New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

CBS Face the Nation had an interesting segment this Sunday, in anticipation of the new hearings this week when several State Department employees who were on the ground in Libya will finally testify. This is very interesting because the State Department had pointedly distanced itself from the story that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest, stating that it was “not our conclusion” that the Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video."

Greg Hicks, the second in charge in Libya indicated that "the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows" during which Ambassador Rice contradicted the Libyan President's assertion that the attack did not arise out of a protest. Hicks said Magariaf lost face "in front of not only his own people, but the world" at a time of democratic transition in his country. He added, "I have heard from a friend who had dinner with President Magariaf in New York City that he was still angry at Amb. Rice well after the incident."

We should learn a lot tomorrow about what the witnesses knew, and why their evidence was not included in the Administration's talking points to the American People.

 

[A'isha]

Hicks is also pushing the dumb "stand down order" nonsense that the right-wing echo-chamber has recently pounced all over.

Unfortunately for them, the "US Special Forces" that he says were refused permission to go to Benghazi were all of four guys, and the plane they were ordered to stay off of was the Libyan Air Force C-130 that left Tripoli for Benghazi at 6 or 6:30 AM, after the attacks were all over, and was always intended as an evacuation flight (it was the second such flight - the critically injured were evacuated using the chartered plane that the reinforcements from Tripoli which were sent used to get to Benghazi. The Libyan C-130 was for evacuating the remaining personnel). So, had those four special forces guys actually been on the plane, it would have changed absolutely nothing, since they weren't being sent to fight, wouldn't have made much of a contribution even if they were sent to fight, and in any case wouldn't even have arrived until after everything was long since over and the evacuations from Benghazi were already in progress).

Hicks also makes some rather grandiose "what if" claims about how the attackers would have been scared off by a US Air Force fighter/bomber zooming around overhead, but he himself admits that he was directly informed that the only available fighters F-16's were based at Aviano, Italy (way in the north of Italy), and since none were ready for a mission to Libya it would take a few hours to get them in the air...and even if they did do that, they couldn't reach Benghazi because there were no tankers available for the in-flight refueling the mission would have required.

Hicks' lawyer is one half of the same hyperpartisan duo that demanded a pardon for Scooter Libby, and the one who lied to Congress during the Valerie Plame thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hicks is also pushing the dumb "stand down order" nonsense that the right-wing echo-chamber has recently pounced all over.

Unfortunately for them, the "US Special Forces" that he says were refused permission to go to Benghazi were all of four guys, and the plane they were ordered to stay off of was the Libyan Air Force C-130 that left Tripoli for Benghazi at 6 or 6:30 AM, after the attacks were all over, and was always intended as an evacuation flight (it was the second such flight - the critically injured were evacuated using the chartered plane that the reinforcements from Tripoli which were sent used to get to Benghazi. The Libyan C-130 was for evacuating the remaining personnel). So, had those four special forces guys actually been on the plane, it would have changed absolutely nothing, since they weren't being sent to fight, wouldn't have made much of a contribution even if they were sent to fight, and in any case wouldn't even have arrived until after everything was long since over and the evacuations from Benghazi were already in progress).

Hicks also makes some rather grandiose "what if" claims about how the attackers would have been scared off by a US Air Force fighter/bomber zooming around overhead, but he himself admits that he was directly informed that the only available fighters F-16's were based at Aviano, Italy (way in the north of Italy), and since none were ready for a mission to Libya it would take a few hours to get them in the air...and even if they did do that, they couldn't reach Benghazi because there were no tankers available for the in-flight refueling the mission would have required.

Hicks' lawyer is one half of the same hyperpartisan duo that demanded a pardon for Scooter Libby, and the one who lied to Congress during the Valerie Plame thing.

That was some pretty well done ad hominems!

 

[A'isha]

That was some pretty well done ad hominems!

Which part would be the ad hominem?

 

[The Big Dog]

Which part would be the ad hominem?

Well, the Hicks lawyer one for certain. Don't you agree?

Further, you seem to have associated his testimony with partisans who have seized on it.

Hicks is "pushing" the "dumb stand down order." Really? He was the person ACTUALLY INVOLVED in the discussion.

Hicks makes grandiose claims? He was there and he was asking for help. Upon what basis do you think his testimony is not credible.

Further, you don't appear to dispute that part of his statements in the OP.

 

[A'isha]

Well, the Hicks lawyer one for certain. Don't you agree?

Further, you seem to have associated his testimony with partisans who have seized on it.

That's why it's not an ad hominem. His testimony isn't discredited because of his lawyers, his irrelevant testimony is being pushed as a big deal in Issa's witchhunt hearings because of partisans who have seized on it.

Hicks is "pushing" the "dumb stand down order." Really? He was the person ACTUALLY INVOLVED in the discussion.

Yes, and I explained exactly why he was making a mountain out of a sinkhole. "Special Forces were ordered to stand down and not help in Benghazi!" is a pretty ******** way to say "Four US soldiers were not allowed to accompany the Libyan Air Force evacuation flight sent to Benghazi long after the fighting was over and the wounded had already been taken to Tripoli".

Hicks makes grandiose claims? He was there and he was asking for help. Upon what basis do you think his testimony is not credible.

The fact that the plane the four Special Forces guys were supposedly kept off of didn't actually leave Tripoli until 6 or 6:30 AM, an hour after the two ex-SEALs were killed and after the evacuation of US personnel had already begun. Let's say that those four men were allowed on that Libyan C-130 after all. What were they supposed to do? How would that have changed a single thing about the events of that night?

And the fact that he's trying to make hay out of the fact that no US fighter was sent to Benghazi despite being explicitly told why one wasn't sent, and that reason having nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of stand-down order or reluctance to act.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's why it's not an ad hominem. His testimony isn't discredited because of his lawyers, his irrelevant testimony is being pushed as a big deal in Issa's witchhunt hearings because of partisans who have seized on it.

Hmmmm. So you brought up the lawyers, complete with links, why exactly?

"Witchhunt." Oh dear.

I understand that you are not interested in what Hicks has to say.

 

[RandFan]

The fact that the plane the four Special Forces guys were supposedly kept off of didn't actually leave Tripoli until 6 or 6:30 AM, an hour after the two ex-SEALs were killed and after the evacuation of US personnel had already begun. Let's say that those four men were allowed on that Libyan C-130 after all. What were they supposed to do? How would that have changed a single thing about the events of that night?

And the fact that he's trying to make hay out of the fact that no US fighter was sent to Benghazi despite being explicitly told why one wasn't sent, and that reason having nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of stand-down order or reluctance to act.

16.5, can we get a concession on these facts?

 

[A'isha]

Hmmmm. So you brought up the lawyers, complete with links, why exactly?

Because it's part of a pattern of behavior on the right, trying their level best to make what happened in Benghazi some kind of scandal. Like Fox News' recent interview with an anonymous "expert" who promoted this same bogus nonsense.

I understand that you are not interested in what Hicks has to say.

On the contrary, I'm very interested in what Hicks has to say, because (as I pointed out) his own testimony contradicts the assertions he's making about it.

 

[The Big Dog]

16.5, can we get a concession on these facts?

Those are not "facts." One is hindsight (had they been sent they would have been too late to do anything, a claim that was UNKNOWN at the time).

Q: Now, did any of the Special Forces folks, were they planning at any time to travel on that second aircraft?

A: On the second, on the C-130? Yes. We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum ...

The next sentence says "he is trying to make hay." C'mon.

Can we get a concession on these facts:

Hicks Said:

“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.”

 

[The Big Dog]

Because it's part of a pattern of behavior on the right, trying their level best to make what happened in Benghazi some kind of scandal. Like Fox News' recent interview with an anonymous "expert" who promoted this same bogus nonsense.



On the contrary, I'm very interested in what Hicks has to say, because (as I pointed out) his own testimony contradicts the assertions he's making about it.

Well, it was clearly an ad hominem attack. If you wish to disagree you may do so.

You also said that his own testimony contradicts the assertions he's made about it? I think you are mistaken. The ONLY thing he has said about it is the statements released sunday and monday. You are clearly conflating him with someone else.

 

[A'isha]

You also said that his own testimony contradicts the assertions he's made about it? I think you are mistaken. The ONLY thing he has said about it is the statements released sunday and monday. You are clearly conflating him with someone else.

Yes, and I'm making reference to only that: his admitting to being told that the only available fighters were at Aviano and that there were no tankers which would allow them to fly to Benghazi, his admitting that the C-130 that was supposed to carry these four Special Forces soldiers didn't even leave Tripoli until the Benghazi personnel were already heading for the airport there for evacuation, and so on.

Those are not "facts." One is hindsight (had they been sent they would have been too late to do anything, a claim that was UNKNOWN at the time).

Which is irrelevant, since long before the Libyan C-130 left Tripoli, the decision to evacuate personnel from Benghazi was made. The four Special Forces soldiers were rendered superfluous before they were supposed to have left. That's not hindsight.

essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum

Yes...the available security forces at Embassy Tripoli had already been sent to reinforce Benghazi earlier that night in response to the attack, which is another thing that contradicts the whole "stand down" accusation.

The next sentence says "he is trying to make hay." C'mon.

Yes, because as he himself admits, he was told over and over that they could not send fighters, not that they would not. And yet he tries to play it off as an intentional stand-down ("if the military had allowed a jet to fly over", as the question puts it).

“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.”

And that's not exactly a "new disclosure" - Rice's comments have been commented on and criticised from pretty much the moment she made them six months ago.

 

[RandFan]

Those are not "facts."

I think this thread needs to be moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

 

[bynmdsue]

What difference at this point does it make?

 

[The Big Dog]

And that's not exactly a "new disclosure" - Rice's comments have been commented on and criticised from pretty much the moment she made them six months ago.

Cool.

He doesn't try to play off anything. I understand that you feel it necessary to attack his credibility.

This doesn't make any sense:

Hicks said when asked about the team that was not authorized to get on the plane:

"We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum ... "

You improperly cut off the beginning and then wrote:

"Yes...the available security forces at Embassy Tripoli had already been sent to reinforce Benghazi earlier that night in response to the attack, which is another thing that contradicts the whole "stand down" accusation."

He wasn't talking about Tripoli, and you know it.

In any event, I see that the anti-Hicks talking points are up and running.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this thread needs to be moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

I agree. I see no political/policy discussion coming out of this. It's only CT type of discussion (who knew what; who said what; what is the evidence of whatever is being alleged; etc.).

 

[A'isha]

He doesn't try to play off anything. I understand that you feel it necessary to attack his credibility.

Do you accept that the reason no fighter was sent is because there were no fighters available for a mission over Benghazi, despite the insinuations made by Hicks? Yes or no?

He wasn't talking about Tripoli, and you know it.

Do I? You accuse me of editing the quote, when it's edited on the transcript, so I can't tell what he's referring to there.

I do know, however, that far from there being a "stand down" on assistance to the besieged personnel in Benghazi, the State Department and US military dispatched armed reinforcements to Benghazi from Tripoli just half an hour after the retreat to the CIA Annex (12:30 AM), and even those reinforcements did little good since even though they arrived at the Benghazi airport an hour later, they weren't able to get transportation from the airport to the Annex until right around 5 AM...and barely fifteen minutes after they arrived at the Annex, the mortar attack occurred which killed two of the security personnel, and everyone evacuated back to the airport (arriving just as the Libyan C-130 departed Tripoli, with a number of personnel flying out of Benghazi on the chartered plane that the reinforcements had arrived on before the C-130 even landed).

In any event, I see that the anti-Hicks talking points are up and running.

Then perhaps you can answer my earlier question, about how the events of that night would have been different had those four Special Forces men been on that Libyan C-130 which left Tripoli at 6:30 AM?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What difference at this point does it make?

republicans want to impeach the President and are desperate to find a reason. Beghazi is the closest thing they have.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do I? You accuse me of editing the quote, when it's edited on the transcript, so I can't tell what he's referring to there.

......

Then perhaps you can answer my earlier question, about how the events of that night would have been different had those four Special Forces men been on that Libyan C-130 which left Tripoli at 6:30 AM?

"We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum.

I bolded the part you intentionally deleted.

“We fully intended for those guys to go [to Benghazi] because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” Hicks said. “They were on their way to the vehicles to go to the [Tripoli] 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.’”

To answer your question, it appears that Hicks wanted that group to go to Benghazi because the security presence had already been stripped to the bare minimum there. Why are you second guessing the person who was in charge on the ground?

 

[A'isha]

republicans want to impeach the President and are desperate to find a reason. Beghazi is the closest thing they have.

I think bynmdsue is trying to make a funny based on Secretary of State Clinton's statement before the Republicans' "Is Benghazi a Scandal Yet?" panel back in January.