New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

The second post in this thread is virtually identical to this post.

And the content is just as true now as it was nine months ago.

It is the same bizarre smear tactics, for example, the apparent belief that Hicks is required to be on duty 24/7 in Tripoli while his boss was in Benghazi? Really?

No. But he better have a good reason for not being on duty during the anniversary of 9/11 while his boss was in a dangerous situation.

In any event, other than ad hominems, do you have any comments about Hicks article I quoted above.

Yes. He's a self-serving liar who can't be trusted.

Surely you can't believe that because Hicks "missed two phone calls" that his clear statements about the incompetence in the State Department leading up to 9/11 should be disregarded.

If there was incompetence in the State Department leading up to 9/11, his own actions and attitudes were part of it. And the fact that he's being lionized instead of excoriated by the right because they can use his self-serving statements in an attack on their political opponents shows just how bankrupt and hyperpartisan this Benghazi nonsense really is.

 

[The Big Dog]

If there was incompetence in the State Department leading up to 9/11, his own actions and attitudes were part of it. And the fact that he's being lionized instead of excoriated by the right because they can use his self-serving statements in an attack on their political opponents shows just how bankrupt and hyperpartisan this Benghazi nonsense really is.

Well, if I had not established that Hicks is the victim of a smear campaign, I do not believe it possible that I could have written a better post. Of course, Hicks, was employed by the State Department in a level three or four levels below that level of responsibility assigned by Clinton's own handpicked review board. Further, I believe that one might be more impressed with your excoriation of Mr. Hicks had you extended that to the ones actually responsible.

In the meantime, I certainly agree that such posts do indeed demonstrate how bankrupt and hyperpartisan this can become.

Thanks for posting.

 

[The Big Dog]

Obama Sticks to false story

Yesterday, before the Super Bowl, President Obama gave a sit down interview to a member of the press. This year it was with Bill Reilly of Fox News.

Unfortunately, the President is persisting in retelling the story that the Administration fed to the American people. The excerpt:

"OBAMA: We -- we revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time. The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when, a week later, we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after, I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn't be a very good cover-up..."

We all know that the story that they told (that the attack spontaneously arose out of protest outside the facility) was false. There was no protest outside the facility, it did not spontaneously arise out of a protest. In fact, it was a well planned and organized attack led by Islamist Militants with ties to Al Qua'ida. We also know that they did not tell us everything they knew, they intentionally left out the facts they were telling the Libyans, namely that it Ansar Al Sharia. Further, the Administration persisted in this fable even after it was exposed as far fetched and preposterous, thereby greatly offending the Libyans and ultimately setting back the investigation even further. We of course know that it was hampered right from the get go when Greg Hicks Hillary Clinton's right hand man Kennedy told FEST to stand down.

It also appear that Obama is sticking to the "act of terror" claim as a fall back. Avid readers of this thread now know, of course, that the same day he was admitting to 60 Minutes that he did not call it terrorism because he wasn't sure.

As expected, a link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/02/transcript-bill-oreilly-interviews-president-obama/

 

[The Big Dog]

The GOP Investigation into Benghazi

The House Republicans have put together a website that includes numerous reports and other source documents, including those from the Senate and the State department's ARB report.

As avid readers expect, a link:

http://www.gop.gov/benghazi/

 

[The Big Dog]

State department fails on every level.

The house intelligence committee has released a long awaited bi-partisan report showing that Hillary Clinton's state department failed on very level, before the attack, during the attack, and after the attack. Further, the fact that Clinton state department had tried to assign blame to basically middle managers was overturned by the subsequent Kerry regime. Unfortunately, the Kerry regime failed to hold anyone accountible. Of course, avid readers of this thread will recognize the Clinton approach, calling a whistleblower at least six levels below those responsible an idiot and a liar.

As always, avid readers expect and deserve a link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/news-media-adulation-of-hillary-interrupted-with-biting-report

 

[The Big Dog]

House Armed Services Committee issues Report

The House Armed Services Committee issued their report that largely exonerated the U.S. military from responsibility for failures associated with the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, instead blaming the White House and the State Department for ignoring heightened threats in the area. This is very consistent of course with the recent report from the Senate that also found that faulted the State Department and the intelligence community for failing to increase security at the poorly protected temporary Benghazi compound.

It is no doubt becoming increasingly clear to avid readers of the thread that the fault lies not only with Hillary Clinton and her soft footprint approach that left the facility unprotected, but also John Brennan, who was the person who was supposed to COORDINATE security in the mideast on 9/11. For his failure of course, he was promoted to the head of the CIA. He failed miserably, particularly given the fact that the military assets that could have provided some assistance were no where near where they needed to be.

As one would expect, a link: State White House Failures lead to Benghazi attack

There is also chum for those who wish to cast blame on a low level Tripoli Embassy employee who had no responsibility for either policy nor security, in that the Committee concluded that there was no "stand down order," rather the Special forces were ordered to stay in Tripoli. Perhaps that seems to be a distinction without a difference to most, as avid readers of this thread will recall when it was first discussed months ago, but no doubt will provide plenty of incentive to those that desire to see him "ripped apart by the partisan witchhunters."

 

[remirol]

The House Armed Services Committee issued their report...

For those who are interested in a more fact-based version of the supplied link without all the unsupported fantasies and CT:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/11/3276171/gop-benghazi-military-hasc/

In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.

It also thoroughly debunks the last-ditch dreaming that has been propagated here so much recently by the final GOP holdouts:

While Senate Republicans chided Panetta at the time, it seems Republicans on the HASC now agree with the secretary’s assessment. “Majority members believe the regional and global force posture assumed by the military on September 11, 2012 limited the response,” the report continues. “Majority members recognize, of course, that it is impossible for the Department of Defense to have adequate forces prepared to respond immediately to every conceivable global contingency. Ensuring that preparations exist for some likely possibilities is not to be confused with the ability to anticipate all prospective circumstances, especially in highly volatile regions.”

In other words, the HASC confirms that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy seen so often in this thread is nothing more than after-the-fact attempts to create an unwarranted level of partisan hysteria surrounding Benghazi. It's worth noting that there still hasn't been any response from the GOP proponents in this thread as to why the 60 deaths under Bush's watch didn't matter, but the 4 deaths in this incident did.

Finally...

“This report, produced by House Armed Services Committee Republicans, should finally bring an end to the politicization of the heinous attacks on brave Americans in Benghazi,” HASC Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-CA) and Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), the HASC Oversight and Investigations subcommittee’s ranking member, said in a statement. “It is time to move forward, take the real conclusions we have arrived at and establish how to best protect our citizens around the globe. It is our hope that today’s report, which was authored by Republicans, finally brings this attempt to manufactured scandal to an end.”

It's over, GOP. Time to go home, lick your wounds, and find something new. Romney really did lose the election, and part of it really was because he stuck his foot in his mouth about Benghazi. Your witchhunt has failed.

 

[plague311]

The reports that I have read have openly stated that the entire committee would like to move on, both Republicans and Democrats. You're using a bias source to try and make your points and at this time it is really getting to be a bit old. We got it, you and the right wing are accusing Hillary and Obama. Have no fear, "BENGHAZI!!1!!ELEVENTYONE!11!!" will still live on, you have made your point. Everyone knows how evil Hillary and Obama are, only a true right winger could have, and would have saved the day.

 

[The Big Dog]

For those who are interested in a more fact-based version of the supplied link without all the unsupported fantasies and CT:

d.

So let me understand this, the WASHINGTON POST is a biased source, while THINK PROGRESS is not? Think Progress which is an outlet of the Center for American Progress which was started and funded by people who worked for the Clinton Campaigns? And that Hillary Clinton herself said was an institution that she helped to start and support?

I stand by citation to the Washington Post, and am unimpressed by your citation to a quasi-official Clinton propaganda web site.

Very unimpressed.

Think Progress..... Unbelievable....

 

[The Big Dog]

The reports that I have read have openly stated that the entire committee would like to move on, both Republicans and Democrats. You're using a bias source to try and make your points and at this time it is really getting to be a bit old. We got it, you and the right wing are accusing Hillary and Obama. Have no fear, "BENGHAZI!!1!!ELEVENTYONE!11!!" will still live on, you have made your point. Everyone knows how evil Hillary and Obama are, only a true right winger could have, and would have saved the day.

You have misunderstood, as you have apparently chosen to accept propaganda from sources like Think Progress, as I have pointed out in the previous post.

You'll forgive me if I ignore your mocking references, straw men, and accusation that I am a right winger.

 

[remirol]

I stand by citation to the Washington Post, and am unimpressed by your citation to a quasi-official Clinton propaganda web site.

You didn't cite the Post; you just linked to it. Everything you wrote there was your own fantasy, only tenuously linked to reality.

My highlighted quotes, on the other hand, were requotes of material that was taken directly from the report text.

Also, it is noted that you again dodged answering direct, material questions regarding the attack, and you've never explained why all this kerfluffle isn't just a case of Texas Sharpshooter eagle-eye hindsight. (probably because that's all it is)

 

[plague311]

You have misunderstood, as you have apparently chosen to accept propaganda from sources like Think Progress, as I have pointed out in the previous post.

You'll forgive me if I ignore your mocking references, straw men, and accusation that I am a right winger.

Forgiven. You'll have to forgive me if I, now, ignore you constantly make a mountain out of a mole hill in your smear campaign against Hillary and Obama. I will recall my comment in regards to Washington Post being a bias source. I read the source wrong and didn't double check myself.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Special Operations Education Fund, made up of numerous Special forces veterans, and other experienced professionals has issued a comprehensive analysis of the Benghazi attack, and the pre attack and post attack decisions and lack thereof.

It is Available here/

OPSEC explains: “The attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, actually consisted of three distinct but interconnected phases: an unsupported diplomatic expansion into the city that enabled the attack; an uncoordinated and unresponsive reaction to the attack itself; and a concerted effort after the attack to remain unaccountable,” the report says. “Although a wide range of decisions contributed to each of these individual phases, only one person was responsible for the most critical choices during all three: Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

 

[citizenzen]

The Special Operations Education Fund ...

Nothing biased about that source.

 

[Unabogie]

The Special Operations Education Fund, made up of numerous Special forces veterans, and other experienced professionals has issued a comprehensive analysis of the Benghazi attack, and the pre attack and post attack decisions and lack thereof.

It is Available here/

OPSEC explains: “The attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, actually consisted of three distinct but interconnected phases: an unsupported diplomatic expansion into the city that enabled the attack; an uncoordinated and unresponsive reaction to the attack itself; and a concerted effort after the attack to remain unaccountable,” the report says. “Although a wide range of decisions contributed to each of these individual phases, only one person was responsible for the most critical choices during all three: Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Ah, yes. More right wing nonsense.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/swiftboating-hillary-on-benghazi-149549635526

 

[remirol]

The Special Operations Education Fund, made up of numerous Special forces veterans, and other experienced professionals

[citation needed]

"Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Inc, is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization"... Another poorly-concealed GOP PAC, as the evidence shows here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/18/us-usa-campaign-leaks-idUSBRE87G0Z320120818

Records filed with federal and state authorities, and material posted on the Internet, show that key players in the campaign by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund include individuals with current or former affiliations with national and local Republican Party organizations. These include the group's treasurer, lawyer and TV producers.

has issued a comprehensive analysis of the Benghazi attack,

Spamwall is email harvester, and partisan amateur hacks are partisans, amateurs, and hacks.

From the title of that page: "Hillary's Roll (sic) Revealed". Seriously?

This site's credibility is right up there with infowars and World Nut Daily. The only thing it was missing was green ink.

 

[A'isha]

The Special Operations Education Fund, made up of numerous Special forces veterans, and other experienced professionals

You misspelled "birther conspiraloons".

 

[The Big Dog]

You misspelled "birther conspiraloons".

That story is false:

From the ORIGINAL FP article:

President Barack Obama is a socialist, was raised by communists, and wasn't born in the United States, according to the former Navy SEAL who founded the group Special Operations Speaks (SOS), which aims to portray Obama as anti-military in this election season.

Earlier this week, a different group of former Navy SEALS calling themselves the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund rolled out its campaign to criticize Obama for leaking national security information and taking what it believes as undue credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. That group claims to be non-political.

Two different groups. The substance of the article on Benghazi remains unchallenged.

/I notice a number of the site's alleged bias. Perhaps you will all apply the same strict standards to websites about which Sen. Hillary Clinton at a progressive conference in Chicago in 2007 said “We’re really putting together a network in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.”

 

[The Big Dog]

Misplacement of DoD assets

Much has been made of the debate regarding whether or not there were military assets available that could have stopped the attack. For example, there was much discussion regarding a map that showed the location of Navy assets on 9/11, and the possibility that they could have been used to, at the very least, to prevent the attack on the annex where the survivors were taken and the rescue team organized by Greg Hicks eventually were sent.

For a discussion about the Map disclosures, see the Slate article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/02/12/new_previously_secret_map_of_military_assets_restarts_benghazi_scandal_for.html

Some have gone so far as to ridicule Greg Hicks for holding on to the expectation that military assets could and should have been deployed.

The Slate article states "The failure to respond was preordained, not concocted on the day." This of course raises the real question that was ignored in the Slate column: why were the military assets so poorly deployed?

Avid readers of this thread already know the answer to that question: the military assets were so poorly deployed because the person responsible for preparing the security, John Brennan, never talked to the military commander for the region, General Ham:

"When questioned about this process today, General Ham, the combatant commander responsible for one of the most volatile threat environments in the world, stated that neither he or anyone working for him was consulted as part of the Brennan 9/11 planning process."

Brennan was promoted to the head of the CIA. Unbelievable.

/note also the reference in the first paragraph to the question: Why wasn't Hillary Clinton ready? "The question sits awkwardly on the page."

 

[remirol]

The Slate article states "The failure to respond was preordained, not concocted on the day." This of course raises the real question that was ignored in the Slate column: why were the military assets so poorly deployed?

From the same article:

That's not what the Navy says in its summary of the map. It pegs the locations of surface vessels and says that no ship was close enough to respond effectively.

I am confident that the Navy knows where its ships are much better than you, I, Greg Hicks, or some blogster quoting some GOP monkey looking at a map and trying to find excuses to support his conspiracy.

Next thing you know there'll be articles saying someone heard "Pull it!" right before the attack began.