New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Here is an interesting summary of the status of interviews of the survivors and evacuees from Benghazi.

http://www.examiner.com/list/where-are-the-benghazi-survivors

While some will undoubtedly attack the author, one must ask oneself: why haven't we heard from the survivors? Who are they?

If anyone has any further links, other than the Vanity Fair article I already linked, I'd love to see them.

Thanks, 16.5.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is another take on the Nuland testimony from last week. As I noted last week, despite claiming that she was speaking on behalf of her "building's leadership" she never talked to Hillary Clinton.

What is interesting is that while Nuland claimed “I never edited these talking points. I never made changes.” We all know that she specifically objected to several facts in the Talking Points, which were subsequently removed.

"I did not have editorial relationships with that document."

Seems like she has been spending time with the Clintons!

Read More here: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/310575-nuland-denies-any-role-in-preparing-public-benghazi-talking-points#ixzz2Z8Esxyeu

16.5

 

[A'isha]

Here is another take on the Nuland testimony from last week. As I noted last week, despite claiming that she was speaking on behalf of her "building's leadership" she never talked to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton didn't single-handedly control the entire State Department all by herself. She, like Obama, delegated authority to the staff members that exist for that express purpose.

What is interesting is that while Nuland claimed “I never edited these talking points. I never made changes.” We all know that she specifically objected to several facts in the Talking Points, which were subsequently removed.

Yes, she objected, but (as the emails show) the CIA themselves were responsible for all changes and edits, both before, during, and after her input was provided.

Read More here: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/310575-nuland-denies-any-role-in-preparing-public-benghazi-talking-points#ixzz2Z8Esxyeu

What the article says:

Republicans made it clear Thursday that they were grilling Nuland largely out of frustration that panel Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is not holding hearings on the attack.

“Because the committee isn't holding any more hearings on this issue,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “you're quite frankly the only witness we have.”

The Republicans are finally admitting that their interest in what Nuland has to say about all this is all about petulant, petty, and pointless politicking.

Also:

She has served under both Democratic and Republican presidents in top State Department jobs and came to Thursday's hearing with a letter praising her “integrity” and “scrupulous nonpartisanship” signed by top foreign policy experts of both parties, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams.

That doesn't sound like an Administration hack to me.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Republicans are finally admitting that their interest in what Nuland has to say about all this is all about petulant, petty, and pointless politicking.

.

That was a very astute point, but not for the reasons that you intended. In fact there does appear to be "petulant, petty, and pointless politicking," however it is absolutely clear that it is the Senate Democrats who are refusing to hold hearings into the murder of Four Americans for purely partisan and political reasons.

Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is not holding hearings on the attack.

“Because the committee isn't holding any more hearings on this issue,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “you're quite frankly the only witness we have.”

That is utterly amazing to me, that the Senate of the United States would refuse to conduct a hearing/investigation for purely political reasons.

We are entitled to the information.

 

[The Big Dog]

And to follow up my earlier post, I want to stress that there is no evidence that the investigation is politically motivated. I cannot say the same for the failure to investigate.

But I think we can all agree that the fact that there is an investigation has produced information regarding how our government functions. That is never a bad thing.

 

[tyr_13]

And to follow up my earlier post, I want to stress that there is no evidence that the investigation is politically motivated. I cannot say the same for the failure to investigate.

There were investigations to the satisfaction of the Senate. They didn't fail. Either, both, or neither could be politically motivated.

Well, besides that there is evidence that the investigation is politically motivated. Issa promised to investigate Obama for everything, and that's what he's doing.

But I think we can all agree that the fact that there is an investigation has produced information regarding how our government functions. That is never a bad thing.

Using that information as a bludgeon for political purpose certainly is. Spreading misinformation about how our government functions certainly is.

 

[The Big Dog]

Using that information as a bludgeon for political purpose certainly is. Spreading misinformation about how our government functions certainly is.

The fantastic thing is that not only do we have the information (I.e. establishing just how ridiculous the entire spontaneous attack arising out of a non-existant protest really was) but you have the ammunition to rebut, as you say, the bludgeon.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that political titans like Obama and Clinton can take the criticism when they screw up.

Like they did at Benghazi.

The marketplace of ideas is lubricated by information.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers of this thread will remember "the Poet" "Raymond Maxwell -- a.k.a. the "Benghazi Scapegoat," a.k.a. the only official at a critical State Department bureau to lose his job after the Sept. 11 attack."

He was scheduled to testify tomorrow before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but the hearing has been cancelled and rescheduled for September.

Here is an interesting article regarding this development:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/16/will_the_benghazi_scapegoat_testify_or_not

Note the reference at the end to "ARB co-chair Thomas Pickering claimed the "assistant-secretary level ... is in our view the appropriate place to look, where the decision making in fact takes place, where, if you like, the rubber hits the road."

Maxwell was not at the assistant secretary level. That would be Beth Jones.

The same Beth Jones that wrote an email stating that she had told the Libyans on September 12 that ""I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

Curious, isn't it?

 

[A'isha]

Maxwell was not at the assistant secretary level.

He was, actually. Maxwell was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is an interesting summary of the status of interviews of the survivors and evacuees from Benghazi.

http://www.examiner.com/list/where-are-the-benghazi-survivors

While some will undoubtedly attack the author, one must ask oneself: why haven't we heard from the survivors? Who are they?

If anyone has any further links, other than the Vanity Fair article I already linked, I'd love to see them.

Thanks, 16.5.

Well, now we are getting a sense of why the American public has never heard from the survivors at Benghazi. The Obama Administration had them sign Non-Discloser Agreements!

Here is from the House Floor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBEvahC_ZFg&feature=player_embedded

Why are these witnesses subject to what amounts to a gag order? Why are they hiding this information?

It seems like Obama is taking a play from his mentor's (Mike Madigan, the Boss of the Illinois Machine) and trying to muzzle whistleblowers and other witnesses through NDA's. The Metra Madigan Patronage Scandal

 

[The Big Dog]

He was, actually. Maxwell was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

DEPUTY Assistant Secretary of State.

A very significant difference.

Maxwell was not at the assistant secretary level.

 

[A'isha]

DEPUTY Assistant Secretary of State.

A very significant difference.

No, it's not significant in the least. Pickering was referring to the four State Department officials that were identified by his ARB and who either resigned or were placed on administrative: two of whom (including Maxwell) were Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and one of whom was an Assistant Secretary.

This is just meaningless hair-splitting of Pickering's statement.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Well it appears that in fact there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for the Pentagon's refusal to turn over the information because the Pentagon lied when they claimed that General Bristol is retired. That in fact turns out to be false.

"While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media."

In the last week we have seen unmistakable evidence that the Pentagon and State Department are trying to actively derail even a basic investigation into the murders in Benghazi, going so far as to openly lie about Bristol's status, and forcing witnesses to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. These Departments report to the President, who claimed that his was going to be the most Transparent Administration in History. Talk about Nonsense.

Here is the latest link:

Pentagon Lies about Bristol's Status

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And to follow up my earlier post, I want to stress that there is no evidence that the investigation is politically motivated. I cannot say the same for the failure to investigate.

Other than the glaring fact that this is only one of many terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities. There's no reason this one merits investigation while the others do not.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well it appears that in fact there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for the Pentagon's refusal to turn over the information because the Pentagon lied when they claimed that General Bristol is retired. That in fact turns out to be false.

"While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media."

In the last week we have seen unmistakable evidence that the Pentagon and State Department are trying to actively derail even a basic investigation into the murders in Benghazi, going so far as to openly lie about Bristol's status, and forcing witnesses to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. These Departments report to the President, who claimed that his was going to be the most Transparent Administration in History. Talk about Nonsense.

Here is the latest link:

Pentagon Lies about Bristol's Status

Only after being caught with their pants down, the Pentagon does an abrupt about face and now would be very pleased to make Colonel Bristol* available for a sit down with Congress:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370621/Pentagon-does-face-key-Benghazi-witness-makes-Marine-colonel-available-talk-Congress.html

*In my last post I inadvertently gave him a promotion to General. Sorry about that...

 

[The Big Dog]

CNN has been keeping close watch on the Aspen Security conference. A person who is very familiar to avid readers of this thread General Carter Ham spoke at that conference and had very intriguing comments regarding the Terror Attack on the American Facilities in Benghazi.

First, he was asked whether he specifically thought it was a terrorist attack, Ham said, "I don't know that that was my first reaction. But pretty quickly as we started to gain understanding within the hours after the initiation of the attack, yes. And at the command I don't think anyone thought differently."

This is fascinating, because within hours of the attack, it was known that one of the key entities that had conducted the attack, Ansar al Sharia, had been identified.

Second, Ham knew Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing and believed he could have possibly been kidnapped. "In my mind, at that point we were no longer in a response to an attack. We were in a recovery and frankly, I thought, we were in a potential a hostage rescue situation." Keep in mind, as most people following this thread already know, the State Department had already told FEST, the entity specifically designed to deal with these very situations, to stand down.

Third, Ham said although he had authority to scramble a jet to the scene, he decided there was "not necessity and there was not a clear purpose in doing so." This strongly suggest that Ham had a plane available. Folks will recall that Greg Hicks thought that scrambling a jet would have had a decisive impact on terrorists who had just experienced the powerful impact of American Air power.

Now that Col. Bristol and the Pentagon have realized that he isn't actually retired, perhaps he can help to shed some additional light on these developments.

And the link: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/20/former-general-knew-early-that-benghazi-was-terrorist-attack/

 

[The Big Dog]

Only after being caught with their pants down, the Pentagon does an abrupt about face and now would be very pleased to make Colonel Bristol* available for a sit down with Congress:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370621/Pentagon-does-face-key-Benghazi-witness-makes-Marine-colonel-available-talk-Congress.html

*In my last post I inadvertently gave him a promotion to General. Sorry about that...

This story is, understandably, drawing some attention in political blogs. I suspect that ones political allegiance can offset the arrogance of the installed party for just so long.

I assume the first question to col Bristol will be "why did it take so long for you to realize that you were not retired?"

The second should be "four Americans are dead, where the hell were you?"

 

[The Big Dog]

Philip J. Crowley is one of many folks following the Aspen Security Conference (mentioned above)

He published an intriguing Tweet the other day regarding General Ham's participation at the conference, stating:

"Gen Carter Ham at #ASF2013 said there was no advance threat intel on #Benghazi. He does not believe Amb Chris Stevens saw a threat either."

(as avid readers of this topic already know) That statement makes NO SENSE!

Amb. Stevens made 3 specific requests for increased security before 9/11/12. Further, we know that the last line in Amb Stevens diary related to "never ending security threats." Further Ham claims that he made TWO offers of security to Amb. Stevens, which he declined.

Bizarre!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Philip J. Crowley is one of many folks following the Aspen Security Conference (mentioned above)

He published an intriguing Tweet the other day regarding General Ham's participation at the conference, stating:

"Gen Carter Ham at #ASF2013 said there was no advance threat intel on #Benghazi. He does not believe Amb Chris Stevens saw a threat either."

(as avid readers of this topic already know) That statement makes NO SENSE!

Amb. Stevens made 3 specific requests for increased security before 9/11/12. Further, we know that the last line in Amb Stevens diary related to "never ending security threats." Further Ham claims that he made TWO offers of security to Amb. Stevens, which he declined.

Bizarre!

Are there any avid readers of this thread?

There's nothing here that doesn't make sense if you understand CONTEXT. Amb. Stevens' requests were based on long-term security concerns. Gen. Ham's statement was that Amb. Stevens did not perceive that there was much risk of an attack during his visit to Benghazi, not that Amb. Stevens didn't really feel that there were any long-term threats to the Benghazi mission.

How many security agents did the folks in Libya request for the Benghazi mission? How many security agents were at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack?

 

[The Big Dog]

Are there any avid readers of this thread?

There's nothing here that doesn't make sense if you understand CONTEXT. Amb. Stevens' requests were based on long-term security concerns. Gen. Ham's statement was that Amb. Stevens did not perceive that there was much risk of an attack during his visit to Benghazi, not that Amb. Stevens didn't really feel that there were any long-term threats to the Benghazi mission.

How many security agents did the folks in Libya request for the Benghazi mission? How many security agents were at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack?

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, are you saying that you think Ham thought that Stevens did not believe that there was a risk of attack in the short term? I'm certain I do not understand what you base that on, and there are no links in your post to guide us.

We know that the VERY LAST ENTRY in Stevens diary was: 'Never ending security threats...'

We know that Eric Nordstrom testified that he asked his State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response. He said that Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low." Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi.

We also know that it was 9/11, yet the person responsible for coordinating security for that date never talked to General Ham (yet was subsequently promoted by Obama).

We also know the exact array of the security forces that day both Libyan and American, it is detailed above in the Vanity Fair article I linked.

To answer your questions: Not enough security.