Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The Benghazi Hearings
Well, folks, I've been watching the hearings.
Mary and I attended a funeral this morning, but as soon as I got home - a bit after noon - I began watching the hearing... which were already in process.
My reaction to what I've seen so far? Disgust.
First of all, as far as I can see only Fox News and C-Span 3 are covering the hearings live.
Fox's coverage? What you'd expect. Leans Right. (The question is, does it lean further Right than network coverage - not to mention MSNBC - will lean Left when they and CNN and the rest of the MSM "analyze" the hearing later on tonight?) It annoys me when they break from the actual hearings to talk among themselves... interview each other... interview "contributors" and "guests"... run commercials... but, again, at least Fox is covering the hearings live.
What really disgusts me? The Democrats on the Committee. It's clear that none of them have any real interest in getting to the bottom of the sort of questions reasonable people would ask. Bottom line, they view their job as protecting "their" President and his administration... protecting the interests of the Democratic Party now and in advance of future elections.
Shame! Shame on them!
Are Republicans known to pull the same shit when it's "their" guy in the White House and their party's reputation at stake? Sure. And when and where that has happened or will happen I'll point a finger at them and their reprehensible behavior.
But, now... now the Committee Republicans are the ones trying to get at the truth and the Committee Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to avoid the truth coming out and being heard.
So what will be heard tonight? What headlines and story steerage will my friend "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" receive via text alert or hear should he happen to turn on the network news or CNN tonight?
My guess? He'll be treated to video clips and soundbites and paragraphs of the Democrats "asking" questions... and then answering their own questions themselves before the witnesses can get a word in edgewise.
Yep... that was a common tactic from what I saw watching live. Nothing unusual. Nothing purely partisan. But when "your guys" run the media... such tactics provide plenty of fodder.
There was also one particular exchange between a Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts and one of the witnesses which I guess will be taken out of context... along with a similar exchange between Congresswoman Norton - who represents Washington D.C. in Congress - and Mark Thompson, one of the witnesses.
Were "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" to watch the full hearings with me... straight through from beginning to end with no interruptions other than ourselves deciding where and when to pause the hearings and discuss what we'd heard... I'm confident that he'd see what I see. I'm confident that most people would!
Here's the thing, though: The reality is that perhaps a few tens of thousands of regular American citizens... hundreds of thousands, tops... will actually get their information directly and absent the media filter.
Those who watch Fox and listen to conservative talk radio and read conservative publications will come away knowing what I've known all along - that Benghazi was a tragedy of epic proportions not simply because four Americans died - including a U.S. Ambassador - and because a U.S. consulate was burnt to the ground... but more so because this administration's incompetence was clearly a huge factor "allowing" the successful attack, and worse, after the tragedy this administration choose to lie and cover-up their incompetence prior to 9/11/12 and continue and expand their cover-up efforts both during and after the actual terrorist strike.
Folks... understand... while the lies and the cover-up attempts were and are contemptible and worthy of political and legal action up to and including impeachment, what's at the heart of the tragedy are the lost lives of our personnel.
Obama and Clinton chose not to attempt to rescue the initial survivors of the attack... the ones who were later killed.
Anyway... more on the hearings as they transpire.
I'll do my Benghazi newsbiting here - at least for today and perhaps for the next few days and even beyond.
Keep checking the comments section.
Non-Benghazi newsbiting will continue per usual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/fourth-benghazi-witness-gagged-by-red-tape/
Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistle-blower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.
The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.
Toensing’s client will not be able to testify at public or closed-door hearings because he or she has not been able to prepare classified testimony with the aid of a lawyer, Toensing told The Daily Caller.
Toensing, who previously held top-level security clearances while working as a Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism unit, has asked government officials to update her past clearances to let her work with her client. But the officials initially refused to provide her with the needed forms, she said.
Officials have now provided a 42-page security clearance form, which Toensing filled out and returned, she told TheDC. But the form is only for a basic security clearance, not a “top secret” clearance, she said.
That’s “not sufficient,” she said.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/benghazi-hearing-witness-says-state-dept-told-him-not-to-mee
Deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya Gregory Hicks testified Wednesday that he was told not [to] personally meet with a congressman sent to investigate the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.
The star witness at Wednesday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi said that a top State Department official called him after he met with a congressional delegation demanding a report from the meeting - upset that a State Department lawyer was not present. "I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission — me — to be personally interviewed," said Gregory Hicks, the fomer Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attack.
Hicks said that was the first time administration lawyers had told him not to talk to a congressional delegation, and that a lawyer attempted to be present during the meeting.
"We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz," Hicks said again later in the hearing.
Mr. Hicks said a State Department lawyer accompanied the congressional delegation and attempted to be in every single meeting Hicks was involved in.
Hicks [also] said that he was interviewed by a State Department Accountability Review Board assigned to investigate the attack, but was not allowed to read the classified report ARB produced.
* REMEMBER THAT ACRONYM, FOLKS... "ARB BOARD" - ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW BOARD REPORT. (IT COMES UP A LOT DURING THE HEARINGS!)
Hicks also said that Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's chief of staff (who Ohio Rep. Jordan referred to as Clinton's "fixer" while questioning Hicks) had attempted to monitor the meeting between Hicks and the delegation consisting of Rep. Jason Chaffetz. "The phone call from that senior of a person is generally speaking not considered good news," Hicks said.
Hicks said that Mills "demanded a report on the visit."
Spokespeople for the State Department didn't immediately return a request for comment about Hicks' claims.
Hicks also said that during a phone call with Beth Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, he had asked Jones why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice had said the Benghazi attack stemmed from a demonstration. Jones said that she didn't know, according to Hicks. "The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning," Hicks added.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347754/hicks-special-forces-furious-upon-being-told-stand-down
According to Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya, special forces were “furious” when they were told to stand down during the Benghazi attack. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” Hicks told the House Oversight Committee in hearings today, “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”
* AND HERE'S THE DEAL, FOLKS... EVEN AFTER TODAY'S HEARINGS... WE DON'T KNOW WHO... WE DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL... WHO NIXED A RESCUE ATTEMPT. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOME GENERAL... BUT I'M GUESSING EVENTUALLY SOME GENERAL OR ADMIRAL WILL BE DESIGNATED THE FALL GUY. BUT HERE'S THE DEAL: DID SOME GENERAL OR ADMIRAL MAKE THE DECISION BY HIMSELF... ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY... OR WAS THE DECISION "REVIEWED" BY PANETTA... CLINTON... ULTIMATELY OBAMA... AND THEN NOT OVER-RIDDEN?
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347683/benghazi-eight-months-later
Congress has learned that both Ambassador Stevens and his predecessor made repeated requests for additional security during the spring and summer of 2012. Most notably, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable to the State Department on August 15, 2012, expressly requesting additional security because the Benghazi consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack.
The requests were denied...
(*SILENCE*)
...but Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed in congressional testimony that Defense could have provided all the needed security if State had requested it.
Strikingly, Chairman Dempsey admitted he “would call myself surprised” that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton testified that she did not know about that cable at the time of the attacks.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
We also know that the State Department made no request for additional security from the Defense Department in Benghazi in the weeks leading up to September 11, 2012, despite knowing that the Red Cross and the United Kingdom had both withdrawn from the city because of the deteriorating security situation — not to mention the obvious significance of the anniversary of September 11, 2001.
Worse, we have been told that no military assets were in a position to respond during the seven-plus hours of the attacks. (But, as Chairman Dempsey testified, had additional support been requested before the attack, Defense would have provided it, and it could have saved lives.)
* AND, AGAIN... FORGET "PRE-POSITIONING" EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNITS; THE TRUTH IS THAT SPECIAL OPERATIONS PERSONNEL IN TRIPOLI WERE ORDERED TO "STAND DOWN" AND THAT WE HAD FORCES IN ITALY WHICH COULD HAVE RESPONDED WITHIN HOURS OF THE INITIAL ATTACK UPON OUR CONSULATE. PLUS... AS I'VE NOTED AGAIN AND AGAIN... OBAMA COULD HAVE OFFICIALLY REQUESTED ALLIED SUPPORT - TURKEY... SAUDI ARABIA... ISRAEL.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
The attack began at 3:42 p.m. EDT. We know that President Obama received a single 10- to 15- minute briefing on the Benghazi attack from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman Dempsey at 5:00 p.m., during his regularly scheduled briefing. But we also know that the president had no subsequent discussions with either the secretary or the chairman for the duration of the attack.
* BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT IS A PIECE OF SHIT.
Seven and a half hours after the attack commenced, at 11:15 pm EDT, sustained mortar fire killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
* THEIR BLOOD IS ON OBAMA'S HANDS.
Neither the secretary nor the chairman had any discussions with the president at that time, or throughout the remainder of the night.
* WHAT KIND OF WHITE HOUSE... WHAT KIND OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH... WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENCY OPERATES LIKE THIS...?!?!
Moreover, the president had no contact with any member of the government of Libya for the duration of the attacks.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
We know that during the duration of the attacks, neither Secretary Panetta nor Chairman Dempsey slept; both remained at the Pentagon throughout the night. But neither the secretary nor the chairman knows if the president slept while our people were under attack.
* AND NOW WE'RE BACK WITH WHO NIXED THE RESCUE MISSION? SOME GENERAL OR ADMIRAL ON HIS OWN? FOLKS... OBVIOUSLY IF PENETTA AND DEMPSEY WERE AWAKE ALL NIGHT THIS MEANS THEY WERE AWAKE ALL NIGHT AND IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH OUR TOP MILITARY. AS LONG AS PANETTA WAS IN THE LOOP HE HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A DECISION - OR - TO WAKE UP OBAMA AND HAVE HIM MAKE IT. AGAIN... NO MERE GENERAL OR ADMIRAL NIXED A RESCUE ATTEMPT WITHOUT PANETTA KNOWING... NOT IF HE WAS UP ALL NIGHT "RUNNING" THE SITUATION.
* AND HILLARY...??? WHERE WAS THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS HER CONSULATE AND HER PERSONNEL WERE UNDER ASSAULT?
While the president was missing in action, there was confusion among the relevant cabinet officers as to who was in charge of coordinating the response from Washington.
* FOLKS... I JUST LAID IT OUT! THIS REPORT SAYS PANETTA WAS THE SENIOR CIVILIAN LEADER "RUNNNG" CRISIS RESPONSE.
But we know that from the beginning to the end of the attacks, neither Secretary Panetta nor Chairman Dempsey had any conversation whatsoever with Secretary Clinton.
* YOU'RE READING THIS, RIGHT? YOU'RE FUCKING READING THIS - RIGHT...?!?!
We also know that in the aftermath of the attacks, the Benghazi compound remained unsecured — and media reporters were able to access confidential documents — for 23 days because the State Department did not request Defense’s assistance in securing the site.
We know from their congressional testimony that according to the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of national intelligence, because the attack on the annex employed rocket-propelled grenades and sustained mortar shelling, there was “no question” at the time that the events in Benghazi were terrorist attacks.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/08/pentagon-explains-use-of-forces-in-benghazi/
U.S. Defense officials released a detailed account of their response to the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks on Wednesday, continuing to insist U.S. military forces were not in position to launch a rapid intervention.
* AREN'T "U.S. DEFENSE OFFICIALS" BY DEFINITION POLITICAL APPOINTEES OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND POLITICAL SUPPORTERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION IN MOST CASES?
* BTW... NAMES, FOLKS... LET'S HAVE SOME NAMES!
“The fact remains, as we have repeatedly indicated, that U.S. military forces could not have arrived in time to mount a rescue of those Americans who were killed and injured,” said George Little, the Pentagon press secretary.
* A PRESS SECRETARY PASSES ON INFORMATION... "GEORGE LITTLE" IS NOT THE SORT OF "NAME" WE NEED IN ORDER TO HOLD INDIVIDUAL "OFFICIALS" RESPONSIBLE.
* BY THE WAY, FOLKS... WOULDN'T YOU THINK A COMPETENT PENTAGON... A COMPETENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION... WOULD MAKE SURE THERE ARE FORCES "NEAR AT HAND" TO ALL EASILY IDENTIFIABLE "TROUBLE SPOTS" EACH AND EVERY YEAR ON S*E*P*T*E*M*B*E*R E*L*E*V*E*N*T*H...?!?!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
Once the attacks began, after 9:40 p.m., U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli organized a four-member quick reaction force to go to Benghazi. Two members of a Department of Defense special mission unit joined the reaction force, and the team left for Benghazi about 12:30 a.m., said defense officials.
* YOU KNOW WHAT... THREE HOURS (NEARABOUT) IS JUST TOO FUCKING LONG! IMAGINE... YOU GET A CALL THAT YOUR WIFE OR DAUGHTER WAS JUST TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL... ARE YOU GOING TO WAIT FOR ALMOST THREE HOURS BEFORE HOPING IN YOUR CAR?
* OH... IT'S NOT A CAR... IT'S A FLIGHT! OK! BUT HERE'S THE SCENARIO THEN! YOU HAVE YOUR OWN PRIVATE PLANE SITTING ON A TARMAC AT A NEARBY AIRPORT. HOW LONG BETWEEN THE INITIAL CALL YOU'VE GOTTEN TILL YOU'RE "WHEELS UP" IN YOUR PLANE?
* HEY... DON'T GET ME WRONG... I APPROVE OF THE SENDING OF THE SIX "SHOOTERS" FROM TRIPOLI TO BENGHAZI... BUT WHERE'S THE REST OF "THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN?" WITHIN MINUTES OF THE INITIAL 9:40 P.M. ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROTOCOLS SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO EFFECT AND MORE A "ROBUST" RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERED!
Separately, a team of four Army Green Berets, in Tripoli on a training mission, were helping in an evacuation begun in response to threats there - in Tripoli.
* BUT OUR TRIPOLI EMBASSY WASN'T UNDER ATTACK. PLUS... IN TRIPOLI WE HAD ALLIED NATIONS WHO ALSO HAD EMBASSIES THERE AND DEFENSE FORCES WHO COULD HAVE COME TO OUR TRIPOLI EMBASSY HAD THAT COME UNDER ATTACK. ALL OF OUR "SHOOTERS" SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO BENGHAZI!
* NOW... KEEP READING... HERE COMES THE NIXING OF ADDITIONAL SUPPORT...
As the evacuation in Tripoli continued, a Libyan C-130 transport plane in Tripoli began preparing to go to Benghazi to pick up evacuated survivors to fly them to Tripoli, according to the Pentagon.
In testimony Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the former No. 2 official at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli said he asked the team leader of the four Green Berets to go Benghazi as further reinforcement.
“People in Benghazi had been fighting all night,” said the official, Gregory Hicks. “They were exhausted.”
Mr. Hicks testified that the team’s leader wanted to go to Benghazi, and defense officials said the team leader called the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command in Africa. The officer told commanders that the movement of personnel in Tripoli was complete and that they intended to go to Benghazi aboard the Libyan C-130, according to Pentagon officials.
* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...
However, the Special Operations Command in Africa ordered the team to remain in Tripoli, saying that the mission in Benghazi at that point had shifted from a rescue operation to an evacuation.
* WHO! A "COMMAND" IS NOT A "WHO." WHO GAVE THE ORDER?! WHICH INDIVIDUAL GAVE THE ORDER?! DID HE GIVE THE ORDER ABSENT BUCKING THE QUESTION UP TO PANETTA...? (YOU REMEMBER... PANETTA... aka "UP ALL NIGHT LEON!") I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT - CAN ANY OF YOU? WHAT DID PANETTA KNOW... WHEN DID HE KNOW IT... WHAT DID HE DO AND WHAT DIDN'T HE DO...?!?! THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Mr. Hicks also said he worked to get the U.S. military to send fighter jets to Libya, and said he spoke with the embassy’s defense attaché about Pentagon help. Hicks testified [under oath that] he was told by the attaché that it would take two or three hours for jets to arrive, but even at that, there were no refueling tankers available to help them make the trip.
* TWO TO THREE HOURS... NOT SEVEN... NOT ELEVEN... NOT TWELVE OR THIRTEEN...
* AS FOR THE REFUELING... COULD THE JETS HAVE MADE IT FROM ITALY TO BENGHAZI AND THEN TO THE NEAREST SECURE AIR BASE (TRIPOLI?) WITHOUT REFUELING? IF SO... (*SHRUG*)
* OH... BTW... BACK TO THE "VERACITY" OF "U.S. DEFENSE OFFICIALS"...
[T]op U.S. defense officials testified earlier this year that it would have taken much longer – up to 20 hours — for the closest such fighters, based in Italy, to reach Libya.
* 20 HOURS...???
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* FOLKS... AGAIN... IMAGINE AIRFORCE ONE HAD GONE DOWN IN BENGHAZI. IMAGINE AIRFORCE TWO HAD GONE DOWN IN BENGHAZI. IMAGINE AIRFORCE THREE HAD GONE DOWN IN BENGHAZI. IMAGINE A PLANE CARRYING MICHELLE OBAMA... AND THE OBAMA CHILDREN... HAD GONE DOWN IN BENGHAZI.
(*SHRUG*)
* BTW... THEY PROBABLY HAVE ACTUAL PLANS FOR THESE EVENTUALITIES! CONTINGENCY PLANS! LET'S HOPE SOME SMART CONGRESSMAN LOOKS INTO THIS... LOOKS INTO WHAT IS INDEED OFFICIALLY DEEMED "POSSIBLE" AND WHAT'S NOT.
https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?hc_location=stream
* ANYWAY... FROM SARAH PALIN'S FB PAGE:
Is there any wonder why distrust of arrogant, out-of-touch media is at an all-time high? During today’s Benghazi hearings, the Washington Post actually tweeted: “Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers.”
This would be the same Washington Post that broke the story on Watergate. Now they just mock concerned Americans who want answers to why four brave Americans died, including two distinguished vets.
* YA KNOW... I KNOW AT LEAST ONE OF MY REGULAR READERS HAS PALIN DERANGEMENT SYNDROME... BUT SHE'S RIGHT. DOES ANYONE NOT SEE - AND AGREE - WITH HER POINT?
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324244304578471361393154072.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
* OK... WE'RE NOW ON TO "THURSDAY'S" WSJ - PUBLISHED THIS EVENING... WEDNESDAY:
Miracles happen, and even the sleepy Washington press corps seems to have paid some attention to Wednesday's House hearing on the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission last September in Benghazi.
* NOT JUST "LAST SEPTEMBER"... SEPTEMBER 11, 2013.
What they and the public heard is the beginning of a real accounting for a security failure that killed four Americans. We say "beginning" because the entire story still isn't clear, in particular the roles played by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama before and after the attack.
* YEP... EIGHT MONTHS (AND COUNTING) OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMS IN GENERAL, AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOING THEIR BEST TO MUDDY RATHER THAN CLEAR THE WATERS!
Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Tripoli, recalled his last conversation with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who told him, "Greg, we're under attack." Mr. Hicks said he knew then that Islamists were behind the assault. In other words, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's public claim at the time that an anti-Islam YouTube video spurred the assault was known inside the government to be false when she and White House spokesman Jay Carney said it.
* WHICH IS WHAT I ALWAYS KNEW.
Mr. Hicks said he briefed Mrs. Clinton that night, yet the father of victim Tyrone Woods says [Mrs. Clinton] later told him that the YouTube video maker would be "prosecuted and arrested" - as if he were responsible for Benghazi.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Stranger still, Mrs. Hicks says Mrs. Clinton's then chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, ordered him not to give solo interviews about the attack to a visiting Congressional delegation.
* AN OFFICIAL DELEGATION - REPRESENTING CONGRESS AS A BRANCH, NOT THE GOP CAUCUS.
After Stevens and an aide were killed at the mission, the militias turned on the CIA annex nearby. On the advice of the military attaché in Tripoli, Mr. Hicks said he asked for U.S. fighter planes to fly over the complex in an attempt to scare the attackers away. Libyans had seen U.S. air power during the NATO military intervention in 2011 and might have fled. But Mr. Hicks was told no planes were available. Early the next morning, two Americans died in a mortar attack on the CIA compound.
* OF COURSE PLANES WERE AVAILABLE.
The Pentagon says no F-16s were on call that night, but why not? Why weren't contingency plans in place?
* AGAIN... PLANES WERE AVAILABLE. BUT LET'S JUST PRETEND FOR A MOMENT THAT THEY WEREN'T... IN THAT CASE OF COURSE THE ABOVE QUESTION REGARDING "CONTINGENCY PLANS" REQUIRES AN ANSWER.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
The State Department's supposedly independent review panel said in December that "there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."
* EITHER A LIE... (WHICH COMMON SENSE ALONE SHOULD TELL YOU IT IS)... OR ELSE EVIDENCE OF TOTAL INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF THE OBAMA CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP OF OUR MILITARY.
The review blamed lower level officials for the security failure and didn't even bother to interview Mrs. Clinton.
* DIDN'T... EVEN... BOTHER... TO... INTERVIEW... MRS.... CLINTON...!!!
Mr. Hicks says he was "effectively demoted" after Benghazi from "deputy chief of mission to desk officer."
* WHY...? CAN ANYONE THINK OF ANY REASON OTHER THAN HE WOULDN'T PLAY BALL WITH THE ADMINISTRATION?
Mr. Hicks also revealed that four special forces soldiers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli were ordered by U.S. African command not to join a State team headed to Benghazi.
* REMEMBER WHEN THIS FIRST CAME OUT... MONTHS AGO... AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND THEIR MEDIA ALLIES SUCCESSFULLY LIED THEIR WAY (TEMPORARILY IT NOW SEEMS) OUT OF IT... DENYING THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED? AH... BUT NOW... IT SEEMS AS IF THE TRUTH IS BEING ACKNOWLEDGED EVEN BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
The soldiers were the remaining parts of a 16-member security team that had been pulled from Tripoli the previous month. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey recently told another House panel that the African command stopped no one from aiding those besieged in Benghazi. That contradicts Mr. Hicks's account.
* SOMEONE IS LYING. (YES... DEMPSEY!)
Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations at State, added that he recommended the Administration call on the Foreign Emergency Support Team, which the government calls its "only interagency, on-call, short notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents world-wide." It wasn't on the "menu of options," he was told.
* FOLKS... THIS IS KEY... HOPEFULLY OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS A MEDIA SPOTLIGHT WILL BE SHINED UPON THIS WHOLE "FEST" DEBACLE. (FUNNY... PRIOR TO TODAY'S HEARINGS EVEN I HADN'T BEEN AWARE OF THIS "FEST" ISSUE. WHAT'S THAT TELL YOU?!)
The immediate press spin on Wednesday's hearing is that there was no "smoking gun" proof of a cover-up...
* AS EXPECTED...
* AGAIN, THOUGH... THE MEDIA IS ONLY ABLE TO PUSH THIS TALKING POINT BECAUSE THEY KNOW ALMOST NO ONE ACTUALLY WATCHED THE HEARINGS FROM BEGINNING TO END.
It's clear enough already that senior Administration officials knew in September they had a politically potent debacle on their hands and did their best to delay and obfuscate any accounting.
(*NOD*)
All of this warrants further investigation, and such oversight is part of Congress's job.
* LISTEN... THIS SHOULD HAVE COST OBAMA THE ELECTION. IT DIDN'T BECAUSE THE MEDIA LARGELY COOPERATED WITH THE COVER-UP AND BECAUSE ROMNEY DIDN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO USE THE ISSUE EFFECTIVELY AGAINST OBAMA. IN THAT SENSE BENGHAZI IS "OLD NEWS." BUT GETTING AT THE TRUTH WILL BE ITS OWN REWARD.
* INTERESTING SERIES OF TAKES ON THE SAME STORY...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/08/report-cbs-news-bosses-irked-by-correspondents-thorough-benghazi-reporting-n1591242
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-posts-sharyl-attkisson-piece-163496.html
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/08/where-have-you-gone-sharyl-attkisson/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/08/report-cbs-grumpy-that-sharyl-attkissons-benghazi-scoops-are-wading-dangerously-close-to-advocacy/
* FOUR-PARTER... (Part 1 of 4)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
A veteran diplomat gave a riveting minute-by-minute account on Wednesday of the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, last Sept. 11 and described its contentious aftermath at a charged Congressional hearing that reflected the weighty political stakes perceived by both parties.
* I GIVE THE NYT CREDIT FOR RUNNING THIS STORY ON THE FRONT PAGE "ABOVE THE FOLD," BUT FOUR AMERICANS - INCLUDING A U.S. AMBASSADOR - ARE DEAD AND A CONSULATE BURNED TO THE GROUND. SO, "NO," THIS ISN'T ABOUT "POLITICAL STAKES" - OR AT LEAST IT SHOULDN'T BE.
During a chaotic night at the American Embassy in Tripoli, hundreds of miles away, the diplomat, Gregory Hicks, got what he called “the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life” informing him that Ambassador J. Christopher Steven was dead and that he was now the highest-ranking American in Libya. For his leadership that night when four Americans were killed, Mr. Hicks said in nearly six hours of testimony, he subsequently received calls from both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama.
But within days, Mr. Hicks said, after raising questions about the account of what had happened in Benghazi offered in television interviews by Susan E. Rice, the United Nations ambassador, he felt a distinct chill from State Department superiors. “The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning,” said Mr. Hicks, who has been a Foreign Service officer for 22 years.
He was soon given a scathing review of his management style, he said, and was later “effectively demoted” to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up.
* AGAIN... NOTHING "AGAINST" THE TIMES... BUT SHOWING TOP ADMINISTRATION FIGURES AS PHONY PRICKS IS REALLY BESIDES THE POINT. IT FOCUSES ON PERSONALITIES, NOT PRIORITIES - EXCEPT IN THE SENSE THAT IT SHEDS A LIGHT ON THE "PRIORITY" OF THE OBAMA/CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S DESIRE TO COVER UP WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. (BUT MY POINT IS THAT UNLIKE THE CLICHÉ "IT WAS THE COVER-UP, NOT THE ACT," I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE GROSS INCOMPETENCE SHOWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE ACTUAL TERRORIST ATTACK IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED UPON!)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 4)
If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration’s response to it...
* THERE IT IS, FOLKS! PARAGRAPH SIX! THE TIMES GETS IN IT'S SHOT AFTER "SOFTENING READERS UP" WITH THE FIRST FIVE PARAGRAPHS OF THE STORY - THE FIRST FIVE PARAGRAPHS WHICH REFLECT WELL ON HICKS AND POORLY ON THE ADMINISTRATION. AH... BUT HERE... PARAGRAPH SIX... THE AUTHORS/EDITOR WEDGE IN THE MAIN "POINT" THAT THEY WANT READERS TO "GET" - NAMELY... "...THE TESTIMONY DID NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHALLENGE THE FACTS..."
(*SNORT*)
* HUH...??? OF COURSE IT DID! THE TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT FROM MOMENT ONE THE ADMINISTRATION KNEW THAT BENGHAZI WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK AND NOT A "DEMONSTRATION" OVER A YOUTUBE VIDEO THAT "GOT OUT OF HAND" AND YET FROM DAY ONE AND CONTINUING FOR MANY DAYS - MOST DAMNINGLY REFERENCED BY SUSAN RICE'S PATHETIC LIES - THE ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO SELL A FALSE TALE!
* WHETHER OR NOT "THE AUTHORITIES" NIXED A RESCUE ATTEMPT! THE HEARINGS RESULTED IN TESTIMONY - SWORN TESTIMONY - THAT THEY DID! ALL ALONG THE ADMINISTRATION HAD SAID THEY DIDN'T... THAT THEY DID ALL THEY COULD...
* DETAILS LIKE WHETHER IT WOULD TAKE 20 HRS (RIDICULOUS!) TO GET FIGHTER JETS OVER BENGHAZI AS THE ADMINISTRATION CLAIMED WERE CONTRADICTED BY HICKS AND HIS FELLOW STATE DEPARTMENT WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO UNDER OATH SWORE THAT THE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON THE GROUND (THE COLONEL...) GAVE THEM A TIMELINE OF 2-3 HOURS!
* AND ON AND ON AND ON...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 3 of 4)
Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration. When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
“So this goes right to the person next to Secretary of State Clinton. Is that accurate?” asked Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Hicks responded, “Yes, sir.”
* AN "UNBECOMING VIEW." (*SNORT*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*) YEP... THIS IS HOW THE TIMES WORKS... SUBTLE BUT EFFECTIVE. (YOU'VE HEARD OF "DAMNING WITH FAINT PRAISE"? CALL THIS "OPENING THE DOOR TO FORGIVENESS VIA FAINT DAMNING.")
The accounts from Mr. Hicks and two other officials, Mark I. Thompson, the former deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau, and Eric Nordstrom, an official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security who had testified previously, added some detail to accounts of the night of Sept. 11 in Benghazi.
(*SMIRK*)
* IT'S BEEN EIGHT MONTHS... WHY SHOULD WE NEED WHISTLEBLOWERS TO "ADD SOME DETAIL" AT THIS POINT? WHY HASN'T THE ADMINISTRATION PROACTIVELY TOLD US EVERYTHING THE WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE TOLD US? WHY ARE THERE TODAY SO MANY QUESTIONS LEFT?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 4 of 4)
The hearing offered a compelling, often emotional view from the ground, where officials were desperate for a rescue mission. Mr. Hicks described his exchange with the furious leader of a four-member Special Operations team that wanted to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to help but was told not to.
* WHICH CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION LIES CONCERNING THIS "NIXING" OF A RESCUE ATTEMPT/REINFORCEMENT!
Mr. Thompson wanted to see his Foreign Emergency Support Team sent to the scene and could not understand why his superiors did not agree.
* HE WAS ACTUALLY KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP! DELIBERATE KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP!
* BTW, FOLKS... NOTE... STILL NO ACTUAL NAMES OF THOSE WHO NIXED RESCUE/REINFORCEMENT ATTEMPTS...
But from the more detached standpoint of senior officials in Washington — offered in statements from the Defense Department and the State Department — neither unit could have reached Benghazi in time.
* ONCE AGAIN THE TIMES SUBTLY REINFORCES ADMINISTRATION TALKING POINTS... TALKING POINTS THAT WERE EFFECTIVELY CONTRADICTED BY YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY UNDER OATH... TALKING POINTS THAT NEVER BORE THE SCRUTINY OF COMMON SENSE ANALYSIS!
The emergency support team would have deployed from the United States and would have arrived many hours after the last Americans were evacuated from Benghazi.
* HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE TIMES REGURGITATION OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TALKING POINTS: AT THE TIME THE EMERGENCY SUPPORT TEAMS WOULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED WE STILL HAD PEOPLE IN BENGHAZI ACTUALLY UNDER ATTACK...!!! AT THE TIME HELP WAS REFUSED NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA WHETHER SENDING HELP WOULD HAVE LED TO THEIR RESCUE...!!! THE NYT REPORTERS AND EDITOR OF THIS PIECE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!
The three witnesses challenged both the Obama administration’s initial version of events — long ago withdrawn — and its claim to have exhaustively investigated the attacks.
* YA GOTTA LUV THE TIMES! "LONG AGO WITHDRAWN." YEAH... LIKE THEY GET CREDIT FOR ADMITTING EACH LIE AS IT'S UNCOVERED. (*SNORT*) NICE TRY...
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101.html
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.
You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail today if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.
In the weeks after the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration claimed the terrorist assault had been the outgrowth of a demonstration against the Nakoula video.
* YOU WANNA QUIBBLE WITH THE WORD "CLAIMED?" REALLY...??? OK... HOW'BOUT "STRONGLY INFERRED?" HOW'BOUT "GAVE EVERY IMPRESSION OF BELIEVING?" PERHAPS "LED WITH THE ASSUMPTION...?!?!"
The administration ran public service announcements in Pakistan featuring President Barack Obama saying the U.S. had nothing to do with [the YouTube video].
In a speech at the United Nations around this time, the president declared — no doubt with Nakoula in mind — “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
After Benghazi, the administration was evidently filled with a fierce resolve — to bring Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to justice.
Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son’s body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
* YEP. NEWSIBITED THIS YESTERDAY! THESE BASTARDS (OR THIS BITCH IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE) EVEN TRIED TO TELL THE FAMILIES OF THOSE MURDERED BY TERRORISTS IN BENGHAZI THAT A YOUTUBE VIDEO WAS TO BLAME... NOT THEM... NOT THEIR INCOMPETENCE... NOT THEIR ACTIONS AND LACK OF ACTIONS THAT SET THE STAGE FOR A SUCCESSFUL TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST OUR PEOPLE AND PROPERTY IN BENGHAZI.
* YES... RE-READ THE ABOVE! THINK ABOUT IT... REALLY THINK ABOUT IT...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
Lo and behold, Nakoula was brought in for questioning by five Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies at midnight, eventually arrested and held without bond, and finally thrown into jail for a year. He sits in La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas right now, even as the deceptive spin that blamed his video for the Benghazi attack looks more egregious by the day.
Two things must be said about Nakoula upfront. One is that his video, made with an $80,000 budget, can barely be called a video. Even Lindsay Lohan would hesitate to appear in it. The thing is low-down, low-rent, and should be offensive, not just to Muslims, but to all people of goodwill.
(*NOD*)
The second is that he has a history of fraud. A few years ago, he was sentenced to nearly two years in jail on bank fraud charges. He has more aliases than P. Diddy. Using a false name, Nakoula gulled actors into appearing in his video on the pretense that it was a desert epic and then went in afterward and dubbed in the anti-Muhammad lines. He is not going to win any good citizenship awards and violated the terms of his probation by using an alias (something Nakoula admits).
(*NOD*)
A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards.
* AND EVEN THEN... (SPEAKING OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LINDSAY LOHAN...)
This wasn’t a case of nailing Al Capone on tax evasion. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute points out, Al Capone’s underlying offense was racketeering and gangland killings. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.
* YOU KNOW... LIKE BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG... LIKE CHRIST IN URINE...
(*SMIRK*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Nakoula's case has symbolic significance in the ongoing battle over whether the Muslim world will embrace modernity, and the panoply of freedoms associated with it, or whether it will continue to slide backward by adopting blasphemy laws punishing expressions deemed offensive to Islam. The administration has been dismayingly willing to accommodate the latter tendency.
(*NOD*)
Nakoula’s jail time appears indistinguishable from what the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, devoted to pushing blasphemy laws around the world, calls “deterrent punishment” for “Islamophobia.”
(*SHRUG*)
His video, which did spark violent protests in the Muslim world by the kind of people who are looking for an excuse to protest, should have been an object lesson in freedom. Obama should have explained that our culture is full of disreputable film directors and producers. (Some of them are even honored by the Academy.)
(*RUEFUL GRIN*)
Instead, Nakoula ended up the patsy in a tawdry coverup. The State Department Operations Center reported to Washington immediately that the Benghazi attack was an assault carried out by Islamic militants. The falsehoods about Benghazi weren’t a product of the fog of war; they were the product of the fog of politics. Desperate to minimize the attack and deflect responsibility, Team Obama evaded and obsfucated.
* ONE... MORE... TIME:
The falsehoods about Benghazi weren’t a product of the fog of war; they were the product of the fog of politics. Desperate to minimize the attack and deflect responsibility, Team Obama evaded and obsfuscated.
Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard notes that even the politicized anodyne talking points left over after the administration’s spinmiesters had thoroughly edited the CIA’s original talking points about Benghazi didn’t mention the Nakoula video. During her infamous Sunday show circuit, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice nonetheless said, “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.”
* ONE... MORE... TIME:
Susan Rice nonetheless said, “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.”
* AND NO ONE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION CALLED TO CORRECT THE RECORD...
* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... EVERY "CORRECTION" MADE BY THIS BUNCH WAS MADE ON AFTER THEY GOT CAUGHT! THE LIES WERE BETS THAT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT! THEY DIDN'T! (OR DID THEY...??? IF ONE IS EXPOSED MAINLY TO THE LIES AND EVEN THOSE ARE SOFT-PEDDLED BY THE MSM...) (*SHRUG*)
Very few people have been willing to stick up for Nakoula (with “Instapundit” Glenn Reynolds a prominent and dogged exception). Nakoula’s character is sketchy and his work is execrable. Yet the First Amendment applies to him all the same, even if he might have reason to doubt it as he serves out a sentence that never would have come about if he hadn’t offended the wrong people.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/050913-655410-benghazi-hearing-gregory-hicks-libya-whistleblowers.htm?p=full
The most over-used trick of Barack Obama's reign of error in Washington is whenever something adverse happens, just ignore it. Keep on talking happy and with a complicit, or at best lazy capitol media corps, the problem will eventually melt away.
Remember all those new jobs that almost $1 trillion of stimulus was going to create by the hundreds of thousands any month now? That was 2009. We're still waiting. And as recently as last weekend Obama is still claiming that job creation is his top priority.
The budget deficit Obama was going to halve? It's been $1 trillion-plus each year.
The spending cuts that really, truly are necessary to get our national debt under control? It's grown by $6 trillion-plus under this guy. Print some more money[!]
The score of green energy projects run by Obama pals with taxpayer underwriting that went bankrupt? Hey, well at least we tried.
The gun-running scheme into Mexico by federal agents under Eric Holder? Well, he didn't know about it.
The single stench that's stuck is the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate when four Americans were killed... perhaps because it strikes at the moral core of many Americans that we don't leave countrymen to die without at least trying to help.
Can anyone forget the searing images on that first 9/11 of those heavily-laden New York firefighters jogging up the World Trade Center stairwells to their doom as the towers' civilian occupants fled downstairs?
And what's our image of the Benghazi attack on that eleventh 9/11/12? The American compound burning while terrorists in T-shirts brandish AK-47's in triumph. The limp body of Ambassador Chris Stevens being dragged around.
Obama et al have done everything in their power to minimize that event, to let it melt away to wherever lethal embarrassments go. [But] now, finally, thanks to our two-party system of checks and balances and the courage of a handful of whistle-blowers, we're beginning to get a full account of what really happened that awful night.
It's not pretty.
In fact, it's sadly sordid.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Three men directly involved that night testified before the House Oversight Committee Wednesday. The most compelling testimony came from Gregory Hicks, a top-rated career diplomat who became embassy head on Stevens' death. Here's some of what we've learned:
The Benghazi consulate was totally unsecured and unprepared, despite area terrorist attacks and months-long urgings of security personnel and Stevens himself.
In fact, a month before 9/11, when two security personnel used their weapons to fight off terrorist carjackers, most of the Special Ops security forces were ordered out of the country.
The first and last contact Hicks in Tripoli had with Stevens that night was an interrupted cellphone call in which the ambassador said, "Greg, we're under attack!" No mention of any protest demonstration.
A special joint team of FBI-CIA-Defense-State crisis experts was ordered not to deploy to Benghazi.
Twelve hours after the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo was stormed, no contingency military forces were prepared to assist there or anywhere else in the region. The nearest F-16's in Italy were not even on alert and had no refueling tankers nearby.
As the four remaining Special Ops troops in-country boarded a Libyan C-130 to rush to help in Benghazi, someone ordered their colonel to stand down.
* AND AS OF TODAY - EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE FACT AND A DAY AFTER THE LATEST BENGHAZI HEARING - WE STILL DON'T HAVE A NAME... WE DON'T KNOW WHO THAT "SOMEONE" - OR "SOMEONES" - IS!
Five days later Hicks was "stunned" (his word!) to see U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows blaming the attack on angry reaction to an obscure online anti-Islam video.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
From Minute One every official American in Libya knew the attack was terrorist, as did a high-level email circulating in the State Department on 9/12 - four days before those infamous TV shows.
When Hicks (who was not consulted for Rice's talking points) reminded State execs the embassy never reported one word about video protests and inquired where that explanation came from, he was instructed to drop that line of questioning.
Hicks, who received calls of praise from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama himself, has since been sentenced to a desk job.
Remember back in 2007-08 in their bruising primary battles when Clinton questioned Obama's readiness for that 3 a.m. crisis call?
* SEEMS LIKE NEITHER OBAMA NOR CLINTON WERE READY FOR THE CALL!
Obama has had himself photographed firmly atop other national security events like the whacking of Osama bin Laden. The Democrat held a brief Rose Garden photo op on Benghazi the next morning before rushing off to fundraisers in Las Vegas. We know he and Clinton both blamed the offensive video for weeks after they knew that line was phony.
(*NOD*)
What we don't know is where the hell was the commander-in-chief all-night while two former SEALs, a communications specialist and the first U.S. ambassador in three decades were being murdered on-duty six time zones away.
* APPARENTLY HE WAS SLEEPING. (THOUGH THAT WASN'T THE IMPRESSION THE WHITE HOUSE WAS GIVING PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION...)
We do know that then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta claims Obama instructed him in the early evening of 9/11 to do everything necessary to protect Americans and embassies abroad.
* AND THEN... OBAMA JUST WENT TO BED? WASHED HIS HANDS OF THE MATTER? WAS NEVER CALLED UPON TO MAKE A FURTHER DECISION - PERHAPS THE DECISION NOT TO SEND THE REMAINING SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIERS IN TRIPOLI BACK TO BENGHAZI? WE JUST DON'T KNOW! NOR DO WE KNOW WHO NIXED FURTHER RESCUE ATTEMPTS AND THE DISPATCH OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FROM ITALY.
We also know now that "everything" wasn't really ANYTHING at all.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/failings_of_bam_hill_laid_bare_YqHEWk4oNvmfD7eACUM4BJ
Team Obama knew.
After a remarkable House hearing yesterday, we can say this with almost complete certainty: The Obama administration knew perfectly well that last year’s Sept. 11 attack on Americans and American facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist act — yet chose to characterize it falsely as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam YouTube video.
Team Obama knew.
But Team Obama also knew there had been protests in Egypt around the embassy there that had been staged in response to the YouTube video. And at some point in the days that followed, the administration decided to conflate the two events and assign blame for the attack in Benghazi on the video.
It sent out UN Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 16 to say, as she did on CBS’s Sunday chat show, “Our assessment as of the present is . . . what began spontaneously in Benghazi [was] a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo.”
We don’t know why the Obama administration chose to do this. We can speculate. We can guess it did so because it had developed a story line for the 2012 election in which al Qaeda was dead, and this muddied that story line.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/09/internal-benghazi-review-clinton-obama/
The internal State Department "Accountability" Review Board report being touted by the White House as an “unsparing” investigation into the Benghazi response actually completely spared the two individuals whose actions Republicans want to know about most: President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
There is no mention in the report of the what Clinton or Obama did related to Benghazi.
* HERE'S THE THING, THOUGH:
Accountability Review Boards are part of statutory State Department process that is not legally permitted to investigate the president.
(*SHRUG*)
It’s not even clear that an Accountability Review Board is permitted to probe the Secretary of State.
The purview of a Review Board covers “employees” of the State Department who could be subject to discipline by the Secretary of State, who presumably would not be tasked to discipline herself.
* HERE'S THE POINT, FOLKS: THE INTERNAL STATE DEPARTMENT "ACCOUNTABILITY" REVIEW BOARD REPORT WAS PART OF THE COVER-UP. CRITIQUE A FEW MID-LEVEL CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS... IGNORE THE ACTIONS - AND INACTIONS - OF THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKERS; FEED THE PUBLIC THE "UNSPARING INVESTIGATION" LINE AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.
* INDEED... THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO PLAY THIS SAME HAND! (READ ON!)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Wednesday suggested the Review Board report exculpates Clinton.
From the briefing:
Question: So the White House is confident that Hillary Clinton acted appropriately throughout this process?
MR. CARNEY: We are. And I think I would point you to the Accountability Review Board and what,,, (Trails off/Interrupted)
Question: Which didn’t... (Trails off)
MR. CARNEY: I think I would point you to the report put out. I would point you to what the two heads of that board, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen — each highly praised by both sides of the aisle for their long, distinguished careers — put out in a statement this week: “From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything, including all of the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that is what we did.”
(*SMIRK*)
MR. CARNEY: Again, this is an unsparing report done by two career professionals, nonpartisan career professionals, that contain within it very serious recommendations, found shortcomings that needed to be corrected, and the State Department acted immediately on that.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
But there is no evidence Pickering and Mullin ever talked to Clinton - or that they even sought to.
Carney dodged a question about whether Obama was interviewed by the Review Board.
Question: On the question of the Accountability Review Board, you keep saying it was unsparing and you said they had unfettered access. Did Admiral Mullen and Mr. Pickering interview the President about what he did on the night of September 11th?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I will point you to what Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering said and what the report said, beginning with the fact that — this is useful here. The Accountability Review Board investigation, headed by, as I said, two of the most respected, non-partisan leaders in Washington, found that the interagency response was timely and appropriate and “helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans.”
* IT NEVER STOPS, FOLKS... IT JUST NEVER STOPS...
Note that this is a classic case of press secretary spin, in which the answer contains a litany of facts wholly unrelated to the question and designed to draw attention away from the fact that the press secretary is not addressing the issue that was raised.
In this case, Carney was successful. There was no follow up.
* THERE'S A VIDEO OF THE EXCHANGE. JUST CLICK THE ABOVE LINK TO GET TO IT.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.hughhewitt.com/mark-steyns-analysis-of-benghazi-hearings-wednesday/
* INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT... WORTH READING...
* SOME TEASERS:
The United States government, the highest level of the United States government, lied to the American people in the immediate hours, and for weeks afterwards, about the death of this ambassador. That is a serious business. And the Democrats and Republicans alike, and ordinary citizens, need to think about whether they’re willing to go along with that lie, because to do so is to be complicit in it. And that’s not a healthy sign for a democratic republic.
* AGREED. (AND THEY'RE STILL LYING...!!!)
[T]his was a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that had literally sustained two previous attacks leading up to 9/11. It still had inadequate security for reasons that remain unclear. And those security assets were actually denied when they were asked for. Why? We don’t know.
[T]here were people under fire, our countrymen, including a U.S. ambassador and former Navy SEALs, under fire for hours in Benghazi, and yet no resources, militarily, were deployed for eight hours to save them. We don’t know why or who made those decisions.
All the players involved in this are Democrats. Chris Stevens is in fact the poster boy for the Obama-Clinton view of the Arab Spring. He’s one of their guys. [H]e was in large part deluded about the nature of the Arab Spring [though] he was a personally courageous and brave man who was on the front line of the Obama-Clinton narrative about the Arab Spring. And they let him die. And then told lies over his coffin. And Democrats... liberals... should ask themselves about that - if they are willing to. [N]o right wingers, no Republicans, no conservatives are involved in this. They did that to one of their own.
[T]he local militia...to whom the security of these guys was entrusted were actually complicit in the attacks. Elements of the militia participated in the attacks. His body, the dying ambassador, was taken to a hospital in the control of one of the radical Islamic groups.
[Stevens] was there in Benghazi on a symbolic day at the personal request of Senator Clinton.
* HAS THIS BEEN ESTABLISHED? HAS THE ADMINISTRATION COPPED TO THIS? WHY WAS HE THERE THAT DAY? WHAT'S THE OFFICIAL STORY AND WHAT'S BEEN SWORN TO UNDER OATH? ARE RUMORS THAT STEVENS WAS OUR POINT MAN RUNNING GUNS TO THE SYRIAN REBELS OUT OF BENGHAZI TRUE...??? THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS WE NEED TO NAIL DOWN ANSWERS TO!
In a sense, [Stevens and the others] not only died for the Obama-Clinton fiction, [they were] sacrificed to the Obama-Clinton fiction of the Arab Spring. This is absolutely disgraceful. I cannot conceive of how empty and dead you have to be inside to put Ambassador Stevens through that, then leave him to die, and all the nonsense we heard about "oh, they couldn’t have got there in time." Oh, really? You had, it’s like a football match, is it? It’s like a football game, you’ve got an end time, you know they’re all going to pack up and go home at 5:00 in the morning or whatever? They didn’t know how long it was going to last. They left him to die. They decided to let their guy die in the confusion of the stuff happening in Egypt and Tunisia over the stupid no-account video.
* YEP. ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE FROM EVERYTHING WE KNOW AND CAN PIECE TOGETHER.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Hillary Clinton, at the memorial service, literally standing next to the flag-draped coffin of Ambassador Stevens and the other fallen diplomats and ex-SEALs, invoked this video, this YouTube video, which we now know, we suspected for a long time, we had reports for a long time, but now eyewitness testimony saying that was an absolute fraud, and she personally knew it that night, because she was on the other end of a phone call where that exact topic had been discussed. I mean, she literally lied over [Steven's] coffin, and I wanted to drive that home, because it’s sickening.
(*NOD*)
[The Secretary of State] called him Chris. Obama called him Chris. Chris this… no Ambassador Stevens... no Mr. Ambassador... none of that, Chris, Chris, Chris - like he’s, they’re, best buddies. They’ve known each other "all their life." And then [Clinton] tells the families of the dead that they’re going to "get this video maker, and they’re going to put him in jail." And all the time she’s doing that, she knows that is false.
* ...KNOWS THAT BENGHAZI HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIDEO.
And as you say, she got the phone call. The very compelling testimony from Mr. Hicks - the number two guy in Libya. He calls her. He has this conversation with her. Then later, he calls back to leave a message that Chris, "Chris, as Hillary Clinton calls him," Chris, Chris, Chris, is dead. [Steven] is the first ambassador, first American ambassador to die in the line of duty in a quarter century. Clinton doesn’t call back poor old Hicks [who is] on the front line trying to hold down what’s left of the American presence in Libya? She doesn’t call him back that night? She doesn’t call him back the following day?
I think there’s compelling evidence [Hillary Rodham Clinton] actually perjured herself when she testified on [Benghazi].
* YEP. ME TOO.
[The three witnesses who testified at Wednesday's hearing] are career civil servants. They’re the kind of people that if they were saying this kind of stuff about Rumsfeld or Cheney, or George W. Bush, people would be saying these are unimpeachable career diplomats. There is no partisan agenda here. They are lifelong public servants who serve Republicans and Democrats regardless. They weren’t accorded that respect by Democrats yesterday. And yet in a sense, that’s the central fact here. They do not wish to live in the Obama-Clinton lie, as no self-respecting person would. And these pathetic Democrat Congressmen saying oh, there’s nothing new here, it’s all spin, whatever, as I said earlier, Chris Stevens was their man. He was Clinton’s man. He was Obama’s man. And they left him there to die and then in effect produced him in death. And if they’ll do that to him, they’ll do that to all those pathetic nickel and dime Democrat shills on that Committee yesterday. At some point, at some point, at some moments, honor requires you to rise above your pathetic, stunted party political, feeble, reductive view of critical events, and what decency and honor require.
Post a Comment