. I couldn’t fathom how Hillary Clinton could become Commander and Chief after this,” he added.
Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman have declined any comment about the tapes.
The Times reported that on one of the tapes, a Pentagon liaison told a Gadhafi aide that Army Gen. Charles Jacoby, a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it,” the Pentagon liaison said, offering a candid assessment of tensions within the Obama administration.
“I can tell you that the President is not getting accurate information so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him… I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Admiral Mullen to get him information.”
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, said the Pentagon’s actions were “highly unusual,” but said that it would make sense for the Pentagon to want to make sure their Commander in Chief was getting accurate information.
“I think it’s unusual to have the military say wait a minute, that’s not true,” Mr. Poe said in a telephone interview with the Times. “You have a false report from the Secretary of State, and then the military holding a completely different view of what’s taking place.
“They wanted [the president] to have facts – facts as opposed to what Secretary Clinton was hoping the facts would be; that Moammar Gadhafi was killing innocent women and children. That was was a false narrative. So, it would make sense that they would want to get that information straight to the president and not go through the Secretary of State,” he added
Story Continues →
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/#ixzz3QdcKxIhq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
========================
Continued from page 1
In reaction to the Times final installment of the series on Monday, which revealed secret Libyan intelligence reports that linked NATO supported rebels to al-Qaeda, Rep. Louie Gohmert said the news was not a complete surprise.
“During the Obama-Clinton hunger to enter a bombing war in Libya, some of us knew the rebels included al-Qaeda but we did not know the full extent of their involvement,” he said. “So we pleaded for U.S. restraint. With bombing in their heart and radical Islamists whispering in their ears, the Obama-Clinton team would not even entertain offers of a ceasefire and peaceful transition of power. While acting under U.N. approval to prevent atrocities, it appears the Obama-Clinton bombing barrages caused atrocities that sent a country into chaos which is continuing today.”
The Times series about the Libyan intervention was also picked up across Atlantic.
Britain’s Daily Mail described the story as “stunning” declaring that, “[Sec.] Clinton will face tough questions about her march to war against Moammar Gadhafi if she runs for president.”
Mr. Poe said that he believes the series will prompt new questions, especially with the current state of military and political affairs in Libya.
“As far as I’m concerned Benghazi is not going away,” Mr. Poe said. “That the U.S. would give in and arm rebels and criminals to overthrow Col. Gadhafi, and then mislead the world on that is shameful. We now have chaos in Libya… it’s the U.S.’ undoing of a country. Gadhafi was no saint, but what we have now are gangsters and jihadists running the country. We have chaos because the US intervened in a deceitful way.
“Unfortunately, the administration is making more of an effort to protect Hillary Clinton’s involvement than they are in finding out the truth about what was really behind the overthrow of Gaddafi by the U.S.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/?page=2
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/?page=2#ixzz3QdiGF3eG
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/06/trey-gowdy-is-coming-after-hillary-clinton/
-
Haven't had a chance to give this a proper look, but I wanted to post it for my future reference:
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/02/05/leaked-evidence-sen-john-mccain-involved-major-islamic-conspiracy-establish-islamic-state/
-
http://patriotpost.us/articles/33533
-
http://patriotpost.us/articles/33533
Yes, she knew it was a terrorist attack right from the beginning. I find that lie about the video, among all their other lies, particularly offensive. 4 dead, no rescue, and their focus was on how to minimize the political damage. Pathological lying backfire on them someday.
-
Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an "offensive video" was a bald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth does make a big difference at this point.
The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton's former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton's office. It read as follows:
"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."
Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department" responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line "Attack on Benghazi 90112012":
"DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire."
At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line "FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack":
"I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center."
Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:
4:54 p.m.: "Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel."
6:06 p.m.: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
11:57 p.m.: "(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."
And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? "Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi":
"Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi."
Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office -- with instructions not to "forward to anyone at this point."
Hillary Clinton's response? An official statement calling the attack "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review's Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, "Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?"
The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign -- sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama's assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public's intelligence -- can no longer be obscured.
America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama's lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton's critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises -- one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
And that's if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.
On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: "These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton's closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about 'inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.' The contempt for the public's right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang's cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath."
Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation's peril.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/03/trey-gowdy-says-hes-going-after-hillary-clintons-personal-emails-on-benghazi/
-
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton-116040.html?hp=t1_r#.VQM-wS5UWAh
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/18/hillary-got-dia-memo-describing-benghazi-as-a-terrorist-attack-within-hours/
-
A smoking gun about what we already know happened.
Nonetheless 45% of the country will ignore this: So she lied. So what......... they all do....... just right wing loons making a stink over a non scandal.......
we just need to know the real Hillary..... what a really nice person she is.......
yadda yadda.
Two decades of Democrats ignoring sliminess. Only worse now. Not better.
-
In another era, this alone would have assured the demise of a presidency. Nixon was forced out over issues that barely rise to the level of unethical in comparison - let alone criminal and treasonous:
www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/obama-knew-jihadis-were-planning-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance?
-
In another era, this alone would have assured the demise of a presidency. Nixon was forced out over issues that barely rise to the level of unethical in comparison - let alone criminal and treasonous:
www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/obama-knew-jihadis-were-planning-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance?
There are so many possible takeaways from Benghazi, that we lost 4 great Americans, what were we doing there, why didn't we send support before or even during the attacks, where else are we vulnerable, etc.
This was the 3am phone call we were warned about (at 5pm?) Both of them got it and both of them failed. Both of them refuse to tell us what happened through the crisis. Is there something Hillary pressed Obama to do, but he wouldn't and she would have had she been President? Were they on the same page? Did they do everything they could but nothing could have helped? We don't even know their whereabouts.
All of that and I am still stuck on the lying that Susan Rice did on behalf of both Obama and Hillary, and their own lying - putting out that same, false message.
Yes, Nixon looked America in the eye and said "I'm not a crook". Everyone knew what he meant by that. He was putting it all on the line that he was telling the truth about not knowing about this operation that went wrong. When he was caught lying to all of us, it was over. It was over was because HIS OWN PARTY said that isn't good enough.
Filthy liars like Obama and Hillary get kicked out of power when their own side decides that isn't good enough. Remind our liberal friends of that.
-
Garbage In, Benghazi Out
The hrod17 approach to intelligence.
by James Taranto
May 19, 2015 2:31 p.m. ET
WSJ
What happens when top foreign-policy officials make life-or-death decisions based on faulty intelligence from self-interested sources? The example we have in mind is less than a decade old.
In March we wrote that while she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton “appears to have relied on not only a private communication network but a private intelligence network.” Sidney Blumenthal—a longtime Clinton crony who specializes in character assassination, hence the nickname “Sid Vicious”—had been sending Secretary Clinton intelligence briefings about Libya.
“The reports appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe,” according to a March 27 report by Jeff Gerth and Sam Biddle, published jointly by ProPublica and Gawker. Gerth and Biddle admitted they didn’t know what Blumenthal, Drumheller and their associates “were up to in 2011, 2012, and 2013 on Clinton’s behalf,” but a report in the New York Times answers that question:
While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal . . . was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, “message guidance” and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters [sic] and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.
The projects—creating floating hospitals to treat Libya’s war wounded and temporary housing for displaced people, and building schools—would have required State Department permits, but foundered before the business partners could seek official approval.
The Times answers another, more important question the ProPubGawk team had left unresolved: Yes, Mrs. Clinton did read the Blumenthal-Drumheller memos, and she took them seriously. She “circulated them, frequently forwarding them to Jake Sullivan, her well-regarded deputy chief of staff, and requesting that he distribute them to other State Department officials.” Sullivan obliged, telling colleagues the memos “had come from an anonymous ‘contact’ of Mrs. Clinton.”
Best of the Web Columnist James Taranto on the former White House aide’s business interests and his political influence on the Secretary of State. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Some of the memos peddled “rumors that other American diplomats knew at the time to be false,” to which department officials often responded with “polite skepticism.” In April 2012, the ambassador to Tripoli, Chris Stevens, “took issue with a Blumenthal memo raising the prospect that the Libyan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was poised to make gains in the coming parliamentary elections.” That didn’t happen. Another diplomat attributed the errant prediction to the Blumenthal’s having “confused Libyan politicians with the same surname.”
Five months after that memo, Stevens and three other Americans were dead at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.
Judicial Watch announced yesterday that it had obtained new Benghazi documents in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the state and defense departments:
\A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
[quoting the DOD document verbatim:] The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The 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.
Mrs. Clinton, of course, repeated the administration’s line that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a haram video. Perhaps she was simply lying, but the combination of the Times’s and Judicial Watch’s findings suggest an alternative explanation: that she was distracted from the official intelligence by the junk her pal Sidney was peddling.
This morning in response to reporters’ questions, Mrs. Clinton opened her mouth and words came out. One word, “unsolicited” actually answered a question—that is, Mrs. Clinton denied that she had taken the initiative to employ Blumenthal as her de facto Libya desk. It was more of a leading-from-behind situation.
Another obvious question is whether Mrs. Clinton was relying on Blumenthal’s intelligence in February and March 2011, when she was reportedly a leading advocate within the administration of military intervention against Moammar Gadhafi. The answer here is a provisional “no”: Of the Blumenthal emails on which the Times reported, the earliest is dated April 8 of that year.
Still more questions arise from the email address Mrs. Clinton used in forwarding the emails: hrod17@clintonemail.com, not hdr22@clintonemail.com, the one that had been previously revealed. When Mrs. Clinton admitted that she ignored standard procedure and used a private email server for official communications, she claimed it was because using multiple devices was too inconvenient. How is it that she was able to manage multiple accounts? And were there more than two?
The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes makes another excellent point:
That the DIA report [which Judicial Watch obtained] was not released as a result of any previous Benghazi investigations raises additional questions about the administration’s unwillingness to turn over documents related to the attacks and how comprehensive those previous investigations have been. Many of the revelations that have undermined administration claims about Benghazi have come outside of the regular congressional oversight efforts, in part because of the administration’s disinclination to cooperate and in part because of the half-hearted inquiries led by the committees of jurisdiction.
Administration defenders and many in the media claimed that an additional investigation of Benghazi would be unnecessary because of these previous efforts. But these recent revelations validate the decision of House speaker John Boehner to create a select committee and make clear that there is still much more to learn.
Which is the answer to a question—meant to be rhetorical—that a central figure in the Benghazi scandal asked a couple of years ago: “What difference . . . does it make?”
-
Wonder what the back story is , , ,
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/245152-issa-escorted-out-of-benghazi-deposition
-
Business
Tech
Markets
Opinion
Arts
Life
Real Estate
120
34
Opinion
Review & Outlook
Sid Blumenthal’s Email Discovery
The slow roll of Libya-related communication continues.
Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton ENLARGE
Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton Photo: Associated Press
June 17, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET
178 COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton says she turned over to the State Department “all” of the emails from her private email account related to her work as Secretary of State. And State has reassured Congress that it turned over “every” Clinton email demanded as part of the House investigation into the Benghazi attack. This must depend on the definition of “all” and “every.”
The House Select Committee on Benghazi recently sent subpoenas to Sidney Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton political hit man who was in steady contact with Mrs. Clinton (via her private email) while she was the top U.S. diplomat. Emails show Mr. Blumenthal was advising two U.S. companies seeking Libyan contracts at the same time he was secretly advising Secretary of State Clinton about Libya. Mr. Blumenthal’s attorney says his client had no financial interest in the two companies—though no one is denying that the friends of Mr. Blumenthal who ran the companies were looking for business.
So imagine Congress’s surprise on Friday when Mr. Blumenthal responded to a subpoena by turning over 60 more Libya-related communications with Mrs. Clinton—some 120 pages. Politico reports that Members of Congress still aren’t sure whether Mrs. Clinton failed to give the emails to State, or State failed to give the emails to Congress, which is likely to release the new emails in the coming days.
State’s excuse for the omission is that it thought the subpoena was only for Mrs. Clinton’s Benghazi-related email (not broader Libya correspondence). This is hard to believe given that Congress’s initial early-December request—to State and Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer—begins: “Please provide, as soon as possible but no later than Dec. 31, 2014, any and all documents and communications referring or relating to a.) Libya (including but not limited to Benghazi and Tripoli) . . .” There’s that “all” word again.
There’s a reason Mrs. Clinton kept control over her server, and deleted an unknown number of emails, and it’s the same reason she now won’t let an outside party review her records. She wants the public to see as little as possible so she can have an accountability-free pass to the White House.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/22/new-emails-reignite-hillary-clinton-email-scandal/
-
Hillary And Sid's War
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 23, 2015
Did Sidney Blumenthal encourage then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to back military action against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya? Did he do so because it was in the financial interest of his friends and sources? Did Clinton listen to him to the virtual exclusion of professional intelligence sources? And was the information about which Clinton relied false?
These questions emerge from a review of the emails from Blumenthal to Clinton that have been released over the past year.
Libya was Clinton's war. It was she who badgered the national security team to approve a no-fly zone and to ratchet up our military involvement in toppling Gadhafi. In 2011, she told the United Nations Human Rights Council that "it is time for Gadhafi to go," and she condemned Russian reluctance to intervene as "despicable."
Her intel suggested genocide was happening in Libya. As Clinton told ABC News: "Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered ... and we were sitting here. The cries would be, 'Why did the United States not do anything?' "
The Washington Times reported this year that Clinton "ultimately became the most powerful advocate for using U.S. military force to dethrone Gadhafi, both in her closed-door meetings with Mr. Obama, who ultimately made the decision, and in public with allies and the news media."
Now, emails have been released suggesting it was Blumenthal that stoked her desire to intervene and helped heighten her resolution to act. "This is an historic moment," he portentously told the secretary of State on Aug. 22, 2011, "and you will be credited for realizing it. When Qaddafi is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras. ... You must establish yourself in the historical record at that moment."
Sidney Blumental, with no military or intelligence experience or credentials, advised that "Qaddafi's army's morale and cohesion might be conclusively shattered by another round or two of ferocious bombing."
But he was wrong. There was no genocide. The concerns of senior military leaders, including Robert Gates, then Defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were, according to The Washington Times "repeatedly cast aside."
One official from the Defense Intelligence Agency tactfully called the move to intervene in Libya "an intelligence-light decision." The Times reported that "the intelligence community gathered no specific evidence of an impending genocide in Libya in spring 2011, undercutting [Clinton's] primary argument for using the U.S. military to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power."
Why did Blumenthal continue to press the point?
Investigative reporting by veteran journalist Jeff Gerth at ProPublica gives some insight into a possible reason: It may have been an attempt to help his friends get contracts from a new Libyan government.
Blumenthal was working closely with David L. Grange, a retired Army major general who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999. Gerth reported that "Grange subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence security training, armament sales and other services." On Aug. 24, 2011, Osprey signed a memorandum of understanding with the Libyan National Transition Council -- the entity that took control in the wake of Gadhafi's execution -- agreeing that Osprey would contract with the council to "assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country and train Libyan forces."
The prospect of having an in with the government of an oil-rich nation like Libya must have been enticing to Blumenthal's friends.
At the very least, this episode highlights Clinton's tendency to rely on gurus often to her detriment. In 1993 she leaned on Ira Magaziner, and healthcare reform crashed and burned. In 2008 she looked to Mark Penn and lost the election. In 2011, she relied on Blumenthal, and we entered a war we never should have fought.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/state-dept-gets-libya-emails-that-clinton-didnt-hand-over.html?emc=edit_na_20150625&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html
-
Obviously stories based upon anonymous witnesses must be handled with care:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/27/exclusive-benghazi-witness-u-s-provided-arms-to-jihadists-who-killed-americans-in-911-attack/
-
The True Failure of Benghazi
Analysis
September 11, 2015 | 09:00 GMT
Print
Text Size
(Stratfor)
Analysis
By Fred Burton
Editor's Note: The following piece is part of an occasional series in which Fred Burton, our vice president of intelligence, reflects on his storied experience as a counterterrorism agent for the U.S. State Department.
On Sept. 11, 2012, Ambassador Christopher Stevens became the seventh ambassador killed in the line of duty when militants overran the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. As news of the attack spread, many came to believe Stevens' death was the product of negligence or incompetence on the part of the U.S. government.
The truth is, security failures are inevitable. Perhaps the State Department could have taken greater security precautions beforehand, or perhaps Stevens should have stayed out of Libya on such a significant date. But the partisan debates that erupted after his death focused so much on assigning responsibility that they distracted from the ultimate point. What really matters in the aftermath of a tragedy is identifying and addressing the structural or procedural problem behind the failure. And therein lies the deeper issue raised by the Benghazi attack: Controversial and high-profile as it was, it has not driven the State Department to roll out long-needed internal reforms.
Learning From Failure
The Benghazi attack was hardly the State Department's first catastrophe. When I first joined the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) as a special agent in the 1980s, it had only been a couple years since the horrific terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Beirut and Kuwait in 1983 and 1984, which were followed over the course of the decade by scores of car bombings, hijackings and kidnappings of American, British and Russian diplomats in Lebanon. And even before Beirut, there was the breech of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon in 1968, the kidnapping and murder of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel in Khartoum in 1973, the fall of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The list, of course, goes on.
After Stevens' death the Foreign Service came under intense pressure to step up security at U.S. embassies. In 2013 the State Department hired 151 new security personnel, added 20 new Marine Security Guard detachments and implemented stricter threat reaction requirements for embassies and consulates. Officials introduced more comprehensive fire training (attackers in Benghazi had set fire to a diesel fuel-soaked floor and furniture in the compound) and re-examined deployment schedules in an attempt to build cohesive teams that can be more effective in emergencies.
There have been structural changes as well, but they have not been comprehensive enough. One of the major barriers to effective security measures within the State Department has always been its internal organization. Beneath the secretary of state there are undersecretaries directing broad categories of department activity, such as political affairs or economic growth. There is also a catchall bureau called "Management" — known as "M." Beneath the undersecretary of management, nestled far down the flowchart with a host of other offices, is the DSS.
After Stevens' death in Libya, a commission was formed to investigate the root causes of the security failure. One of its findings was that having to pass information up the hierarchy slowed the department's response when crowds started swarming the walls of the Benghazi compound. The commission recommended that the assistant secretary who leads the DSS be raised to the level of undersecretary, reporting directly to the secretary of state.
The State Department opted not to alter its organizational chart to give the DSS direct access to the top decision-makers. Instead, it took a more cautious route, creating a new post, the deputy assistant of secretary for high threat, who is now responsible for ensuring diplomatic posts in high-risk areas receive plenty of attention. State also rearranged the security service itself so that the DSS Office of Intelligence and Threat Analysis now reports directly to the assistant secretary of diplomatic security.
More Work Ahead
But these changes all occur far down in the hierarchy, locking the DSS — the office that bears sole responsibility for the safety of all State Department employees — deep within the management bureau. The security service's inability to report directly to the secretary of state will continue to inhibit both the free flow of information and quick, effective decision-making in emergency situations. The organization needs to either raise the head of the DSS to the level of undersecretary or make the DSS more like the FBI, with a single director reporting to the secretary of state. And until the State Department makes internal reforms, I am not optimistic it will make any real progress toward transforming its organizational culture into one that takes security issues seriously.
Of course, the true story of Benghazi was the exceptional heroism and courage of U.S. personnel on the ground. There is no doubt that the State Department needs to devote more resources to hiring and training security personnel in addition to making internal structural reforms. In 2012 Stevens and his staff paid the price for that neglect. But the DSS agents and CIA operatives in Benghazi executed their training brilliantly, shielding the ambassador as they escorted him to safety and calling for help. In recognition of their service, the State Department bestowed the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Diplomacy on Stevens, the Thomas Jefferson Award to the personnel who gave their lives, the Secretary's Award to one officer who was seriously injured and the Secretary's Award for Heroism to 12 personnel who fought to defend the Benghazi facilities. There is no doubt that each one made a noble sacrifice; now it is up to those who remain to make future sacrifices unnecessary.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/07/benghazi-rep-trey-gowdy-editorials-debates/73548846/
-
Here is the letter Gowdy just sent to Rep Cummings about his actions with the Bengazi Committee. Note Page 10. This details Blumenthal and Hillary communications and how Blumenthal had a financial stake in the overthrow of Libya. Also, notice his earlier comments about using Libya to prop up Obama before the election.
Stuff like this should take down PIAPS....but will it?
-
Here is the letter Gowdy just sent to Rep Cummings about his actions with the Bengazi Committee. Note Page 10. This details Blumenthal and Hillary communications and how Blumenthal had a financial stake in the overthrow of Libya. Also, notice his earlier comments about using Libya to prop up Obama before the election.
Stuff like this should take down PIAPS....but will it?
It will never see the light of day.
-
https://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/TG%20letter%20to%20EEC%2010.7.15.pdf
-
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Oct. 8, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET
124 COMMENTS
Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly withdrew from the House speaker’s race on Thursday, a casualty of a fractured Republican conference. The Californian didn’t do much to inspire confidence last week when he suggested that the House Benghazi committee had been designed to attack Hillary Clinton.
One pity of the McCarthy comments is that they tainted the committee’s work with politics. The bigger pity is that they are dead wrong. South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy is 18 months into the committee that the House purpose-built to investigate the 2012 terrorist assault in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. His Benghazi investigation has been a model of seriousness, professionalism and discreetness.
The statistics alone bear this out. The committee has so far reviewed 50,000 new pages of documents. Less than 5% have anything to do with Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state. It has interviewed 51 witnesses. Forty-one of those were brand-new—no committee had bothered to speak with them before, though seven were eyewitnesses to the attack.
Not that you will have seen any of this testimony. Congress generally loves public hearings—members relish parading in front of cameras, grilling and humiliating witnesses. But Mr. Gowdy, a former prosecutor, is more interested in getting information. All 51 of the committee’s interviews have been done in private, attended by committee members or staff from both parties. In a public hearing, the majority Republicans get more time than Democrats to speak. In private interviews, time is divided equally. Mr. Gowdy is fine with that.
If Republican Rep. Darrell Issa were running this committee, is there any doubt that he would have put Clinton fixer Sidney Blumenthal in the public hot seat? Mr. Gowdy’s committee interviewed him privately. When Mr. Blumenthal’s lawyer said he would be out of the country on the proposed interview date, Mr. Gowdy rescheduled; he wanted the Democratic operative to have competent counsel. Former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills’s private interview concluded with the remarkable sight of her, Mr. Gowdy and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings together at a post-interview press availability, where she thanked the committee for its “professionalism” and “respect.”
The House Select Committee on Benghazi has held three public hearings. Mr. Gowdy allowed Democratic members to choose the first two topics. They predictably focused on the work of the State Department’s Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which they like to claim has already settled what happened in Libya. Mr. Gowdy nonetheless committed to thorough hearings. When Washington Democrat Adam Smith looked likely to miss a hearing because of hip surgery, Mr. Gowdy set up a Skype connection so that he could ask his questions. Mr. Gowdy made the same offer to Illinois’s Tammy Duckworth, who’d just had a child. When she politely declined, he allotted her question time to Mr. Cummings—a fair-play move rarely seen in D.C.
Washington lawmakers love their powers, and Mr. Gowdy has plenty. He has exercised them prudently. The Benghazi committee has issued only threes subpoenas. One to Mr. Blumenthal, whom the committee had trouble tracking down. One to the State Department for a specific batch of emails. And one to Mrs. Clinton, when the news first broke that she had maintained a private server for her email. When Mrs. Clinton later claimed that she was not under subpoena, Mr. Gowdy didn’t complain, he simply released the subpoena to set the record straight. He has declined to answer questions about whether he thinks she has committed any crimes.
Mr. Gowdy hasn’t needed to use subpoenas because agencies are willingly giving him documents. He has obtained materials from the CIA and Defense Department that those agencies refused to give to other committees. The White House has also agreed to give him material. Mr. Gowdy inspires confidence that, unlike most congressional committees, his group isn’t going to leak information to sabotage political targets.
That’s because Mr. Gowdy handpicked a staff of 16 professionals, many recruited from law-enforcement and legal backgrounds, headed up by retired Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who was an Obama-appointed Army judge advocate general. Mr. Gowdy told every hire on day one that leaking was a firing offense.
Keeping the Benghazi committee on the straight and narrow hasn’t been fun. Democrats work with Mr. Gowdy in private but then berate his committee in public. Conservative activists and talk-radio hosts blast him for depriving them of the drama they crave—for not running a get-Hillary committee. The State Department blocks him. And now his own side has made his job that much harder.
Don’t expect Mr. Gowdy to give up. He has run his committee with one goal in mind: finding answers for the families of four dead Americans. Mrs. Clinton flatters herself if she thinks it’s all about her.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
-
NEWLY DISCLOSED EMAILS MEAN MORE TROUBLE FOR HILLARY(Power line today)
Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has told Elijah Cummings, his Democratic counterpart on the committee, that he will soon release 1,500 pages of new Hillary Clinton emails concerning Libya that the State Department recently turned over. A “small number” of them pertain to the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound, Gowdy said.
In his letter to Cummings, Gowdy also revealed that many of the emails in question involve Sid Blumenthal.
The contents of some of Hillary’s correspondence with Blumenthal, as described by Gowdy, help us understand (1) why she wanted to conduct State Department related business on a private server, (2) why she didn’t want to turn her emails over to the State Department when she left office, and (3) why the State Department withheld these particular documents from Gowdy’s committee for so long.
If Gowdy’s letter is correct, the latest batch of emails suggests that Clinton used her office to advance Blumenthal’s business interests in Libya. It also shows that she both received and sent (on her private server) an email that revealed the identity of a CIA source in Libya. Finally, it thereby confirms that, contrary to her insistence, she used the private server to send out classified information.
As to the first point, Gowdy states:
At the same time that Blumenthal was pushing Secretary Clinton to war in Libya, he was privately pushing a business interest of his own in Libya that stood to profit from contracts with the new Libyan government—a government that would exist only after a successful U.S. intervention in Libya that deposed Qaddafi.
We already knew about this from prior email exchanges. Blumenthal had a financial interest in Osprey Global Solutions, a security company that hoped to obtain contracts from a post-Qaddifi government. In addition, we already knew that Blumenthal was pushing Clinton for U.S. intervention in Libya knowing that such intervention would help produce a post-Qaddifi government with which Osprey might be able to do business.
But what’s new (as far as I know) is that Clinton apparently assisted Blumenthal in his effort to advance this financial interest. According to the Washington Free Beacon:
Emails. . .show that Clinton actively promoted security arrangements that might have benefited Osprey. Blumenthal told Clinton in an April 2011 email that Libyan revolutionary leaders were “considering the possibility of hiring private security firms to help train and organize their forces.”
Clinton forwarded that email to Sullivan, adding, “the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”
To be sure, this constitutes only limited support. Moreover, Clinton might genuinely have thought that using private security experts was a good idea.
But Clinton’s favorable comment about private security can easily be viewed as an attempt to scratch the back of a person she has described as an old friend. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Clinton would have offered an opinion on this subject — which wasn’t yet ripe and isn’t within her area of expertise (as the Benghazi attack showed) — but for a desire to help her old friend “Sid Vicious.”
No wonder both Clinton and the State Department wanted to keep these emails under wraps.
The second new problem for Clinton is that, according to Gowdy’s letter, Blumenthal sent an email to Clinton’s personal address containing the name of a CIA source in Libya. Hillary then passed the email along to a colleague, using her private email system.
As Gowdy puts it: “This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but also human lives.” I agree with Ed Morrissey that this breach is worse than the disclosure during the Bush administration that Valerie Plame was with the CIA. Plame was basically a Washington, D.C. socialite. The CIA’s source in Libya was, in effect, a spy who faced the very real risk of being killed if his or her status became known.
Finally, the fact that Clinton passed along an email identifying a CIA source by name destroys whatever might be left of her claim that she never sent classified information from her private email address. It also destroys her fallback defense that she never sent information she had reason to know was classified at the time of transmission.
The identity of CIA human sources is classified and obviously so. Clinton certainly knew this.
One reason why Gowdy sent his letter to Cummings was to regain momentum for the hearings following Kevin McCarthy’s comments linking the Benghazi panel to Clinton’s falling poll numbers. Hillary Clinton is running for president; Kevin McCarthy is no longer even trying to become Speaker. Nor, as far as we know, is there an FBI investigation into possible wrongdoing by McCarthy.
It seems likely that before long, the focus will return to Hillary and her server.
-
Cummings is an ideologue. He will blow this off and continue his rant about a right wing witch hunt. It is all party for him.
The big civil rights guy is not about honesty or integrity. It is all about advancing leftist interests.
Trying to placating him is a waste of time. Repubs need to hit the airways every way imaginable to circumvent the left wing counterattack.
IMHO of course.
-
https://specialoperationsspeaks.com/current-news/rep-trey-gowdy-we-re-breaking-new-ground
-
"Maybe we should ask another government to pay for our security upgrades because our government isn't willing to do it.", the Ambassador 'joked'. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/19/gowdy_new_benghazi_documents_show_disconnect_with_washington_128458.html
- Sorry, but what part of that is funny?
Question to the absent Secretary, at this point with 4 dead Americans, what difference could YOU have made?
30,000 personal emails to plan a wedding and none to boost security in the aftermath of the war effort she promoted?
It begs the question, HOW MUCH SECURITY DID THEY HAVE AT THE WEDDING? And who paid for it?
-
What really happened with Benghazi will never see the light of day, no matter what Gowdy does. Too many Pubbies were also involved including Mike Lee, etc. Both sides were complicit and that is the real purpose of the cover up. Hide from view all the "actors"....
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-state-documents-show-quick-white-house-effort-to-link-benghazi-to-internet-video/
-
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-have-spent-more-on-origami-condoms-fat-lesbian-studies-than-benghazi-committee/
-
Third post
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/breaking-select-committee-chairman-trey-gowdy-moves-to-release-all-benghazi-witness-transcripts/
-
It can't be a big deal because the MSM has written this off a long time ago. Fox and radio will pick up on it and no one else is listening or will care. The msm was just waiting for her glib performance, pointed out over and over with headlines the fact it was 11 hours long and just ignored all her obvious lies.
The tide has turned big in her favor. Their side feels it as do ours.
The only controlling legal authority are the voters. And many can be bribed and some fooled.
I put my money down that the FBI will not find cause for any indictment and in any case the legal Clinton mafia team has shown they can just run around the evidence and the law anyway. Any one want to make this bet?
-
It can't be a big deal because the MSM has written this off a long time ago. Fox and radio will pick up on it and no one else is listening or will care. The msm was just waiting for her glib performance, pointed out over and over with headlines the fact it was 11 hours long and just ignored all her obvious lies.
The tide has turned big in her favor. Their side feels it as do ours.
The only controlling legal authority are the voters. And many can be bribed and some fooled.
I put my money down that the FBI will not find cause for any indictment and in any case the legal Clinton mafia team has shown they can just run around the evidence and the law anyway. Any one want to make this bet?
Someone remind me not to make any more bets against ccp.
Yes, it's clear that the Obama Justice Dept won't be going after itself, and I guess at this point they have to grudgingly accept that Hillary and all her aides are a permanent part of their team and legacy.
Also clear that the Washington Post etc won't go after her. NY Time letting up too now that she really is the inevitable nominee. Funny that Sanders is up by double digits in the latest NH poll, but he doesn't have the 50 state operation to compete.
I still don't conclude from that she is off scot-free on that. Of course hard core Hillary supporters look the other in denial and hard core Dems acknowledge her dishonesty and vote for her anyway. But hold-your-nose level support is not the same as hope and change, Hyde Park 2008 level excitement for turning out the base and attracting the new voters to the cause.
There aren't going to be too many people with a television set in Nov 2016 that won't know this 69 year Grandma with no computer in her office was unreachable for 600 pleas for additional security in Benghazi prior to the deaths, and went home for the evening when her 3:00am phone call came in, while she somehow was able to send and delete 30,000 personal emails that related to a wedding and yoga class, the benefits of which are not readily apparent. The she went to the country and to the families of the fallen and told everyone a lie about what happened in order to protect the reelection chances of the swindler in chief at the time. How does that, a stagnant, or a nation in moral decline make anyone excited about a third term?
While she compared the attack in Benghazi to the attack in Beirut under Reagan, there was a crucial difference. President Reagan took responsibility for the security that allowed a breach, right from the start, and our nation moved on. These slimy people blamed a youtube trailer with 300 views while maintaining telling us that they al Qaida "on the run".
-
https://www.facebook.com/IStillDontLikeObama/videos/970784472982863/
-
"While she compared the attack in Benghazi to the attack in Beirut under Reagan, there was a crucial difference. President Reagan took responsibility for the security that allowed a breach, right from the start, and our nation moved on. These slimy people blamed a youtube trailer with 300 views while maintaining telling us that they al Qaida "on the run".
She took responsibility for Benghazi. She said she did! :x
I agree with you Doug. The Clintons again frustrate all of us. They are criminals and they continue to get away with it by corrupt means. Very sad for this country and the world.
There is no comparison between her and Reagan. None.
-
This sums it all up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/25/megyn_kelly_no_hillary_did_not_emerge_unscathed_she_admitted_benghazi_attack_was_not_about_video.html
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/emails-released-state-dept-contradict-hillary-clintons-benghazi-testimony/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/benghazi-commission-obama-admin-gun-running-scheme-armed-islamic-state/
PS: Can someone please find that youtube clip of Hillary chortling about killing Kadaffy?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/benghazi-commission-obama-admin-gun-running-scheme-armed-islamic-state/
PS: Can someone please find that youtube clip of Hillary chortling about killing Kadaffy?
https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y
-
Thank you!
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/
-
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353
What do we make of this response?
-
http://leestranahan.com/keeping-them-honest-watch-cnn-anderson-coopers-benghazi-coverup/
-
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353
What do we make of this response?
Media matters? :roll:
-
I know, I know, but in this case does its' response have merit or not?
-
I know, I know, but in this case does its' response have merit or not?
No. Unless you believe that no Obama administration official would lie or engage in a cover up.
-
U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show
Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.
That's what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering "forces that could move to Benghazi" during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, "we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak." The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of "deliberative process" information.
Bash's email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration's lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response."
This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:
While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.
Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration's many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)
You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
The newly released email reads:
From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya
State colleagues:
I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].
After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].
Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].
Jeremy
Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks' 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, "If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them."
Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.
As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:
• Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.
The Washington Examiner puts it very well:
The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.
It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch's release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee's decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch's supposed "rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers." Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration - so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.
The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren't deployed, specifically "a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain." The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration's dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.
All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch's independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.
-
I read this story this morning thinking it was from the latest email dump, but it was from Dec 8, carried on Fox and right wing news sites, but no mention otherwise on msm. What is the followup to this story? Were these assets deployed but didn't reach Benghazi on time? Left wing Media Matters has a response calling the story bunk, they were sent but didn't arrive in time. (?)
EMAIL shows Pentagon ASKED Hillary to LET THEM send help to Benghazi
http://therightscoop.com/new-email-shows-pentagon-asked-hillary-to-let-them-send-help-to-benghazi-proving-leon-panetta-lied/#ixzz3wI2WMjEh
“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353
Oddly, we still don't to my knowledge have an after the fact accounting from the Pres and Sec of their time during the crisis, where were they, who were they meeting with, communicating with, what advice were they receiving, what choices were available, what decisions did they make?
How did we NOT have resources available to cover a diplomatic mission in a war zone where we are the enemy?
-
The interview itself begins at 05:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V5p4sL2K0
Watch this one people.
-
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
-
The interview itself begins at 05:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V5p4sL2K0
"Watch this one people."
Yes, everyone who cares abouit what happened there needs to watch this interview - and then see the movie.
Among other things, Who do you believe now about the stand down order?
Who do believe about what military assets would have been helpful?
Could you have saved a life if you could have assisted sooner? Yes.
-
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
------------------------------------------------------
I believe parts of it and less so on other parts. It certainly comes closer to explaining
what was happening there than the official story we have been told, or mostly not told.
-
Given how close it came on the heels of the events, some of it looks rather prescient.
-
Given how close it came on the heels of the events, some of it looks rather prescient.
Agreed. Perhaps they didn't want a heavy security presence visible before the attack to draw attention to the operation. Once it was under attack and on fire... I guess that same reason could still apply for deniability of the operation which no doubt still applies.
The author says it was a CIA location. And it was a villa not a consulate. I understand the point he is making. But at the time of the attack it was housing the US Ambassador's mission in that country. The definition of a consulate a place or building in which a consul's duties are carried out.
One question keeps coming back to security. This administration wanted th light footprint approach. See how much we can get away with keeping the operation hidden. I guess we found out the hard way.
The other question is mission. It seems like a responsible and necessary mission to round up US arms and get them shipped out, except for a) this war from a US point of view was an undeclared war by congress, so maybe there were more US arms involved than we know, and b) the author's view is that the destinations of the US arms going out were perhaps also US law, stated policy or our best interests.
What is most remarkable is that we still don't know any more answers to all these question. Like with the interview relating to "13 hours", these are real people who were there telling their story. The author of this story appears to have a real source as well, a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. I would just question that he or anyone knew the whole scope of both ends of the operation.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/stranger-than-fiction-hollywood-gets-benghazi-right/article/2000445#.Vo8nLal2Upc.facebook
-
https://www.funker530.com/email-bombshell-benghazi-response-teams-deliberately-stopped-by-whitehouse/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7iraOwGPCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJF4xmArkRI
Email Bombshell: Benghazi Response Teams Deliberately Stopped By Whitehouse
first published on January 12, 2016 by Will
2.1k
SHARES
Share
Tweet
For years, the Obama Administration has stood behind two excuses (given under oath) for not sending a quick reaction force to assist in rescuing American citizens during the Sept. 11, 2012 al Qaeda-linked attacks on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The first excuse being: There were no forces available that could have responded quickly. The second reason was: Even if they had scrambled more people, they couldn’t have gotten there in time to make a difference.
Now, an email, hidden for three years, has come to light and refutes the Obama Administration’s narrative as to why our boys at Benghazi weren’t given the reinforcements that may have saved their lives.
Former Defense Department Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash, sent an email to the State Department early into the attacks that clearly states that we had multiple quick reaction forces ready to action on the objective, which adds further significant proof that the rescue forces were deliberately stopped by the White House.
Bash’s email, sent to top State Department officials just three hours into the eight hour ordeal said, “…we have identified the forces we could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a SOF (Special Operations Forces) element that was in Croatia, and a Marine FAST unit out of Roda, Spain.” Meaning, there were at least two elite units that were at REDCON-1 (all personnel geared up, seated on the aircraft, weapons ready, with the engines started). They just needed clearance from the Commander in Chief to enter Libya. That clearance never came.
The White House declined to comment on the recently surfaced email that opposes their long-standing narrative that no assets were available or ready, and that they had done everything possible for the Americans on the ground, under attack, in Benghazi.
According to the report, the Obama Administration never even sought approval from Libya to send in the reinforcements. That approval, according to the CIA and military experts interviewed, would have been given by the host nation without delay.
The SOF element wasn’t the only available rescue unit interrupted from deploying. Foreign Emergency Response Team Leader Mark Thompson testified that his squad was told to stand down. A separate military team operating in nearby Tripoli, Libya, was ordered not to board a plane for Benghazi as well. Additionally, the CIA annex’s Global Response Staff (GRS), who were roughly a mile from the besieged consulate were heavily delayed for no apparent reason by their leadership. They only got the green light from higher after it was apparent that they were going to go anyway, with or without approval.
The brave and selfless actions of these CIA contractors saved many lives, and their story is now being brought to the big screen in Michael Bay’s 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers Of Benghazi. Two of the contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, both ex Navy SEALs, were killed in the fighting.
To add to the perplexing circumstances surrounding the event, the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt had been overrun by Islamist sympathizers just five hours prior to the initial attack in Benghazi. There should have been multiple teams of U.S. quick reaction forces standing by across Europe and Africa… teams whose sole mission is to respond to these types of events.
We need to stop treating the Benghazi event as a political, polarizing issue. This has nothing to do with democrats versus republicans, but has everything to do with taking care of our own. Whether it was deliberate, or through incompetent negligence, American heroes were thrown to the wolves and written off, and then repeatedly lied about under oath by this administration, and those responsible need to be held accountable.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/19/adm-mullen-denies-stand-down-order-given-admits-special-ops-told-to-hold-in-place/
-
https://www.facebook.com/IStillDontLikeObama/videos/970784472982863/
-
http://counterjihadreport.com/2016/01/17/report-u-s-rescue-team-was-on-its-way-to-benghazi-but-was-turned-back/
I saw 13 Hours today btw. A MUST SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
https://www.facebook.com/theblaze/videos/1046692102034796/
-
Just saw it. A must see movie. I will probably go back at least one more time.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MBjAN7jqsQ[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MBjAN7jqsQ
I can imagine this is causing some unhappiness in Team Hill.
-
http://counterjihadreport.com/2016/01/17/report-u-s-rescue-team-was-on-its-way-to-benghazi-but-was-turned-back/
I saw 13 Hours today btw. A MUST SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/reliving-3-hours.php
-
http://counterjihadreport.com/2016/01/17/report-u-s-rescue-team-was-on-its-way-to-benghazi-but-was-turned-back/
I saw 13 Hours today btw. A MUST SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/reliving-3-hours.php
(http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/OBANDONED-BENGHAZI-91922517243-e1360282292310.jpg)
-
http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-gowdy-responds-to-partisan-attack-by-pentagon-political-appointee
-
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/102111937-air-force-whistleblower-we-could-have-saved-benghazi-victims
-
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/102111937-air-force-whistleblower-we-could-have-saved-benghazi-victims
The Clinton crime family and their media lackeys will now work to destroy him.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/13/sharyl-attkisson/
-
the only force that could have stopped those forces from going would have been the commander in chief. No surprise here.
We know he will not be forthcoming. He never is. Dead end.
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/benghazi-republicans-turn-to-unlikely-source-in-defense-of-gowdy/article/2591902?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Watchdog&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Watchdog%20-%2005/26/16&utm_medium=email
-
Obama State Department admits briefing footage ACKNOWLEDGING DECEPTION on Iran deal INTENTIONALLY DELETED
Posted By Pamela Geller On June 4, 2016
The Obama administration can do whatever it wants. It can lie openly and brazenly to the American people — in service of Iran’s jihad — and there is never any accountability. And this comes after Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and a myriad of other scandals at which the lapdog media did everything it could to cover for this corrupt and feckless regime. Treason on a massive scale.
“State Department admits briefing footage on Iran deal intentionally deleted,” Fox News [1], June 1, 2016:
The State Department, in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal.
“There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment.
The State Department had faced questions earlier this year over the block of missing tape from a December 2013 briefing. At that briefing, then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked by Fox News’ James Rosen about an earlier claim that no direct, secret talks were underway between the U.S. and Iran – when, in fact, they were.
Psaki at the time seemed to admit the discrepancy, saying: “There are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.”
However, Fox News later discovered the Psaki exchange was missing from the department’s official website and its YouTube channel. Eight minutes from the briefing, including the comments on the Iran deal, were edited out and replaced with a white-flash effect.
Officials initially suggested a “glitch” occurred.
But on Wednesday, current State Department spokesman Kirby said someone had censored the video intentionally. He said he couldn’t find out who was responsible, but described such action as unacceptable.
While saying there were “no rules [or] regulations in place that prohibited” this at the time, Kirby said: “Deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability.”
Kirby said he learned that on the same day of the 2013 briefing, a video editor received a call from a State Department public affairs official who made “a specific request … to excise that portion of the briefing.”
Kirby says he has since ordered the original video restored on all platforms and asked the State Department’s legal adviser to examine the matter. He said no further investigation will be made, primarily because no rules were in place against such actions….
-
Wrong thread for this.
-
Crafty - where do you want it posted?
-
I will rename the Media thread so it fits there.
-
http://conservativetribune.com/hillary-email-chris-stevens/
-
When they started dripping out the emails in reverse order of importance, you knew the security pleas and location giveaways of murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens were coming. I am still guessing there is far worse to come.
This is part of of it, but I would like to know the best, short, definitive answer to what the casual liberal leftist Hillary supporter says, innocently, about the Hillary email mess, "So what?"
This is 2011. Ambassador Stevens was murdered in 2012. But his secret movements and mission were being broadcast to the hackers of the world by Hillary's top staff over Hillary's unsecured server. Like a lot of people close to Hillary, he ended up dead.
They (the terrorists) knew where he was on Sept 11, 2012.
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-benghazi-obama-224813?cmpid=sf
I can't say that the Separation of Powers argument is without merit-- even if it aides that , , , anus.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/28/benghazi-obama-administration-clinton-state-department-politics-justice-report-committee-ambassador-susan-rice-white-house-column/86469702/
Our five Benghazi conclusions: Pompeo and Jordan
Mike Pompeo and Jim Jordan7:47 p.m. EDT June 29, 2016
The administration’s promise that “justice will be done” has gone unfulfilled for four years.
(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)
On Sept. 11, 2012, as fire engulfed the State Department’s temporary mission facility in Benghazi, Libya, the survivors and a CIA security team who had come to their rescue made a desperate dash for a CIA annex located nearby. From there they would fend off a continued and determined jihadist attack. Despite heroic efforts that night, four Americans lost their lives. For the first time in more than 30 years, a U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was assassinated. Another State Department employee, Sean Smith, was also killed. Two former Navy Seals who worked for the CIA, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, died defending their fellow Americans at the annex.
For nearly two years, questions persisted about the policies and decisions surrounding this tragic event. To ensure that the American people had answers to these questions, in May 2014 the House of Representatives authorized the creation of theSelect Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. On Tuesday, the committee released the chairman’s mark of our report on the attack.
We are both members of the Benghazi committee and of committees that have previously investigated the events surrounding the attack. With the benefit of our past experience, and with the benefit of the facts brought to light by the committee, we felt it necessary to write separately to offer our own views to the American people.
Our contribution to the committee’s report draws five conclusions: First, the Obama administration misled the American public about the events in Benghazi. Second, security in Benghazi was inadequate given the risk to the facility, and Secretary Clinton had missed the last clear chance to protect her people. Third, when things went badly, America did not move heaven and earth to rescue our people. Fourth, the administration broke its promise to the American people to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice. Finally, we make note of the disappointing fact that the administration did not cooperate with our committee’s investigation from the very beginning. In fact, they obstructed our work from day one.
USA TODAY
Clear and correct on corruption: Column
It is our belief that many of these failures were the result of the administration’s obsession with preserving a political narrative.
It is clear the administration was deeply committed to its Libya strategy. National security was a major component of the president’s re-election campaign, Secretary Clinton’s legacy, and potentially for her own presidential campaign.
The fact that Benghazi was a dangerous city and that security at the State Department’s facility there was inadequate was an open secret. A diplomatic security agent formerly stationed there referred to it as a “suicide mission” and another said that “everybody back here in D.C. knows that people are going to die in Benghazi, and nobody cares and nobody is going to care until somebody does die.”
When the first wave of the assault in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. on Sept. 11,State Department officials in Washington and Tripoli knew almost immediately that it was a sophisticated and coordinated terrorist attack. Eyewitness accountsconfirmed that fact for decision makers at the White House and the Pentagon.
Despite this knowledge, no military assets reached Benghazi during the fight. They did not arrive in Benghazi for nearly 24 hours; no military man or machine (except twounarmed drones) were even launched before the fighting was over.
What did launch before the fighting ended, however, was the political spin.
USA TODAY
Hiring Lewandowski is a smart move for CNN: Column
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
At 10:08 p.m. in Libya, while Tyrone Woods was still fighting from the roof of the CIA annex, the State Department released a statement attempting to define Benghazi as a video-inspired protest gone bad. Shortly after that statement was released, Secretary Clinton told her daughter the truth in a private email. The next day she said in a private phone call with the Egyptian prime minister “we know” it was a planned attack, and not a video-inspired protest as her own public statement suggested.
The false video narrative was further disseminated over the next few days by the White House and others — even after the truth was well known.
As a sad epitaph to this story, the administration’s promise that “justice will be done” has gone unfulfilled for four years, despite there being no doubt that our nation can make good on that commitment. The only terrorist known to have been captured will not face the full measure of justice, since the administration has declined to pursue the death penalty.
It is our hope that the efforts of the committee in uncovering the facts laid out in its report, and our effort to provide our own conclusions based on those facts, will help to bring some measure of finality to this tragic chapter of American history. The families of those killed, and the American people, deserve nothing less.
Reps. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, are members of the Benghazi Select Committee.
-
This clip comes recommended to me by an American hero of formidable background:
http://unconstrainedanalytics.org/review-of-movie-13-hours-secret-soldiers-of-benghazi/
-
IIRC I called this within weeks of it happening on the Libya thread or here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-benghazi-scandal-arm-syrian-rebels-al-qaeda-isis-libya-turkey
-
IIRC I called this within weeks of it happening on the Libya thread or here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438605/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-benghazi-scandal-arm-syrian-rebels-al-qaeda-isis-libya-turkey
Selling arms to al Qaida, ISIS? Or whom?
Is that what they mean by experience to be President? Aiding and abetting our enemies?
Did Congress ever approve a war against Libya?
President Obama's biggest regret: not planning for the aftermath in Libya. Who talked him into that one?
She lied to the American people. She lied to the families of the murdered.
I will not vote for her.
-
"I will not vote for her"
But half the Bush people seem to be ok with that. :x
Trump SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TWEET INSTANTANEOUSLY" . Some smart tech guy needs to put a delay on whatever he tweets to stop it and construct window period to fix it before it goes to the MSM who are obviously bating him and he keeps falling for it........ :x
Like the delay on live performances they used to have to censor the curse words. These days curse words are allowed for ratings.... Another subject matter.
-
http://usadailynews24.com/new-email-shows-pentagon-asked-hillary-let-send-help-benghazi-proving-leon-panetta-lied/
Looks legit, but would love to have independent confirmation.
-
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
-
Someone thinks this article relevant. I post it here for the record, unread.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/timeline-how-the-benghazi-attack-played-out/2014/06/17/a5c34e90-f62c-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html
-
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/amp/
Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance
May 05, 2015
Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq
Administration knew of arms being shipped from Benghazi to Syria
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.
The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi” (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State(No. 1:14-cv-00812)).
Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.
A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The 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.
“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”
The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”
(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)
The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
The DIA document further details:
The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]
The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.
Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:
The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:
This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.
Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”
From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:
Four COM personnel were killed and three were wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time….
The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.
“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. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
-
Sounds like a partial confirmation of my theory, which I elucidated here within weeks of the attack, that the CIA annex was there to supervise a gun running operation to the Syrian rebels (something which Hillary wanted IIRC) via Turkey.
PS: I note this thread has crossed the 100,000 mark, with an average of over 200 reads per post.
-
I'm sure the media will be all over this!
:roll:
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/amp/
Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance
May 05, 2015
Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq
Administration knew of arms being shipped from Benghazi to Syria
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.
The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi” (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State(No. 1:14-cv-00812)).
Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.
A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The 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.
“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”
The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”
(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)
The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
The DIA document further details:
The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]
The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.
Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:
The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:
This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.
Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”
From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:
Four COM personnel were killed and three were wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time….
The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.
“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. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
-
G M: "I'm sure the media will be all over this!"
Swept under the carpet. And we never get lied to by the political narrative of our intelligence agencies... Look up Benghazi today and Google takes me to this:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/intelligence-shows-no-planning-for-benghazi-consulate-attack/
quote author=Crafty_Dog
Sounds like a partial confirmation of my theory, which I elucidated here within weeks of the attack, that the CIA annex was there to supervise a gun running operation to the Syrian rebels (something which Hillary wanted IIRC) via Turkey.
"Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance"
"Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq"
-------------------
What a shame that the conspiracy theorists (like us) were right and the trusted officials of the United States were wrong and lying. I sat and watched Susan Rice spew out the Obama administration lie on channel after channel, unable to answer a single followup question because she was carefully chosen as the official who knew nothing about what had happened other than prepared, false talking points.
The recent election that was illegitimate in this country was the 2012 contest. The Obama administration systematically blocked the opponents from organizing via the strong and corrupt arm of the IRS and blocked the truth from coming out on important national and global security matters that people should have known before voting. The media co-conspired in this disinformation, not starting or ending with professional journalist Candy Crowley swinging the second debate back to Obama, over this failure and lie, after Romney had decisively won the first.
Regarding the trickle release schedule of Hillary's State Department emails, I predicted the obvious; the least damaging ones will come out first and the really damning ones will come out never, unless some whistle-blower comes forward.
Thank God for Judicial Watch, and thank their management and donors. Getting the truth out has turned out to be more valuable than any political group.
(Give here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/about/support-judicial-watch/)
Too bad we can't get the truth out sooner!
I am concerned about how the history books will cover the current era. The Obama administration was wrong on almost every foreign policy decision they made and the media participated in covering up facts and keeping them in power.
Now we live in a much more dangerous world and Benghazi 2012 and coverup was a major component of that. If people had fully known how poorly our economy was doing and how badly our foreign policy was, we wouldn't have had an Obama second term, we wouldn't have had another Hillary candidacy and we wouldn't have Trump. These events are consequential and they know it or they wouldn't work so hard to concoct lies and hide truth.
-
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-benghazi-trial-opens-20171002-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...7/10/01/071f59ec-9e0c-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ors-say-alleged-mastermind-hates-america.html
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21972/last-words-ambassador-stevens-benghazi-have-been-amanda-prestigiacomo
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35620/obama-calls-benghazi-wild-conspiracy-theory-ryan-saavedra?utm_medium=email&utm_content=090818-news&utm_campaign=position1
-
New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up
Foggy Bottom, the nickname given to the State Department’s neighborhood in the District of Columbia, would seem an appropriate term for the fog its bureaucrats create and use to cover the email irregularities of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Here’s the latest. We released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014.
The long withheld email, clearly responsive to our lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
The Clinton email cover-up led to court-ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. (The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)
The September 2012 email chain begins with an email to Clinton at her private email address, “hdr22@clintonemail.com,” from Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s then-senior advisor and deputy chief of staff. The email was copied to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff, and then was forwarded to then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Clinton advisor Phillipe Reines:
From: Sullivan, Jacob J
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 11 :09 AM
To: 'hdr22@clintonemail.com' <hdr22@clintonemail.cont>
Cc: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Key points
HRC, Cheryl -
Below is my stab at tp’s for the Senator call. Cheryl, I've left the last point blank for you. These are rough but you get the point.
I look forward to sitting down and having a Hillary~to-John conversation about what we know. l know you were frustrated by the briefing we did and I'm sorry our hands were tied in that setting.
It's important we see each other in person, but over the phone today I just wanted to make a few points.
First, we have been taking this deadly seriously, as we should. I set up the ARB in record time, with serious people on it. l will get to the bottom of all the security questions. We are also in overdrive working to track down the killers, and not just through the FBI. We will get this right.
Second, the White House and Susan were not making things up. They were going with what they were told by the IC [Intelligence community].
The real story may have been obvious to you from the start (and indeed I called it an assault by heavily armed militants in my first statement), but the IC gave us very different information. They were unanimous about it.
Let me read you an email from the day before Susan went on the shows. It provides the talking points for HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and for her public appearance. It's from a very senior official at CIA, copying his counterparts at DNI [Director of National Intelligence], NCTC [National Counterterrorism Center], and FBI:
Here are the talking points ...
--The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
-This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
--The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths US citizens.
That is exactly what Susan said, following the guidance from the IC. She obviously got bad advice. But she was not shading the truth.
Third, you have to remember that the video WAS important. We had four embassies breached because of protests inspired by it. Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sanaa. We had serious security challenges in Pakistan and Chennai and some other places. All this was happening at the same time. So many of the contemporaneous comments about the video weren't referring in any way to Benghazi. Now of course even in those countries it was about much much more than the video, but the video was certainly a piece of it one we felt we had to speak to so that our allies in those countries would back us up.
(In fact, as we famously uncovered in 2014, the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House.)
We requested records related to the Benghazi talking points in May 2014. In July 2014, we filed suit. The Clinton email finally released this month was first identified by the State Department in September, 2014 but was withheld from us despite it specifically referencing talking points. After it was specifically described in an Office of the Inspector General report, the court ordered its production. It was only after we informed the State Department that we were prepared to file a motion with the court to compel production of the records that the Department relented and produced the 2012 email in question.
(In an August 22, 2019, hearing, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered production of the record in granting us significant new discovery in the case. Judge Lamberth said, “There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.” The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and the discovery of information including former Secretary Clinton’s emails so poorly that Judicial Watch may have the ability to prove they acted in “bad faith.”)
This email is a twofer – it shows Hillary Clinton misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi and that the State Department wanted to hide the Benghazi connection to the Clinton email scheme. Rather than defending her email misconduct, the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to reopen its investigations into Hillary Clinton.
The court is considering whether to allow us to question Hillary Clinton and her top aide in person and under oath about the email and Benghazi controversies.
Last month, the State Department, under court order, finally provided us a previously hidden email, which shows top State Department officials used and were aware of Hillary Clinton’s email account.
Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:
• John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS) testified under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
• Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
• Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
• In the interrogatory responses of E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
• Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testified that both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
• Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.
The Deep State has a secure home at the State Department.
-
https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-01-at-13.40.13.png
(https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-01-at-13.40.13.png)
https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-01-at-13.43.11.png
(https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-01-at-13.43.11.png)
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/state-department-belatedly-releases-new-clinton-benghazi-documents/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...anned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/amp/
The article ends with:
“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. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
-
Episode 143 of the EvoSec Podcast: Main platforms below or look for us on your favorite platform. YouTube will be up momentarily. This show we have two extremely pivotal guest, Sarah Adams and Dave “Boon” Benton. They are both survivors of the 2012 Benghazi, Libya attacks and are authors of the book, Benghazi Know Thy Enemy, A Cold Case Investigation.
Many will recall the book “13 Hrs in Benghazi” and the Benghazi attacks themselves. Boon was one of the CIA GRS contractor whom went to the aid of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff at the Benghazi Consulate, and later defended the CIA Annex against al-Qa’ida terrorist. Sarah was a CIA analyst and the on the ground targeter for the Benghazi CIA Annex. Sarah was also a Senior Advisor to the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi.
Contrary to popular media accounts, these attacks were not the result of an anti-Islam YouTube video per the Obama administration, these attacks were planned by hardened al-Qa’ida terrorist, with the Consulate attack ordered by the leader of AQ Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.
In these attacks we lost four patriotic Americans: Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone “Rone” Woods, and Glenn “Bub” Doherty. This investigation is to help bring these terrorist to justice.
Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/.../evolution.../id1472903822...
Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6twNBptEL7Iq0jMnPHtBgh...
#benghaziknowthyenemy #benghazi #13hrsinbenghazi #thetruth #justice #investigation #tactical #selfprotectiontraining