New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

...can you cite the part of the article that supports your claim that the administration is hiding key witnesses regarding the Benghazi attacks? The word "hide" doesn't even appear on the page in question.

"But they don't know where he is and the Pentagon isn't telling."

The President of course is the Commander in Chief.

I will cheerfully concede that there might be some difference between the use of the word "hide," and "they don't know where he is and the Pentagon is not telling" although I believe that the word chosen fits the situation quite aptly, particularly when I have included a link to the actual article in question so that one may judge for oneself.

 

[A'isha]

Interesting story developing regarding whether the administration is hiding key witnesses regarding the Benghazi attacks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...to-talk-to-col-george-bristol-about-benghazi/

As we've discussed before, fantastic reporting from CBS.

Funny, Sharyl Atkisson (again, no surprise) writes:

Another officer in the chain of command who was interviewed by the House Armed Services Committee in last month's closed session was Lt. Col. Michael Gibson.

Gibson led a team that was on the ground in Tripoli during the attacks. A U.S. diplomat testified the team was stopped from flying to Benghazi to help the Americans who were under attack. That account differed from the Obama administration's original version of events.

Administration officials contend that Gibson's team was stopped from going to Benghazi simply because it was needed more in Tripoli, and that even if it had flown to Benghazi, it wouldn't have made any difference. Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens died in the attacks.

And yet she doesn't seem to think it's worth mentioning that Gibson himself confirmed what "administration officials contend[ed]" and that he contradicted Hicks' (the "US diplomat" she references) testimony about what happened (as you yourself acknowledged upthread).

That strikes me as very poor reporting, actually - ignoring parts of a news story in order to push a particular narrative.

I'm not certain that attacking the source is a substantive argument, but Al Rai is a mainstream, very legitimate news outlet in Kuwait (in fact I believe it is the largest paper in Kuwait). Al Rai published what it claimed to be the entire document in its original Arabic, and was picked up and translated by WND.

So WND claims. But WND (and Aaron Klein, who wrote that piece) are flat-out liars and conspiracy mongers, pushing a wide variety of bizarre and discredited nonsense from hardcore birtherism to the blatant nonsense peddled by Reza "a thousand suitcase nukes" Khalili to claiming that Obama's wedding ring reveals his true allegiance to Islam to peddling the weird eschatology of this book as if it were actual news to promoting "final pope prophecy" garbage (and citing for that article the author of a book that purports to detail "The Vatican's secret plan for the arrival of an alien god" and "The role of Petrus Romanus for the coming Alien Serpent-Savior"!). They even wrote an article about how Ambassador Stevens might have been secretly gay!

WND aren't just unreliable or untrustworthy as a source, they are flat-out insane.

Of course, other newspapers in the Arab world picked up the Al Rai report before it reached English language news services.

Do you have any other source than WND for this?

 

[The Big Dog]

Funny, Sharyl Atkisson (again, no surprise) writes:

And yet she doesn't seem to think it's worth mentioning that Gibson himself confirmed what "administration officials contend[ed]" and that he contradicted Hicks' (the "US diplomat" she references) testimony about what happened (as you yourself acknowledged upthread).

That strikes me as very poor reporting, actually - ignoring parts of a news story in order to push a particular narrative.


Do you have any other source than WND for this?

Actually I did not concede that Gibson contradicted hicks. What we know is that Gibson was ready willing and able to go to benghazi, and was not permitted to go. That was exactly what hicks said. That was what Gibson said.

Yes I have a source other than wnd

Al rai.

/your post is mostly ad hominem fallacies, you'll forgive me for completely ignoring them.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

"But they don't know where he is and the Pentagon isn't telling."

The President of course is the Commander in Chief.

I will cheerfully concede that there might be some difference between the use of the word "hide," and "they don't know where he is and the Pentagon is not telling" although I believe that the word chosen fits the situation quite aptly, particularly when I have included a link to the actual article in question so that one may judge for oneself.

So you're claiming that the Pentagon is holding this guy in some secret location so that he can't testify? Otherwise, since he is retired the Pentagon can't prevent him from letting Congress know where he is nor can it prevent Congress from subpoenaing him.

 

[banquetbear]

"But they don't know where he is and the Pentagon isn't telling."

The President of course is the Commander in Chief.

I will cheerfully concede that there might be some difference between the use of the word "hide," and "they don't know where he is and the Pentagon is not telling" although I believe that the word chosen fits the situation quite aptly, particularly when I have included a link to the actual article in question so that one may judge for oneself.

...so you concede that there is no evidence that the administration is hiding key witnesses regarding the Benghazi attacks. I did read the article and didn't see the evidence you seemed to claim that it had, which is why I asked you to provide a specific cite. Glad you cleared that the administration isn't hiding people.

 

[A'isha]

Actually I did not concede that Gibson contradicted hicks. What we know is that Gibson was ready willing and able to go to benghazi, and was not permitted to go. That was exactly what hicks said. That was what Gibson said.

Here's what you said:

"Gibson acknowledged that had he deployed to Benghazi he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended." Beyond the fact that this appear to contradict the claim that they were armed only with sidearms (which is a minor claim of course, as we know that Gibson had access to the entire armory in the Embassy) this does contradict Hicks testimony

Yes I have a source other than wnd

Al rai.

Can you provide a link directly to what Al Rai said, then?

/your post is mostly ad hominem fallacies, you'll forgive me for completely ignoring them.

I happen not to trust insane lying sources like WND.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Actually I did not concede that Gibson contradicted hicks. What we know is that Gibson was ready willing and able to go to benghazi, and was not permitted to go. That was exactly what hicks said. That was what Gibson said.

Yes I have a source other than wnd

Al rai.

/your post is mostly ad hominem fallacies, you'll forgive me for completely ignoring them.

Actually, the post was a list of incorrect claims by your source, and was intended (and IMHO succeeded) in casting doubt on the credibility of your source by pointing out its proclivity for making claims that failed. You might want to look up the definition of "ad hominem".

 

[The Big Dog]

So you're claiming that the Pentagon is holding this guy in some secret location so that he can't testify? Otherwise, since he is retired the Pentagon can't prevent him from letting Congress know where he is nor can it prevent Congress from subpoenaing him.

I learned from a wise forum member that anytime one responds with the "argument of so" what follows is invariably a straw man, and your post is no exception.

Congress can't serve a subpoena because the Pentagon is inconsistently claiming that they cannot release his address, despite making other retired military servicemen available.

The least transparent administration in us history folks.

 

[Loss Leader]

I learned from a wise forum member that anytime one responds with the "argument of so" what follows is invariably a straw man, and your post is no exception.

Congress can't serve a subpoena because the Pentagon is inconsistently claiming that they cannot release his address, despite making other retired military servicemen available.

The least transparent administration in us history folks.

I'm pretty sure if Congress serves an information subpoena on the Department of Defense, they're going to get an answer. The most the DoD could do is claim that the information is classified and only release it to the chair or someone else with the right clearances. As far as I know, if there's something the executive branch does, there's a congressperson authorized to know about it. (barring attorney-client privilege in some, but not all, instances).

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm pretty sure if Congress serves an information subpoena on the Department of Defense, they're going to get an answer. The most the DoD could do is claim that the information is classified and only release it to the chair or someone else with the right clearances. As far as I know, if there's something the executive branch does, there's a congressperson authorized to know about it. (barring attorney-client privilege in some, but not all, instances).

The information should be given, without requiring that the congress of the United States jump through silly hoops, because the administration is playing silly games.

Not unlike the silly games that led to the American public being lied to for two weeks about a non-existent protest out side the facility in Benghazi.

As for al rai, asked by another forum member, I don't speak or read Arabic. Do you doubt the wnd report about what al rai published, or something else?

A quick google search will reveal 100's of references to the articles. I suggest that you do that search. Quite frankly, this argument seems to me to be a complete distraction from the substance of the article, which now exists completely unimpeached in my opinion.

 

[Loss Leader]

The information should be given, without requiring that the congress of the United States jump through silly hoops, because the administration is playing silly games.

Nonsense. An information subpoena takes ten minutes to draft. I've sent fifty of them out in one day. A friend, who was chief counsel to the Judiciary Committee, could wallpaper his office with the subpoenas his people sent out in a week. It's not that big a deal.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I learned from a wise forum member that anytime one responds with the "argument of so" what follows is invariably a straw man, and your post is no exception.

Congress can't serve a subpoena because the Pentagon is inconsistently claiming that they cannot release his address, despite making other retired military servicemen available.

The least transparent administration in us history folks.

You claim my post was a "strawman" but you appear to again claim that no one besides the Pentagon would be able to locate this person. This seems to leave only 2 possibilities: 1) the Pentagon is keeping him at a secret location; 2) he is in hiding and the only people who know how to contact him, or could possibly locate him, are at the Pentagon. OK, there is a 3rd possibility: the Pentagon does not know where he is.

 

[A'isha]

You claim my post was a "strawman" but you appear to again claim that no one besides the Pentagon would be able to locate this person. This seems to leave only 2 possibilities: 1) the Pentagon is keeping him at a secret location; 2) he is in hiding and the only people who know how to contact him, or could possibly locate him, are at the Pentagon. OK, there is a 3rd possibility: the Pentagon does not know where he is.

There's also the odd unspoken corollary claim that whatever this guy knows is apparently so explosively detrimental that the Pentagon (meaning, of course, the Obama Administration) is keeping him not just from testifying before the Committee, but hidden from the Committee.

Which, considering that everyone from Pickering to Gibson to General Ham have testified, means this claim is undoubtedly just a way to justify continued fishing expeditions despite the repeated failure to uncover any kind of "scandal" through the testimony of these other people.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nonsense. An information subpoena takes ten minutes to draft. I've sent fifty of them out in one day. A friend, who was chief counsel to the Judiciary Committee, could wallpaper his office with the subpoenas his people sent out in a week. It's not that big a deal.

I'm not sure I agree that it is "nonsense."

In fact that issuance of a subpoena is of course an adversarial step.

No doubt the Pentagon claims they have a reason for voluntarily refusing to turn over the information, like they have done in other situations, I have just not heard any justification for doing so.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is an incredibly detailed and significant summary of the initial attack from Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/08/Benghazi-book-fred-burton-samuel-m-katz

My understanding is that there will be a more detailed book being published in the near future.

As if there were any remaining doubts about the false "spontaneous attack arising out of an anti-video protest" this detailed article completely destroys that fable.

In fact, reading this article, it makes it clear just how absurd that story truly was.

 

[A'isha]

Here is an incredibly detailed and significant summary of the initial attack from Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/08/Benghazi-book-fred-burton-samuel-m-katz

My understanding is that there will be a more detailed book being published in the near future.

As if there were any remaining doubts about the false "spontaneous attack arising out of an anti-video protest" this detailed article completely destroys that fable.

In fact, reading this article, it makes it clear just how absurd that story truly was.

I like how this article uses information that wasn't known at the time, at point even noting that some things weren't even figured out until the month-later review of the camera footage.

The outline of the security agents' specific actions that night has also been described at least twice before, once in a press conference call some time after the attacks, and again in the ARB Report.

 

[The Big Dog]

We have discussed at long length the fact that Embassy Tripoli, the State Department and the press initially identified Ansar Al Sharia as among the attackers due to chatter on Social Media Websites.

I have finally tracked down one such example. The following link is a translation from a web site of an affiliate of Ansar al Sharia maintained by Libyan Ansar Minbar. From what I understand, the web page is a forum for supporters of the Sharia.

"Jealous of his religion
09-11-2012, 09:11 PM
Newsflash


Gunmen from the group Ansar al-Sharia attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi."

here is the translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=http://www.libya-s.net/vb/archive/index.php/t-384.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.libya-s.net/vb/archive/index.php/t-384.html%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dmew%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26channel%3Dnp

 

[The Big Dog]

"Jealous of his religion
09-11-2012, 09:11 PM
Newsflash

Gunmen from the group Ansar al-Sharia attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi."

Clearly, this notice adds another, significant, missing piece to our information regarding the knowledge about the involvement of Ansar al Sharia in the attacks. A summary and helpful review what we have learned would be very useful, in my view.

9/11/12: Internet posting: "Gunmen from the group Ansar al-Sharia attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi"

9/12/12 (local time in Benghazi):

At 6:07 p.m (DC TIme), the State Department Operations Center sent an update that again went to the National Security Staff at the White House. The tagline on this update said: "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
In the text, the email said: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Greg Hicks: “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.”

CIA Timeline: "1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS 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."

Greg Hicks: "HICKS: I think at about 2 p.m. -- 2 a.m., sorry -- the Secretary, Secretary of State Clinton called me along with her senior staff were all on the phone and she asked me what was going on and I briefed her on the developments. Most of the conversation was about the search for Ambassador Stevens. It was also about what we were going to do with our personnel in Benghazi. And I told her that we would need to evacuate and she said that was the right thing to do."

BBC: "Libya's deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, named Ansar al-Sharia as the perpetrators."

NY TIMES: "That assault was led by a brigade of Islamist fighters known as Ansar al-Sharia, or the Supporters of Islamic Law. Brigade members emphasized at the time that they were not acting alone."

E-mail to senior State Department officers, from Elizabeth Jones, the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote that "I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

 

[The Big Dog]

Victoria Nuland's confirmation hearing is set for today, and hopefully will shed some light on the wholesale revisions to the talking points by the State Department and others in connection with the Benghazi attacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/victoria-nuland-benghazi_n_3579032.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I expect that some lawmakers will ask pointed questions about her e-mail that said the talking points "could be abused" by Congress to criticize State and what exactly she meant when she talked about the concerns of her "building's leadership."

I hope she is asked about Elizabeth Jones email that "I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

 

[The Big Dog]

Victoria Nuland's confirmation hearing is set for today, and hopefully will shed some light on the wholesale revisions to the talking points by the State Department and others in connection with the Benghazi attacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/victoria-nuland-benghazi_n_3579032.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I expect that some lawmakers will ask pointed questions about her e-mail that said the talking points "could be abused" by Congress to criticize State and what exactly she meant when she talked about the concerns of her "building's leadership."

I hope she is asked about Elizabeth Jones email that "I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

To follow up my post from yesterday, here is a pretty fair summary of yesterday's confirmation hearings from France 24 http://www.france24.com/en/20130712-republicans-back-benghazi-attack-10-months

Interesting that Nuland did not consult with Clinton on the talking points.