Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2014, 11:07:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83002 Posts in 2257 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Libya and
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 Print
Author Topic: Libya and  (Read 35122 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #300 on: October 31, 2012, 03:01:36 PM »


Is it possibly related to the story below?

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/10/ufo-war-being-waged-in-antarctica-claims-scientist-2487090.html

 rolleyes

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #301 on: October 31, 2012, 03:26:56 PM »

Ya lost me there GM , , ,  huh
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #302 on: October 31, 2012, 03:28:57 PM »

Ya lost me there GM , , ,  huh

I was suggesting that maybe "before it's news.com" isn't the best source to cite....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #303 on: October 31, 2012, 03:32:04 PM »

Ah.  embarassed embarassed embarassed

You have a point there!  Though I would note that it is not the only place I've seen the story , , ,

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #304 on: October 31, 2012, 03:45:56 PM »

No, it's not. As General Ham is retiring, he'll be free to voice his opinions as a private citizen very soon and hopefully shed some light on Benghazi.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #305 on: November 01, 2012, 09:17:41 AM »

More info coming out from Catherine Herridge and Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Greta's show:

* Classified cable sent from the US mission in Benghazi (Ambassador Stevens) to the Hillary Clinton's office at State on August 16, 2012 indicating there was a meeting in Benghazi in which it was stated there were ten islamist militia groups there and the deterioration in security was such that the mission could not withstand a "coordinated attack" and extra help was needed.

* Ambassador Stevens repeatedly and desperately called Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks on Sept. 11 to tell him the consulate was under attack.  Also, Gen. Carter Ham, former head of U.S. Africa command, told the congressman “personally” that “he did not get a directive from the White House, from the president of the United States to engage in the fire fight to help protect those people.”


---Quote---
*Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Ambassador Stevens Called for Help During Benghazi Attack (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-jason-chaffetz-ambassador-stevens-called-for-help-during-benghazi-attack/)*



The truth about the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi is trickling out slowly. The latest development is found in a classified cable obtained by Fox News that reveals the compound in Libya was unprepared to withstand a “coordinated attack” due to lack of security and other issues.

Appearing on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren on Thursday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) revealed two more interesting pieces of the Benghazi puzzle. First, that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens rang Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks on Sept. 11 to tell him the consulate was under attack.

“He said that shortly after 9:40 p.m. what happened is his phone rang and he didn’t recognize the number so he didn’t answer it. And then it rang again and again he didn’t answer it because he didn’t recognize the number. But then given the persistence, he did answer it. It was Ambassador Stevens and Ambassador Stevens was saying we’re under attack,” Chaffetz said.

“Now I can’t say he told me specifically that he was asking for help but that’s kind of what I read into it. He hung up the phone, he immediately called into Washington DC to trigger all the mechanisms that need to be put on, and then he wasn’t able to contact him. And there were hours and hours where we didn’t know where our ambassador was.”

Watch the clip via Fox News (Chaffetz segment begins at around 6:20):

[Video clip in original link]

The second important fact that Chaffetz provided involved Gen. Carter Ham, former head of U.S. Africa command. The Utah congressman says Ham told him “personally” that “he did not get a directive from the White House, from the president of the United States to engage in the fire fight to help protect those people.”

“Mr. President, you can’t have it both ways,” Chaffetz added. “You can’t say that you are doing everything you can to protect the people in Benghazi when we are under attack — a fire fight that starts at 9:40 at night and goes to the wee hours of the morning — and say you did everything when the military did not engage.”

Ham has since been relieved of duty, though the Pentagon says it has nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.
---End Quote---
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #306 on: November 01, 2012, 03:54:30 PM »


http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25441307


http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25444425
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 04:05:18 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #307 on: November 02, 2012, 10:50:54 AM »

How does this change what we think we know?

=============================================

CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya .
By ADAM ENTOUS, SIOBHAN GORMAN and MARGARET COKER
 

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.


The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate.

Enlarge Image


Close
Embassy of Canada
 
CIA director Gen. Petraeus, far left, with actor Ben Affleck at the Canadian Embassy screening of "Argo" in Washington on Oct. 10.
.
The CIA's secrecy affected how the U.S. government dealt with the families of the two slain contractors. Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty's sister, said officials who visited her mother in Massachusetts identified themselves as State Department representatives. Officials said the State Department deferred to the CIA to contact the families and the "notification teams" included CIA officers.

"The details they gave us were very sparing," Ms. Quigley said, adding they were "extremely professional, highly compassionate."

The extent of the CIA role in Benghazi, and the central role the spy agency played in the run-up and aftermath of the attack, puts a spotlight on Mr. Petraeus, who took over as director of the agency last year.

At one point during the consulate siege, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned the CIA director directly to seek assistance. Real-time intelligence from the field was scarce and some officials at State and the Pentagon were largely in the dark about the CIA's role.

Mr. Petraeus didn't attend funerals held later for the two CIA contractors, irking some administration officials and CIA veterans.

After an attack in 2009 on a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, one of the deadliest suffered by the agency, then-Director Leon Panetta immediately lifted the cover of the seven CIA officers and contractors killed, publicly acknowledged the agency's loss, and attended several of the funerals.

In Libya, the relationship between the State Department and CIA was secret and symbiotic: The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations. The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security, although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities.

The spy agency was the first to set up shop. It began building up its presence there soon after the Libyan revolution started in February 2011. The uprising overturned what had been a tight working relationship between the Gadhafi regime's spy services and the Americans, creating a gap that the CIA presence sought to fill, officials said.

The CIA worked from a compound publicly referred to as the "annex," which was given a State Department office name to disguise its purpose. The agency focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats, said an American security contractor who has worked closely with CIA, the Pentagon and State. A main concern was the spread of weapons and militant influences throughout the region, including in Mali, Somalia and Syria, this person said.

Libyan officials say they were kept in the dark about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. "The Americans had people coming and going with great frequency. Frankly, our records were never clear [about] who was out there" in Benghazi, said a senior Libyan government official in Tripoli.

In mid-2011, the State Department established its consulate in Benghazi, to have a diplomatic presence in the birthplace of the Libyan revolution. At the annex, many of the analysts and officers had what is referred to in intelligence circles as "light cover," carrying U.S. diplomatic passports.

Protecting the CIA annex was a roughly 10-man security force. The State Department thought it had a formal agreement with the CIA that called for that force to be used in emergencies to bolster security for the consulate.

The State Department has been criticized by lawmakers and others for failing to provide adequate security for its ambassador, especially in light of an attack there in June and after other violence prompted the U.K. to pull out of the city. In October, Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for any security lapses.

Among U.S. diplomatic officials in Libya, the nearby CIA force and the secret agreement allayed concerns about security levels.

"They were the cavalry," a senior U.S. official said of the CIA team, adding that CIA's backup security was an important factor in State's decision to maintain a consulate there.

In the months leading up to the attack, Mr. Stevens and others sent a series of diplomatic messages to the administration warning that security in Benghazi was deteriorating. Nevertheless, security at the consulate wasn't beefed up and Mr. Stevens's movements weren't restricted, according to congressional investigators.

On the night of the attack, the consulate, on a 13-acre property, was protected by five American diplomatic security officers inside the walls, supported by a small group of armed Libyans outside. The CIA's security force at the annex sometimes provided backup security for the ambassador when he traveled outside the consulate.

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

Soon after the shooting started, a diplomatic security officer at the consulate hit an alarm. By 9:40 p.m. local time—3:40 p.m. on the East Coast—the officer called the annex's security team, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the diplomatic-security headquarters in Washington.

It took a seven-man team from the CIA security roughly 50 minutes to get to the consulate after it was alerted, according to administration officials.

Within 25 minutes, the team headed out of the annex to the consulate compound, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. It took another 25 minutes to reach the compound, in part because the team stopped to get heavy weapons and came under fire as they moved in, the official said.

The CIA team left the consulate around 11:30 p.m. with all American officials from the compound, except for the missing U.S. ambassador, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. They came under fire as they left.

Shortly after they arrived back at the annex, the annex began receiving small-arms fire and RPG rounds, the official said. The CIA security team returned fire and the attackers dispersed around 1 a.m.

The congressional investigator said the delay showed that the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate.

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

At the State Department that night, officials frantically tried to find out what was happening. In recent interviews, some administration officials criticized the CIA for not being forthcoming with information.

At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.

Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon's command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military's Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants.

But the images didn't help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.

Meanwhile, in Tripoli, another CIA team mobilized to provide additional security for the CIA annex and help evacuate Americans from Benghazi. The team went to the Tripoli airport with a suitcase full of cash to find a plane to fly to Benghazi. They were delayed because Libyan authorities insisted the Americans be accompanied by a larger Libyan force on the ground in Benghazi, which took time to assemble, U.S. officials say. Libyan officials attribute the delay to the Americans not sharing key logistical details with them.

At about 7 p.m.—1 a.m. in Benghazi—the team touched down at the Benghazi airport. The team had to negotiate for transport into Benghazi, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. When the team learned the ambassador was missing and the annex attackers had dispersed, they focused on the security situation at the hospital, where the ambassador was thought to be.

By the time the team was able to arrange transportation with an armed escort, the intelligence official said, they had learned that the ambassador was almost certainly dead and the security at the hospital was unclear, so they decided to go to the annex to help with the evacuation. The ambassador was pronounced dead shortly after 2 a.m.

Using GPS locaters, team members raced to the annex, arriving at 5:15 a.m. Within minutes, the annex was under fire again. The two security officers were killed by mortar fire, the senior U.S. intelligence official said, adding that attack lasted 11 minutes.

The emphasis on security at the CIA annex was underscored the day after the attack. With all U.S. personnel evacuated, the CIA appears to have dispatched local Libyan agents to the annex to destroy any sensitive documents and equipment there, even as the consulate compound remained unguarded and exposed to looters and curiosity seekers for weeks, officials said. Documents, including the ambassador's journal, were taken from the consulate site, and the site proved of little value when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents finally arrived weeks later to investigate.

U.S. officials said they prioritized securing the annex because many more people worked there and they were doing sensitive work, while the consulate, by design, had no classified documents. The American contractor said the top priority was destroying sensitive documents.

In the aftermath of the assault, questions have been raised within the administration and on Capitol Hill about Mr. Petraeus's role in responding to the attack. On Oct. 10, lawmakers grilled senior State Department officials about the attack. At one point, lawmakers and officials alluded for the first time to the existence of the CIA facility. That set off alarms at the agency and at the State Department because that information was classified.

Some senior administration officials say they were surprised Mr. Petraeus went to that night's private Washington screening of the movie "Argo," about a covert CIA operation in 1979 in Tehran.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said Mr. Petraeus has been "fully engaged from the start," citing a particular focus on the rescue mission, and that he received daily updates and personally reviewed intelligence reports after the attack. Another senior official said he was in constant communication with his team even when attending other events on Oct. 10.

In ensuing weeks, tensions over the matter spread to the FBI and Capitol Hill. The FBI didn't initially get to review surveillance footage taken at the compound because officials say it was being analyzed by the CIA. The CIA, in turn, wasn't able to immediately get copies of FBI witness interviews, delaying the agency's analysis of what happened outside the consulate and at the annex.

A senior congressional investigator said the secrecy has made it harder to figure out what errors were made, because classification restrictions have allowed the CIA to avoid public and congressional scrutiny for its conduct. Information about the CIA's role has largely been limited to congressional intelligence committees, which are reviewing the attacks but have not launched investigations into them.

The CIA abandoned the annex after it had been scrubbed clean of any sensitive materials, according to U.S. and Libyan officials.

The significance of the annex was a well-kept secret in Benghazi. A neighbor said that he never saw Libyan security guards at the annex compound and that the street never had any extra police presence or security cordon. "If the CIA was living there, we never knew it," the neighbor said.

In early October, the owners of what had been the annex property moved back inside. Recently, a woman and her two children could be seen driving in and out of the front gate. A gardener said they are the wife and children of the Libyan property owner.

The woman declined to comment, then slammed the security gate shut behind her.

—Julian E. Barnes and Jay Solomon contributed to this article.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #308 on: November 02, 2012, 04:38:53 PM »

It changes nothing.




How does this change what we think we know?

=============================================

CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya .
By ADAM ENTOUS, SIOBHAN GORMAN and MARGARET COKER
 

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.


The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate.

Enlarge Image


Close
Embassy of Canada
 
CIA director Gen. Petraeus, far left, with actor Ben Affleck at the Canadian Embassy screening of "Argo" in Washington on Oct. 10.
.
The CIA's secrecy affected how the U.S. government dealt with the families of the two slain contractors. Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty's sister, said officials who visited her mother in Massachusetts identified themselves as State Department representatives. Officials said the State Department deferred to the CIA to contact the families and the "notification teams" included CIA officers.

"The details they gave us were very sparing," Ms. Quigley said, adding they were "extremely professional, highly compassionate."

The extent of the CIA role in Benghazi, and the central role the spy agency played in the run-up and aftermath of the attack, puts a spotlight on Mr. Petraeus, who took over as director of the agency last year.

At one point during the consulate siege, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned the CIA director directly to seek assistance. Real-time intelligence from the field was scarce and some officials at State and the Pentagon were largely in the dark about the CIA's role.

Mr. Petraeus didn't attend funerals held later for the two CIA contractors, irking some administration officials and CIA veterans.

After an attack in 2009 on a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, one of the deadliest suffered by the agency, then-Director Leon Panetta immediately lifted the cover of the seven CIA officers and contractors killed, publicly acknowledged the agency's loss, and attended several of the funerals.

In Libya, the relationship between the State Department and CIA was secret and symbiotic: The consulate provided diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations. The State Department believed it had a formal agreement with the CIA to provide backup security, although a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA didn't have the same understanding about its security responsibilities.

The spy agency was the first to set up shop. It began building up its presence there soon after the Libyan revolution started in February 2011. The uprising overturned what had been a tight working relationship between the Gadhafi regime's spy services and the Americans, creating a gap that the CIA presence sought to fill, officials said.

The CIA worked from a compound publicly referred to as the "annex," which was given a State Department office name to disguise its purpose. The agency focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats, said an American security contractor who has worked closely with CIA, the Pentagon and State. A main concern was the spread of weapons and militant influences throughout the region, including in Mali, Somalia and Syria, this person said.

Libyan officials say they were kept in the dark about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. "The Americans had people coming and going with great frequency. Frankly, our records were never clear [about] who was out there" in Benghazi, said a senior Libyan government official in Tripoli.

In mid-2011, the State Department established its consulate in Benghazi, to have a diplomatic presence in the birthplace of the Libyan revolution. At the annex, many of the analysts and officers had what is referred to in intelligence circles as "light cover," carrying U.S. diplomatic passports.

Protecting the CIA annex was a roughly 10-man security force. The State Department thought it had a formal agreement with the CIA that called for that force to be used in emergencies to bolster security for the consulate.

The State Department has been criticized by lawmakers and others for failing to provide adequate security for its ambassador, especially in light of an attack there in June and after other violence prompted the U.K. to pull out of the city. In October, Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for any security lapses.

Among U.S. diplomatic officials in Libya, the nearby CIA force and the secret agreement allayed concerns about security levels.

"They were the cavalry," a senior U.S. official said of the CIA team, adding that CIA's backup security was an important factor in State's decision to maintain a consulate there.

In the months leading up to the attack, Mr. Stevens and others sent a series of diplomatic messages to the administration warning that security in Benghazi was deteriorating. Nevertheless, security at the consulate wasn't beefed up and Mr. Stevens's movements weren't restricted, according to congressional investigators.

On the night of the attack, the consulate, on a 13-acre property, was protected by five American diplomatic security officers inside the walls, supported by a small group of armed Libyans outside. The CIA's security force at the annex sometimes provided backup security for the ambassador when he traveled outside the consulate.

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

Soon after the shooting started, a diplomatic security officer at the consulate hit an alarm. By 9:40 p.m. local time—3:40 p.m. on the East Coast—the officer called the annex's security team, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the diplomatic-security headquarters in Washington.

It took a seven-man team from the CIA security roughly 50 minutes to get to the consulate after it was alerted, according to administration officials.

Within 25 minutes, the team headed out of the annex to the consulate compound, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. It took another 25 minutes to reach the compound, in part because the team stopped to get heavy weapons and came under fire as they moved in, the official said.

The CIA team left the consulate around 11:30 p.m. with all American officials from the compound, except for the missing U.S. ambassador, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. They came under fire as they left.

Shortly after they arrived back at the annex, the annex began receiving small-arms fire and RPG rounds, the official said. The CIA security team returned fire and the attackers dispersed around 1 a.m.

The congressional investigator said the delay showed that the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate.

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

At the State Department that night, officials frantically tried to find out what was happening. In recent interviews, some administration officials criticized the CIA for not being forthcoming with information.

At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.

Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon's command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military's Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants.

But the images didn't help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.

Meanwhile, in Tripoli, another CIA team mobilized to provide additional security for the CIA annex and help evacuate Americans from Benghazi. The team went to the Tripoli airport with a suitcase full of cash to find a plane to fly to Benghazi. They were delayed because Libyan authorities insisted the Americans be accompanied by a larger Libyan force on the ground in Benghazi, which took time to assemble, U.S. officials say. Libyan officials attribute the delay to the Americans not sharing key logistical details with them.

At about 7 p.m.—1 a.m. in Benghazi—the team touched down at the Benghazi airport. The team had to negotiate for transport into Benghazi, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. When the team learned the ambassador was missing and the annex attackers had dispersed, they focused on the security situation at the hospital, where the ambassador was thought to be.

By the time the team was able to arrange transportation with an armed escort, the intelligence official said, they had learned that the ambassador was almost certainly dead and the security at the hospital was unclear, so they decided to go to the annex to help with the evacuation. The ambassador was pronounced dead shortly after 2 a.m.

Using GPS locaters, team members raced to the annex, arriving at 5:15 a.m. Within minutes, the annex was under fire again. The two security officers were killed by mortar fire, the senior U.S. intelligence official said, adding that attack lasted 11 minutes.

The emphasis on security at the CIA annex was underscored the day after the attack. With all U.S. personnel evacuated, the CIA appears to have dispatched local Libyan agents to the annex to destroy any sensitive documents and equipment there, even as the consulate compound remained unguarded and exposed to looters and curiosity seekers for weeks, officials said. Documents, including the ambassador's journal, were taken from the consulate site, and the site proved of little value when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents finally arrived weeks later to investigate.

U.S. officials said they prioritized securing the annex because many more people worked there and they were doing sensitive work, while the consulate, by design, had no classified documents. The American contractor said the top priority was destroying sensitive documents.

In the aftermath of the assault, questions have been raised within the administration and on Capitol Hill about Mr. Petraeus's role in responding to the attack. On Oct. 10, lawmakers grilled senior State Department officials about the attack. At one point, lawmakers and officials alluded for the first time to the existence of the CIA facility. That set off alarms at the agency and at the State Department because that information was classified.

Some senior administration officials say they were surprised Mr. Petraeus went to that night's private Washington screening of the movie "Argo," about a covert CIA operation in 1979 in Tehran.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said Mr. Petraeus has been "fully engaged from the start," citing a particular focus on the rescue mission, and that he received daily updates and personally reviewed intelligence reports after the attack. Another senior official said he was in constant communication with his team even when attending other events on Oct. 10.

In ensuing weeks, tensions over the matter spread to the FBI and Capitol Hill. The FBI didn't initially get to review surveillance footage taken at the compound because officials say it was being analyzed by the CIA. The CIA, in turn, wasn't able to immediately get copies of FBI witness interviews, delaying the agency's analysis of what happened outside the consulate and at the annex.

A senior congressional investigator said the secrecy has made it harder to figure out what errors were made, because classification restrictions have allowed the CIA to avoid public and congressional scrutiny for its conduct. Information about the CIA's role has largely been limited to congressional intelligence committees, which are reviewing the attacks but have not launched investigations into them.

The CIA abandoned the annex after it had been scrubbed clean of any sensitive materials, according to U.S. and Libyan officials.

The significance of the annex was a well-kept secret in Benghazi. A neighbor said that he never saw Libyan security guards at the annex compound and that the street never had any extra police presence or security cordon. "If the CIA was living there, we never knew it," the neighbor said.

In early October, the owners of what had been the annex property moved back inside. Recently, a woman and her two children could be seen driving in and out of the front gate. A gardener said they are the wife and children of the Libyan property owner.

The woman declined to comment, then slammed the security gate shut behind her.

—Julian E. Barnes and Jay Solomon contributed to this article.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #309 on: November 04, 2012, 10:03:41 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/world/africa/benghazi-attack-raises-doubts-about-us-abilities-in-region.html?hp&_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #310 on: November 04, 2012, 03:05:56 PM »



http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/cia-discloses-covert-teams-rapid-response-to-benghazi-embassy-attack-121103?news=846116
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #311 on: November 12, 2012, 08:07:39 AM »

From a highly reliable source-- sorry for the formatting:

============================

A friend of mine has permitted me to share his thoughts re: Benghazi.  He
> speaks from experience..
>
>
>
> You know that I was a FAST Marine. When we are deployed our Main job is to
> be forwardly posted at a base or location where we can respond to
> terrorist attacks or possible attacks within hours...This was my job for 5 years in
> the Marine Corps. Our bases are Rota Spain, Naples Italy, Manama Bahrain
> and Yokosuka Japan, all of which I was stationed out of. At all times my
> Marines and I were within hours of most Middle Eastern countries as well as
> African countries (Embassies specific). My Plt was called to respond to the Kenyan
> Embassy attack hours after it was attacked; My Brother Plt was called to
> Tanzania. They also responded to the USS Cole within hours of that being
> hit.
>
>
>
> Pres Clinton was in office when the Embassy attacks occurred and even he
> within a few weeks had made the determination to bomb targets in Sudan and
> Afghanistan where the terrorists had claimed responsibility and trained
> from...We send the message you will not take American Lives and get way
> with  it!!!
>
>
>
> Here we are Nov 11, 2012. Two months after 4 lives were taken from
> Benghazi  Libya...1 an American Ambassador, they are the forward most representative
> and voice of the Pres of the US, equivalent rank of a 4 star general in
> the  military, 2 Navy Seals who in no way were the security for that embassy
> but > by their own choice made the trek from the Annex to the Embassy to thwart
> the attackers and save American lives; they were told to hold and not go a
> few times before they made the decision to go on their own ***TRUE HEROES,
> the fourth a Consulate aid.
>
>
>
> There were Units of all kinds in the area to support Libya, Seals, FAST
> Marines, anybody who was anybody dealing with terrorist attacks, even
> those
> Special Units within Afghanistan could have made the flight within a
> reasonable time if they were given a chance and just given a call. They
> were
> all there and each and every time their commanders manned them up to
> support
> they were turned down by higher command. No immediate action or plan to
> help
> was put into action by the Pentagon, Pres of the US, Sec of State or
> anybody. Those mentioned turned down these Commanders in the field each
> time
> they pleaded to go in and save these American lives.
>
>
>
> Why were they turned down? Why were even drone strikes and Unmanned Ariel
> Vehicles turned down, if then they didn't want more American warriors to
> go
> in and possible die, then why not these UAV's???
>
> They conduct pinpoint accurate precision strikes on attackers; they were
> within hours of being there.
>
>
>
> It is all a terrible tragedy that starts at the ultimate top of our
> country
> and drips down, unfortunately in this case American Lives were at stake
> and
> they didn't all have to die.
>
>
>
> Some of you may be happy Obama has won, you may know some people who are
> happy.Economy aside, taxes aside, handouts to the lower class from the
> pockets of the higher classes aside, this is what I still do for work,
> there
> are men and women deployed to the forward edge of our Nations battle
> fields
> on all fronts at all times and they don't deserve to be left out in the
> cold
> and that is exactly what has happened here.
>
> Where are the American people who care? Where are the Patriot's who want
> to
> hear about this. Presidents have been held accountable for far less than
> this obvious murderous scene.
>
>
>
> But silence on Libya!!! It was not on the agenda for the elections, they
> had
> to tread carefully in order not to piss too many people off.THEY DID
> NOTHING, THEY TURNED AWAY SUPPORT, THEY LET THEM DIE!!! Yes we who leave
> the
> cozy borders of America understand the sacrifice we may have to make, all
> we
> ask is that we not be left out in the cold if there are ready and willing
> Brothers chopping at the bit to come and save us.
>
>
>
> In the coming weeks, months, maybe a year the truth will come out, it will
> show the inaction of a few up top costs America the best Men they have
> once
> again. I ask that each of you pass this on so that people may be aware.I
> take this personal and my friends here take it personal because it is
> still
> our job and we don't trust those at the top of our Country with our lives
> or
> the decision to save our lives.Why then would you trust them with any part
> of being???
>
>
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #312 on: November 12, 2012, 04:49:59 PM »

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1699207
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #313 on: November 12, 2012, 04:51:20 PM »

http://www.rollcall.com/news/feinstein_may_subpoena_petraeus_document_on_secret_libya_trip-218946-1.html?ET=rollcall:e14680:105450a:&st=email&pos=epm
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #314 on: November 13, 2012, 08:39:51 AM »

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-did-al-qaeda-target-ambassador-stevens/


Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it?
 
All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”

 

The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing?
 
There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant.
 
———————————–
 
Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.” Before and during the revolution, Ambassador Stevens had helped arm the anti-Gaddafi militias, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIF), whose leader Abdulhakim Belhadj later became the head of the Tripoli Military Council.
 
The LIF’s Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper in 2011 (later reported in the British Telegraph) that he had fought the “foreign invasion” in Afghanistan. Captured in Pakistan, al-Hasidi was handed over to the U.S. and returned to Libya, where he was released from prison in 2008. Speaking of the Libyan revolution, he said:
 

Members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.
 
Belhadj met with Free Syrian Army representatives in October 2011 to offer Libyan support for ousting Assad. Throughout 2011 and 2012, ships traversed the Mediterranean from Benghazi to Syria and Lebanon with arms for the Syrian rebels. Turkish and Jordanian intelligence services were doing most of the “vetting” of rebel groups; in July 2010, the Washington Post reported that the CIA had no operatives on the ground and only a few at border posts even as weapons were entering Syria. Said a U.S. official, addressing the question of even non-lethal aid:
 

We’ve got to figure out who is over there first, and we don’t really know that.
 
In August, a report by Tony Cartalucci, a supporter of the Syrian nationalist opposition, detailed the extent of Libyan and al-Qaeda involvement in Syria, calling it a “foreign invasion.” In November, the Washington Post noted a $20 million contribution by the Libyan government to the Syrian National Council — of which the Muslim Brotherhood is a member.
 
Ambassador Stevens would have known all of that; he was the go-to man. He didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so why did they want to kill him?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6004


« Reply #315 on: November 13, 2012, 01:43:16 PM »

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-did-al-qaeda-target-ambassador-stevens/
...
Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.”

If so, the term 'Ambassador' was a rather loose and incorrect title for the man running the operation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #316 on: November 13, 2012, 06:45:29 PM »

If Petraeus was under investigation for over four months, presumably he knew he was under investigation.  The reasons for his resignation would seem to have been applicable for quite some time prior to his actual resignation after the election. 

Question presented:  Were CIA statements about Benghazi during the election affected by Petraeus's knowledge of the investigation?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #317 on: November 15, 2012, 12:13:51 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/condi-rice-breaks-down-benghazi-attack-something-doesnt-seem-quite-right-to-me/
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #318 on: November 16, 2012, 03:53:22 AM »

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/15/15194441-benghazi-hearing-turns-ugly-republicans-accuse-obama-of-lying-dems-fire-back?lite=
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #319 on: November 16, 2012, 04:34:47 PM »

Stunning...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #320 on: November 16, 2012, 05:00:33 PM »

He must be another lurker here , , ,  evil
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #321 on: November 16, 2012, 05:37:55 PM »


What? The most transparent administration evah sent Rice out to lie to the public? Shocking! Who could have guessed?

BTW, where is the autopsy report?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4145


« Reply #322 on: November 16, 2012, 08:41:58 PM »

Watching the mainstream media continue to cover for Obama.  The same flower kids who made Nixon into some sort of despot yet now look the other way.
My head is spinning.  An echo of complete disbelief/shock/anger is reverberating in my brain at watching this. 

The media is complicit.  I cannot believe it.  Four more of this?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #323 on: November 16, 2012, 08:57:04 PM »


Hillary and Libya
The policy failure goes beyond the murder of her deputies in Benghazi..


David Petraeus told Congress Friday in closed hearings that the CIA believed from the start that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were by terrorists. That leaves one VIP who's still missing from Congressional scrutiny: Hillary Clinton.

GOP Congressman Peter King said Mr. Petraeus's testimony differed from what the former CIA director told Congress immediately after the attacks. Mr. King also said Mr. Petraeus said that the CIA's original talking points on the attacks were edited. The altered version became the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's misleading and now infamous comments blaming the attacks on a YouTube video. Both that discrepancy and the issue of the altered talking points need further digging, especially if Ms. Rice is nominated to be the next Secretary of State.

But Mr. Petraeus wasn't responsible for lax consulate security or the U.S. policy that led to the Libya debacle. That's Mrs. Clinton's bailiwick. Last month in interviews from deepest Peru, the Secretary of State said "I take responsibility" for Benghazi.

Except she hasn't. She was conveniently out of the country for this week's House Foreign Affairs hearing, and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry refuses to hold any hearings on Benghazi. His loyalty may get him a cabinet job, while Carl Levin's Armed Services Committee also pretends nothing much happened in Libya.

The targets of the attacks and its first victims were diplomats. Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation in the blaze, becoming the first American ambassador killed in the line of duty in over 30 years. A junior colleague also died. These men were Mrs. Clinton's "responsibility." Several hours after the assault on the consulate, members of the jihadist militia Ansar al-Shariah turned on the CIA compound about a mile away, killing two of Mr. Petraeus's men.

In Congressional hearings last month, career State officials admitted that threat warnings from Benghazi were overlooked and requests for better security turned down. They said Foggy Bottom misjudged the ability of a weak Libyan state to protect them. It's not clear how high up the chain these concerns went, but over to you, Mrs. Clinton.

For over a week after the attacks, the Administration blamed the YouTube video. Mrs. Clinton didn't push this misleading narrative in public as enthusiastically as Ms. Rice. Still, she bought into it. The father of Tyrone Woods, a CIA contractor who was killed in Benghazi, told media outlets last month that Mrs. Clinton tried to comfort him by promising that the U.S.-based maker of the video would be "prosecuted and arrested"—though terrorists killed his son.

Beyond the Benghazi attacks is the larger issue of the Administration's Libya policy, a failure that Mrs. Clinton should also answer for. At the start of the Libya uprising, Washington hid behind the U.N. Security Council to resist calls for intervention. Mrs. Clinton's department then made the mistake of agreeing to a U.N. arms embargo on both the Gadhafi regime and the rebels. This blunder forced the rebels to look elsewhere for weapons and cash, particularly Gulf states like Qatar that favored Islamist militias.

As Gadhafi's forces were about to overrun Benghazi in March, the Arab League, Britain and France called for military intervention. Only after the Security Council gave the green light—when Russia abstained—did NATO launch air strikes. American cruise missiles and bombers led the way, but on April 7 President Obama pulled the U.S. out of a leadership combat role.

The U.S. also waited until July to recognize the Benghazi rebel opposition as "the legitimate governing authority," after Luxembourg and 25 other countries had already done so. The war lasted until October, much longer than necessary.

American disengagement continued after Gadhafi fell. Though rich in oil, Libya's well-intentioned new leaders needed advice and encouragement to build a functioning state. The most pressing need was to rein in the anti-Gadhafi militias and stand up a national army. But the U.S. was reluctant to follow up with aid or know-how. (See our December 24, 2011 editorial, "MIA on the Shores of Tripoli.") Qatar and the United Arab Emirates stepped in with money and weapons, again favoring Islamist groups.

The Libyan people nonetheless voted in elections this summer for secular, pro-Western leaders. Yet the government has limited powers and lacks a proper army. The militias have stepped into the vacuum, while al Qaeda-style training camps proliferate in the hills around Benghazi.

***
This abdication is the backdrop to what happened on September 11. The large CIA outpost in Benghazi was supposed to monitor jihadists and work with State to round up thousands of mobile surface-to-air missiles in Libya. Yet it turns out that it's hard to fight terrorists on the ground with drones from remote bases. Without a functioning government or broader U.S. aid, a small Islamist militia was able to target foreign diplomats and eventually lay siege to the U.S. compound. The CIA closed its entire Benghazi shop that very morning—an abject retreat.

For weeks, the Administration has tried to shift blame for Benghazi to the "intelligence community." Mr. Petraeus's fall makes him an easy scapegoat, even as Mrs. Clinton takes a valedictory lap at State and sets her sights on a 2016 Presidential run.

But U.S. Libya policy has been her handiwork, and with the exception of the fall of Gadhafi it is a notable failure. Mrs. Clinton is also a main architect of U.S. policy in Syria, which continues to descend into disorder that may engulf the region. She shouldn't get a free pass from Congress.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4145


« Reply #324 on: November 16, 2012, 09:13:05 PM »

I like Peter King.  I wish I had an uncle like him.

That said he is never able to close the deal.

The crats never will let him.  Rush is likely right.  the crats will not stop defending their guy and gal til they win.

We saw how dumbing us all down is not a problem when they went to endless means to protect their guy Bill Clinton.

It was "all about sex after all", or "we all lie", but "the electorate has deemed it not a big deal", and few ever "get time for perjury", "she had sex with him but not vice versa",  etc etc...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4145


« Reply #325 on: November 18, 2012, 03:43:25 PM »

Peter King on Bob Grant this afternoon.  I can't put up link but one should be able to hear interview by going to BobGrantOnline.

Pete basically comes out and says the WH is covering up the truth, changed the story, and is stonewalling.

Half the country will look the other way.  More than half the media will also.

Even the sex scandal part of Petraues is dumbed down thanks to the Clinton years.

Sex groupies all over the military bases.  Going after officers.  Nah.

I still think that is why most women go into the military.  Because they are gay or they want to meet guys.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6004


« Reply #326 on: November 21, 2012, 08:32:13 AM »

Yesterday's Des Moines Register editorial:

Obama Must Come Clean on Libya Attacks

This nation has a long list of serious problems that it must deal with following the election of a new Congress. The last thing it needs is a protracted political fight over who knew what when surrounding the murders of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three U.S. government employees in Benghazi, Libya.

Some critics of the Obama administration, including Republicans in Congress, are determined to inflate the Benghazi attack into a full-blown scandal. President Obama’s administration seems determined to follow the standard script for Washington by sticking to the original story line, apparently in the hope it eventually will go away.

But this story is not going away.

So the first thing that should happen is the administration should lay out the events in detail and let the chips fall where they may. If someone along the line shaded or changed the facts, as they were known, to protect the administration, let that be known. If that means someone has to take the fall, so be it.

Members of Congress in both parties are asking questions about why the administration’s public statements about the origins of the attack contradicted early intelligence information that it was planned by terrorist groups, with the aid of al-Qaida, and timed for the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Contrary to that intelligence information, administration officials initially said the attack was an outgrowth of spontaneous demonstrations in the Middle East spawned by an anti-Muslim video. The theory is that evidence of a premeditated terrorist attack would have undermined the administration’s assertion that it had crippled al-Qaida by taking out Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization behind the 9/11 attacks.

It’s a serious charge. Ginning up intelligence information to explain foreign policy is wrong, whether it’s to protect a president seeking re-election or whether it’s used by an earlier president to justify going to war.

If that’s what happened, the public should have all the facts. The sooner relevant information is put out, the better. Rather than hunkering down, the Obama administration should make all key State Department and CIA officials available to Congress with instructions to answer every question and turn over every document.

This could be embarrassing. It could force some officials to say they were wrong. It may cause problems for United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice’s chances at winning a nomination as secretary of state. But that is far better than the alternative.

As President Richard Nixon discovered during Watergate, a “two-bit burglary” resulted in the downfall of a president as a result of an elaborate effort to conceal of the facts. That is the lesson the Obama administration should keep in mind as it lays out the complete story of the Benghazi attack.

The nation needs to get this controversy behind us so we can focus on the pressing matter of the federal government’s financial problems.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121120/OPINION03/311200068/The-Register-editorial-Obama-must-come-clean-on-Benghzai?Opinion&nclick_check=1
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6004


« Reply #327 on: November 21, 2012, 09:31:48 AM »

Citing “an intelligence source,” CBS News reports that the “Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)” cut references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack, and did so with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. Neither the State Department nor the White House made these changes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-cia-fbi-signed-off/
----------------

Isn't Clapper the intelligence director (oxymoron alert) who declared the Muslim Brotherhood secular.

He is an Obama appointee.  The distance doesn't insulate the White House.  It was the White House who sent out Susan Rice and handed her the talking points with the truth scrubbed and the falsehood added.

As is so often the case with lying liberals, they answer half a question or answer a different question.  Was there really a national security need to deny what everyone knew, the United States was caught unguarded and hit by terrorist in the home of our most recent Middle East 'victory'?

If there was a good security reason to scrub that truth (there wasn't), how does excuse inventing the lie about the role of the video?

Susan Rice said on Meet the Press, Sept. 16, in her third of four references to the "video": 

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.  What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.  They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya.  And it escalated into a much more violent episode.  Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now."


This is not the removal of references to terrorism, it is the invention of another plausible story to carry the media story past the election - and for the most part it did.

There was no "spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video".  It simply didn't happen.  The Clapper DNI BS does nothing to answer who invented that FALSE tale.

Mis-speak? I don't think so.  Almost verbatum off the talking points, on Fox News Sunday she said:  "the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video."

Who selected and sent out Susan Rice to tell this false story?

Panelist Brit Hume asks that question of his host on Fox News Sunday Oct. 14, 2012:

HUME: You know the answer to this question, when you are seeking Sunday show guest for this program, where do you get the answers from the administration? Where does that come from.

WALLACE: It comes from the white house.

HUME: Exactly.

WALLACE: Always. For anybody in the administration.

HUME: So, if anybody in the administration. So if Susan Rice is going out, that has been OK'd, approved, and - by the White House. That's where this comes from, correct?

WALLACE: Yes.

HUME: Thank you.

WALLACE: I don't like having to answer the questions.
--------

FNS video and transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east#p//v/1843960658001

Does she look uninformed, out of the loop?  I don't think so.  Best guess is that she is someone totally in the loop who knows better.  Now she has NO credibility.  Same for the White House.  Getting at the President by taking out his lying surrogates is a long standing Washington tradition.
------
Must be my television, but I didn't know she would be unimpeachable because she is African American.  All criticisms will be called sexist and racist.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #328 on: November 29, 2012, 05:32:37 AM »

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/11/susan_rice_and_mccain_the_republican_attack_on_the_u_n_ambassador_over_benghazi.html

From the article:


This is where sheer hypocrisy enters the picture. In 2005, when President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, many Democrats hammered her for making misleading remarks about Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Bear in mind that Rice had been Bush’s national security adviser, front and center during the WMD hype, not a peripheral figure like U.N. ambassador. Yet who stood up for that Rice most fervently in the Senate? Lindsey Graham and John McCain.


“The words like ‘misleading’ and ‘disingenuous,’ I think, were very unfair,” Graham said on Fox News at the time, adding, “Every intelligence agency in the world was misled.” McCain said of the fierce floor debate over her nomination, “I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election.”
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #329 on: November 29, 2012, 11:04:19 AM »

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191964/the-white-houses-benghazi-bungling-is-proving-a-disaster/

From the article:

President Obama hasn’t even begun his second term yet, but his administration is already struggling with a huge credibility problem on the Benghazi front. Watch this video posted today at The Weekly Standard, which shows White House Press Secretary Jay Carney telling National Journal correspondent Major Garrett that Obama “is not particularly concerned” whether Susan Rice misled the American people in a series of talk show interviews following the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other US personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #330 on: November 29, 2012, 11:37:14 AM »

Sorry BD, but I'm not seeing that attacks on Amb. Rice as ridiculous at all.
========================

The Trouble With Susan Rice
The would-be secretary of state's record on Iran, Israel, human rights and more. .
By ANNE BAYEFSKY AND MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

Several Republican senators continue to oppose the possible nomination of Susan Rice, currently the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to be secretary of state in President Obama's second term. Their opposition stems largely from Ms. Rice's repeated insistence, five days after terrorists murdered four Americans at a U.S. facility in Libya, that the slaughter stemmed from spontaneous Muslim rage over an amateur video. Sen. John McCain at one point called Ms. Rice "unfit" for the job.

To assess fitness, one might look at those who served previously as secretary of state. More than one has said or done foolish things, or served without notable distinction.

In 1929, Henry Stimson dismantled the nation's only cryptographic facility, located in the State Department, with the airy observation that gentlemen don't read one another's mail. (He sobered up by World War II, when as secretary of war he oversaw a robust code-breaking effort.) More recently, Clinton administration Secretary of State Warren Christopher diminished the office by making several futile pilgrimages to Syria, where he once waited on his airplane for over half an hour in Damascus before being told that Syrian dictator Hafez Assad was too busy to see him. Assad calculated correctly that the slap would be cost-free.

By this modest standard, some might find that Susan Rice is fit. But moral fitness is also relevant, and it is in that category that the Benghazi episode is relevant.

The president has said that Ms. Rice should not be criticized because she "had nothing to do with Benghazi" and so couldn't have known better when she gave her false account. According to Mr. Obama (and to her), she simply repeated talking points provided by an amorphous and anonymous "intelligence community."

But Ms. Rice did know at least a couple of things. She knew that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. She knew that after the attack the president insisted that U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts." She knew that the video story line was questionable, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and administration officials had already suggested publicly that the attack was al Qaeda-related. And she knew that the president had a political interest in asserting that al Qaeda wasn't successfully attacking senior American officials but was instead "on the run," as he maintained on the campaign trail.

Senators might therefore ask Ms. Rice why she was put forward to speak about Benghazi, and what part her personal ambition might have played in her willingness to assume the role known during the Cold War as "useful idiot."

Ms. Rice might also be asked what she knew about al Qaeda's operations in Libya. As a member of the U.N. Security Council and its "Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee," she is privy, for example, to information about the al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is under sanctions and, according to the council, "maintain a presence in eastern Libya."

Senators might also explore Ms. Rice's broader record at the U.N. Why, for example, did she think it was appropriate to absent herself from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's September speech to the General Assembly, the purpose of which was to offer the global community a painstaking explanation of why Iran must be stopped before it can weaponize its growing stock of enriched uranium.

Then there is the matter of U.S. participation for the past three years in the U.N. Human Rights Council, alongside such paragons as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia (soon to be replaced by Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Ivory Coast and Venezuela). Ms. Rice has continually defended America's presence on the council while boasting to Congress that the U.S. "succeeded in getting Iran to withdraw its candidacy last year." She omitted that, in return, the Obama administration stood aside while Iran was elected to the U.N.'s top women's rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women.

Enlarge Image


Close
Reuters
 
Susan Rice at the United Nations on June 7.
.Faced with the Human Rights Council's obsessive condemnations of Israel, Ms. Rice told Congress in April 2011 that "the results there were worse when America sat on the sidelines. . . . Israel was relentlessly bashed." America's "engagement and leadership," she said, "are paying dividends." Yet two weeks earlier, the council had concluded its March 2011 session by adopting more resolutions bashing Israel than at any other session in its history.

In February 2011, Ms. Rice vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for building settlements, but she voiced agreement with the resolution's substance in extreme terms, even touching on construction inside existing settlements and within Israel's capital. "Israeli settlement activity" has "corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region," she said, adding that it "violates Israel's international commitments [and] devastates trust between the parties. . . . [W]e agree with our fellow council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."

This month, asked to comment on plans by Human Rights Council "experts" to create a special "investigation unit" and report on America's use of drones as violations of international law and possible "war crimes," Ms. Rice said mildly that the U.S. has "questions about the appropriateness of this approach but we will look at it on its merits."

On the critical issue of Iran's nuclear program, Ms. Rice has been able to achieve only one sanctions resolution, in June 2010, and with less support than any of the multiple Security Council resolutions passed during the George W. Bush administration.

With respect to the ghastly scenario in Syria, Ms. Rice's efforts in the Security Council have been stunningly meager. The Russians (with whom America supposedly "reset" its relationship) and the Chinese have her thoroughly stymied.

Other examples, of both her inexplicable absences from the U.N. and her inconsequential presence, could be adduced. And though the president, not the U.N. ambassador, makes foreign policy, one is entitled to ask how a Secretary Rice would view the acts and omissions of Ambassador Rice.

Amazingly, the other person most frequently mentioned as a possible secretary of state is Sen. John Kerry, who in the 1970s not only threw away his military medals and testified that his fellow soldiers in Vietnam were war criminals, but also said during a 2004 presidential debate that the U.S. shouldn't use its military power without invoking a "global test" and garnering international approval. So all this may be a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils—but at a minimum Americans should know fully what they are choosing.

Ms. Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09 and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.


« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 12:36:42 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #331 on: November 29, 2012, 06:03:57 PM »

The key difference was that we had good intel that Iraq had WMD, while the lies about Benghazi were deliberate and calculated.
Something the lefties at Slate know, but don't care about.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/11/susan_rice_and_mccain_the_republican_attack_on_the_u_n_ambassador_over_benghazi.html

From the article:


This is where sheer hypocrisy enters the picture. In 2005, when President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, many Democrats hammered her for making misleading remarks about Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Bear in mind that Rice had been Bush’s national security adviser, front and center during the WMD hype, not a peripheral figure like U.N. ambassador. Yet who stood up for that Rice most fervently in the Senate? Lindsey Graham and John McCain.


“The words like ‘misleading’ and ‘disingenuous,’ I think, were very unfair,” Graham said on Fox News at the time, adding, “Every intelligence agency in the world was misled.” McCain said of the fierce floor debate over her nomination, “I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election.”

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6004


« Reply #332 on: November 29, 2012, 07:09:48 PM »

"The key difference was that we had good intel that Iraq had WMD, while the lies about Benghazi were deliberate and calculated.  Something the lefties at Slate know, but don't care about."

Yes, we heard ad nauseam that Bush et al lied, but never to my knowledge was anything ever established to contradict that the best intelligence in the world thought Saddam was close to WMD, used them on the Kurds etc.  AFTER no stockpiles were found Iraq Study Group concluded he was 6-8 years away from nuclear weapons - more than 6-8 years ago.  That means nuclear by now if not for US intervention.

The Rice scandal is two-part.  a) She covered up the tie to terrorism - which she knew.  Others took the blame for removing that from her public report.  b) They completely made up the story about the video and passed that off as what happened when it didn't and she knew it didn't.

I don't see anyone really pressing on point b) and she certainly has not come clean on that publicly.

Sec of State is in the line of order of succession to the Presidency, just ask Alexander Haig.  If you believe what I wrote about duplicity, and I believer it is true, then blocking her potential confirmation makes perfect sense.

She put herself out there for the President politically.  It was a career choice.

Susan Rice was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs when the embassies were bombed.  The sensitivity of the information is something should she have contemplated.

A shrewd move by Pres. Obama would be to make Susan Collins Sec of State.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #333 on: November 29, 2012, 07:23:35 PM »

Just a reminder, from the USDOJ's 1998 indictment of Bin Laden:

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq
.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #334 on: November 29, 2012, 07:41:02 PM »

LEts start taking this to the Benghazi, Petraeous, etc thread.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #335 on: December 05, 2012, 08:23:20 PM »



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #336 on: December 05, 2012, 09:17:12 PM »

NFW!! Who could have foreseen this?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #337 on: December 06, 2012, 05:34:23 PM »

.....and all al qaeda got was his lousy weapon stockpiles.......


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/al-qaida-affiliate-chief-tells-mauritanian-site-his-group-got-libyan-weapons-as-west-fears/2011/11/10/gIQApa9M8M_story.html?wprss=rss_world

Al-Qaida affiliate chief tells Mauritanian site his group got Libyan weapons, as West fears
 

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, November 10, 8:08 AM




NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania — A desert chief with al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has confirmed fears that his terror organization procured weapons from stockpiles left unguarded in Libya after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi.

Mokhtar Belmokhtar was quoted by the private Mauritanian newspaper Nouakchott Infos and its online version Nouakchott Information Agency as saying that “it’s totally natural we benefited from Libyan arms in such conditions.”


NYT: Obama admin approved secret weapons deals that ended up arming Islamists in Libya
posted at 11:31 am on December 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey


Oopsie! In what has to be one of the least-shocking outcomes of Barack Obama’s Libyan adventure, the New York Times reports that his administration secretly gave approval of weapons shipments to Libyan resistance fighters, only to learn that the weapons ended up arming Islamist terror networks.  Who could have seen that coming, right?

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.
Maybe we can offer an alternative headline for this: Reporting that might have been valuable before the election. Tammy Bruce tweeted:

 
Tammy Bruce
@HeyTammyBruce A month after the election the NYT tells us: "U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands" nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wor…
6 Dec 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
This is yet another indictment of the Obama approach to decapitating regimes.  In the immediate aftermath of the fall of Qaddafi, the administration didn’t hesitate to favorably compare the outcome in Libya to that in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of American troops were used to secure the gains after the fall of Saddam Hussein.  The NYT provides a post-mortem on that strategy courtesy of a former State Department adviser on the region:

The Qatari assistance to fighters viewed as hostile by the United States demonstrates the Obama administration’s continuing struggles in dealing with the Arab Spring uprisings, as it tries to support popular protest movements while avoiding American military entanglements. Relying on surrogates allows the United States to keep its fingerprints off operations, but also means they may play out in ways that conflict with American interests.

“To do this right, you have to have on-the-ground intelligence and you have to have experience,” said Vali Nasr, a former State Department adviser who is now dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, part of Johns Hopkins University. “If you rely on a country that doesn’t have those things, you are really flying blind. When you have an intermediary, you are going to lose control.”
And when you don’t have any way to control what happens on the ground, you can bet that “control” will be the first thing to go.  The US knew that Islamist terrorists operated in eastern Libya for years before Obama came into office.  Al-Qaeda recruited heavily in the region for its fight against the US in Iraq.  Decapitating Qaddafi meant losing pressure on AQ and other Islamist terror networks, and flooding the area with uncontrolled weapons almost guaranteed that the already-organized terror networks would hijack them from other less-organized resistance movements.

But this brings up another important question.  The Obama administration knew that the Islamist terror networks ended up controlling many if not most of these weapons, and had become much more dangerous as a result.  If that’s the case, how could they possibly have left the consulate in Benghazi as unprotected as it was?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/06/nyt-obama-admin-approved-secret-weapons-deals-that-ended-up-arming-islamists-in-libya/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #338 on: January 19, 2013, 04:33:07 PM »

Still waiting.


It's almost like they are trying to hide something.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 571


« Reply #339 on: January 22, 2013, 11:12:29 AM »

www.washingtonguardian.com/ambassadors-final-warning-benghazi
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #340 on: February 08, 2013, 01:58:10 PM »

Libya's Divisions in the Post-Gadhafi Era
February 7, 2013 | 1131 GMT

Summary
 
Tripoli has emerged since the fall of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime in 2011 as a weaker national capital, though this is not necessarily a problem for Libya's future as a parliamentary democracy. Because Libya's geographic divisions make it difficult for a central government to impose its will throughout the country by any means other than brute force, a decentralized government may be the more appropriate model for long-term political stability.
 
However, the process by which Libya has moved from Gadhafi's dictatorship to less centralized control has been fraught with security lapses and violence caused by various militant groups, which appears likely to continue in the near term. Still, Tripoli will likely conclude that the risks from exerting too little central control are outweighed by the risks from inviting a regional backlash and sparking another civil war by exerting too much.
 


Analysis
 
Almost half of Libya's population lives in Tripoli and Benghazi or their surrounding areas. Gadhafi's regime was based in Tripoli, which is much closer to Tunisia and the Maghreb than Benghazi in Libya's east. A desert separates the two cities and makes up the majority of Libyan territory. The distance and geographic barrier between the two coastal cities allowed different regional identities to emerge in the centuries before Libya's modern borders were drawn, and these differences are at the center of the country's governance challenges.
 

Libya's modern boundaries were established in 1934 when it became an Italian colony after Rome took control of Tripoli and Benghazi from the Ottomans in the early 20th century. The Italians divided Libya into the western, eastern and southern administrative regions that exist today. Libya then came under British control in 1943 until declaring independence as the Kingdom of Libya in 1951. During all these periods, the powers ruling Libya understood the need to balance between the competing centers of power in Tripoli and Benghazi; although Libyan King Idris hailed from Cyrenaica, he too alternated capitals between Tripoli and Benghazi to prevent a rival power base from emerging in the other city. Gadhafi's regime, founded in 1969, represented the alternative way of ruling Libya's vast and disparate desert territory: using a strong central government and authoritarian control to suppress Libya's strong regional identities.
 
Tripoli's Political Evolution
 
After Gadhafi's ouster in October 2011, Libyans for the first time had the opportunity to craft a political system representative of their interests instead of an imposed system of political control. Libya's ongoing political evolution represents a logical return to a system prioritizing local identities and politics over the dictates from a distant government in Tripoli. Because of this weakening of the central government, wide swathes in the center of the country are not controlled by either Tripoli or Benghazi, a situation that militant groups have been able to exploit.
 
Tripoli is reluctant to impose too heavy a central government presence in regions with strong local representation, such as the militia-backed local councils of Misurata and Benghazi. Similarly, even regional power centers such as Benghazi are unable to effectively police their surrounding areas and cooperate with Tripoli to patrol borders and maintain national security. The result has been continuation of a diverse group of local militia councils, armed with weapons plundered from Gadhafi's abundant weapons caches during the revolution.
 





.
 
These revolutionary councils frequently overlap with Libya's complex tribal and ethnic social structures, compounding the geographic challenges facing any central government seeking to rule Libya. And given the manner in which Libya ousted Gadhafi, these revolutionary militias and local councils see themselves as defenders of the revolution, making it critical for Tripoli to deal with these groups with respect, even deference, in order to maintain open channels for dialogue and possible cooperation.
 
Libya's Emerging Balance of Power
 
Tripoli's political transition is increasingly viewed with apprehension by many of the Western forces that intervened during the Libyan revolution, especially in light of the ongoing French intervention in Mali. Recent statements from British, French and EU officials reflect the growing fear that Libya and its substantial exports of light, sweet crude oil could again fall to civil war. The killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens in September 2012 and the historic prevalence of Islamist militants in eastern Libya have only added to concerns that the country is on the brink of descending into greater instability and becoming as a fractured warlord state along the lines of Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout in 1989.
 
However, Tripoli has a significant advantage over Afghanistan in preventing the devolution into civil war: oil. The country's crude reserves and revenues give the government a tool by which it can incentivize local militias, revolutionary councils, armed groups and even Islamist brigades against taking actions contrary to the government's interests. Oil revenues have been systemically distributed through complex social spending programs and direct cash payments to regional leaders and militias. Tripoli has also created umbrella organizations aimed at protecting energy infrastructure by giving militia groups a share of the oil revenue in exchange for organizing under the leadership of the Interior and Defense ministries. 
 
Beginning with the unelected National Transitional Council, these direct cash payments to the population have been largely successful in preventing violent attacks against both government institutions and on energy infrastructure. Instead, we have seen an increase in largely peaceful demonstrations, either near the General National Congress' headquarters in Tripoli or at oil export terminals and refineries. Local tribal leaders and militias also have an incentive to protect their own regional energy infrastructure from militants and rival groups in the region, which in part led to Libya's relatively quick return to oil production and sustained exports. While regional centers such as Benghazi and Misurata may not wish to cede further authority to Tripoli, they have shown the desire in working together to safeguard mutual interests.
 
Long-Term Security Challenges
 
Until local and regional organizations are prepared and willing to take on much of the security burden that heretofore had been the responsibility of the central government, Libya will face a persistent security threat. The apparent assassination campaign in Benghazi against intelligence officials from Tripoli and former Gadhafi regime officials is only one such danger. And as evidenced by Mali, loose government control over a vast desert territory in North Africa can prove to be an attractive breeding ground for militancy.
 
Feb. 17 will mark the two-year anniversary of the initial uprisings in eastern Libya that eventually toppled Gadhafi's regime. Tripoli has increased its security presence and Western governments have issued security warnings in light of indications that militant attacks against government installations and foreigners could accompany the protests planned to express popular frustration with slow-moving political reforms.
 
Currently, the biggest potential threat to Libya's stability would be an attempt by the central government in Tripoli to codify far-reaching powers for itself in the still unfinished constitution, reawakening widespread fears about the return of an oppressive security state. Such a move would likely trigger violent, armed opposition to the central government's attempted power grab, leading to a weak central government having to face a number of well-armed regional militias -- similar to the Libyan revolution that toppled Gadhafi himself.
 
It is too early to determine whether the Libyan government will succeed in striking the right balance between central authority and regional autonomy. Authorities in Tripoli are carefully working through regional concerns and testing its boundaries in the unfamiliar environment of representative government. The ongoing peaceful protests and appeals to the central government from regional power centers reflect a desire by many Libyans to find a stable working relationship that protects regional interests while preventing the rise of another Gadhafi-style ruler.
.

Read more: Libya's Divisions in the Post-Gadhafi Era | Stratfor
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #341 on: April 03, 2013, 10:43:46 AM »

Libyan Report Card
April 3, 2013 | 0900 GMT
Stratfor
 
By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst
 
In the starkest terms, a state is defined by a bureaucratic hierarchy that monopolizes the use of force over a specific geography. Ideally, nobody need fear the authorities except those who break the law. And because the authorities monopolize violence, nobody need fear his fellow man. Of course, tyrannical states induce general fear among much of the population. And weak states have a difficult time monopolizing the use of force -- the reason they are weak in the first place. By these standards, many states in the world are weak. And Libya has gone from being a tyrannical state to being barely a state at all.
   
 
Given the calls for intervention in Syria, let's consider Libya, where a modest intervention was tried.
 

The authorities in the capital of Tripoli openly acknowledge the fact that they do not monopolize the use of force and have wisely opted for compromise and arbitration in eastern Libya (the Benghazi region) and in the far-flung Sahara to the south. It is difficult to predict whether Libyan affairs will carry on in the form of a benign and relatively mild anarchy (with some institutions working and others not) or will advance in the direction of a more coherent democratic state. Of course, a descent into worse chaos cannot be ruled out.
 
       
 
Libya's fundamental problem is that rather than comprising a compact cluster of demography like the Nile Valley, it is but a vague geographical expression -- a monumentally vast desert and coastal region between historic Egypt and Greater Carthage (Tunisia). Because Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt are geographically associated with specific knots of civilization going back to antiquity, they did not require suffocating forms of tyranny to hold them together like Libya, and to a lesser extent like Algeria, which for decades during the height of the Cold War had a radical socialist regime. For Libya, Moammar Gadhafi's regime was, in fact, anarchy masquerading as tyranny.
 
         
 
Therefore, it should surprise no one that the toppling of Gadhafi brought about the veritable collapse of the state. Libyan authorities do not govern so much as negotiate the terms of geographic control. If anyone doubts the fact that the Libyan state barely exists, they should investigate the situation on Libya's borders. In Libya, borders -- with their connotation of specific, legal lines characterized by passport and security surveillance -- have given way in the direction of frontiers, a term implying overlapping movements of gangs, militias and tribes. Modern states have borders; weak and failed states have frontiers.
 
         
 
For example, the collapse of Gadhafi's regime brought about the second-order effect of war and anarchy in nearby Mali. Ethnic Malian Tuaregs who had backed Gadhafi fled Libya en masse, taking with them large-scale caches of weapons upon the Libyan leader's demise. The Tuaregs headed back to Mali, where they wrested control of the desert north of that country from a government located far to the south in the capital of Bamako. After the Tuareg rebellion was co-opted by jihadists, there were reportedly almost 2,000 deaths and wholesale raping and looting, in addition to the sacking of world heritage sites. The French government subsequently intervened with troops. Now there are multiple patches of sovereignty in a confused battlefield all across the Sahel and Sahara. The stability of regimes in places like Mauritania and Niger are somewhat more in doubt than before Gadhafi's collapse. Libya, for that matter, is now an ungovernable space in significant parts of the country where al Qaeda can very possibly find refuge. The killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi was indicative of the terrors that a chaotic, post-Gadhafi Libya can offer up.
 
         
 
It would seem from this accounting that the Obama administration's decision to militarily intervene in Libya (along with its NATO allies) was a blunder of the first magnitude. As long as Gadhafi was secure in power, the Libyan state was also secure, borders throughout North Africa were more reasonably maintained and al Qaeda had no dominion inside Libya itself, even as the Libyan intelligence services cooperated with those of the West. A post-Gadhafi world now clearly presents the CIA with greater security challenges than it had before.
 
 
 
But the political reckoning for the Obama administration is not that simple.
 
         
 
The trigger for intervention was reportedly the fear that Gadhafi's troops were marching on rebellious Benghazi, bent on perpetrating a massacre. Those reportedly in the forefront of arguing for intervention on such grounds were then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and National Security official Samantha Power. The three women had good arguments: Were Gadhafi to have massacred large numbers of civilians with U. S. warships hovering just offshore, it would have been a demonstration of American fecklessness comparable to that of European (and particularly Dutch) fecklessness when Serb troops massacred large numbers of civilians in 1995 in Srebrenica under the thumb of U.N. peacekeepers. The loss of prestige the United States might have suffered throughout the Arab world as a result could have been substantial. And had the administration done nothing, Gadhafi's regime might well have collapsed anyway: Only the process would have been bloodier and more drawn-out, with an even greater level of chaos and socio-political disintegration than what we have already seen. More to the point, because we still do not know all the intelligence the administration had available at the time regarding Gadhafi's intentions in Benghazi, to condemn administration officials outright is too easy a judgment at this date.
 
         
 
But there is a conundrum here that those who favored intervention -- in Libya as well as elsewhere -- do not own up to. That is, short of deploying large numbers of ground troops, the ability of the U.S. government to rebuild weakened or collapsed states is severely limited. The idea that the administration intervened in Libya because it was the least worst option at a specific moment is defensible; the argument that if only Washington had done this, or done that, or put in more money or aid, Libya might be a stable state today veers in the direction of fantasy.
 
 
 
Even the presence of more than 100,000 American ground troops was insufficient to make Iraq an adequately effective democracy, so how can one argue that a band of civilian experts, plus small numbers of special operations forces, could have accomplished more in Libya? Gadhafi's regime had virtually eliminated civil society in a country that was barely a country -- and you say that the United States had it in its power to make it all whole, or partly whole, again?
 
 
 
Toppling an evil regime or stopping a war is a profoundly moral act. But taking moral responsibility for what happens next in a country is the hard part. Bosnia-Herzegovina, 18 years after the U.S.-led intervention and the Dayton Peace Accords, is a nasty, dysfunctional state. And Bosnia-Herzegovina has advantages that Libya and Syria simply do not have. It is next-door to the European Union and has a modern history of relatively strong institutional structures compared to much of the Middle East. Bosnia was in a relatively developed part of the Ottoman Empire; Libya and Syria were in much less developed parts. But because Washington tends to overestimate its own significance in terms of its ability to alter distant societies, the following pattern will continue to emerge: a terrible war resulting in calls for humanitarian intervention, an intervention in some cases, always followed by a blame game inside the Washington Beltway after the country has slipped back into tyranny or anarchy.
 
 
 
Meanwhile, here is a probability: Libya's relatively short history as a strong state is over. It will go on and on as a dangerous and weakly governed area between Tunisia and Egypt. Its considerable oil resources can internally generate revenue for armed groups and politicians both. Thus, Libya will become a metaphor for much of North Africa and the Sahara, places where frontiers are more common than borders. .


Read more: Libyan Report Card | Stratfor
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #342 on: July 23, 2013, 04:02:25 AM »



http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/18/a_bad_omen_for_libya
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #343 on: July 28, 2013, 11:32:46 AM »

 BENGHAZI, Libya — More than 1,000 prisoners escaped from a prison near here on Saturday, security officials said, after a wave of political assassinations and attacks on political offices across Libya.


The mass escape from the Queyfiya prison took place early Saturday after a series of marches in a number of Libyan cities protested the assassinations and the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been blamed for recent political killings. It was not clear whether the inmates had received inside help.

Libya’s prime minister, Ali Zeidan, said in a televised news conference on Saturday that local residents had broken the inmates out of the prison.

“The prison was attacked by the citizens who live nearby, because they don’t want a prison in their region,” he said. “Special forces were present and could have got the situation under control by using their arms, but they had received orders not to use their weapons on citizens, so the citizens opened the doors to the prisoners.” Mr. Zeidan said he had ordered the border with Egypt to be closed to prevent the inmates from fleeing there.

But security officials here, speaking on the condition of anonymity, vehemently denied the assertion that residents had incited the prison break. The officials said it had started with a fracas and shooting among military police officers inside the prison, leading to a fire that allowed the inmates to escape. The inmates were mostly common criminals, not the militants who are blamed for much of the violence here, officials said.

“It was a dispute with the military police that the prisoners mistook for an uprising, so they started smashing things and setting things on fire to be released,” said a member of a top joint security operation in Benghazi. “What do you expect? Prisoners saw an opportunity to escape, and they took it.”

The security official said several escapees had returned on their own, reasoning that they were safer behind bars than in the street, where they feared reprisals from relatives of their victims.

The prison break followed a day of extraordinary violence, even by the standards of Libya, which is overrun by heavily armed militias unwilling to come under government control. Assassins shot five people dead on Friday in Benghazi and Tripoli, the capital. Among the dead were security officers and a prominent lawyer, Abdul-Salam al-Musmari, a harsh critic of the Brotherhood and the militias, He was also known for his role in helping instigate Libya’s 2011 revolution against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Mr. Musmari, who was shot in the heart while leaving a mosque in Benghazi, was the first victim in a long string of recent assassinations who was neither a military official nor a figure from the Qaddafi government. 

Hundreds gathered in Tripoli after dawn prayers on Saturday and denounced the killing of Mr. Musmari, The Associated Press reported. They set fire to tires in the street and demanded the dissolution of Islamist parties.

Protesters appeared to be inspired by events in Egypt, where millions took to the streets on Friday to answer an appeal from the top military commander, who said he wanted a mandate to fight “terrorism” by supporters of the country’s ousted president, Mohamed Morsi. Mr. Morsi is allied with the Islamist-led Brotherhood. On Saturday, the Egyptian military killed at least 72 people in a ferocious attack on Islamist protesters, the deadliest attack by the security services since the 2011 revolution.

“We don’t want the Brotherhood; we want the army and the police,” Libyan protesters chanted, The A.P. reported, repeating a slogan used in Egypt.

Last week, rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the embassy of the United Arab Emirates in Tripoli, and at a Tripoli hotel where government figures live, though no one was killed. A bomb detonated at a police station in Benghazi, the eastern city where Islamist militias remain powerful and where the United States ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed last year in an assault on a diplomatic compound by heavily armed militants.

Mr. Zeidan said that an investigation had begun into Mr. Musmari’s killing and that a foreign criminal investigation team would join Libyan investigators in Tripoli and Benghazi on Monday, but he did not offer further details.

Human Rights Watch urged the Libyan government to “conduct a prompt and thorough investigation” of Mr. Musmari’s death.

“Libya’s fragile transition is at stake if political killings go unpunished,” said Nadim Houry, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “This makes investigating al-Musmari’s murder all the more urgent.”

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12074


« Reply #344 on: September 04, 2013, 01:09:21 PM »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

Special report: We all thought Libya had moved on – it has, but into lawlessness and ruin
 





Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi


Related articles
 
US security plans apparently not followed in Libya attack


Libya: Car bomb near Benghazi hospital kills 10


Libya's future looks bleak as media focus turns elsewhere


US-backed force in Libya faces challenges


Gunbattles erupt in Tripoli


A little under two years ago, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, urged British businessmen to begin “packing their suitcases” and to fly to Libya to share in the reconstruction of the country and exploit an anticipated boom in natural resources.
 

Yet now Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters.

Mutinying security men have taken over oil ports on the Mediterranean and are seeking to sell crude oil on the black market. Ali Zeidan, Libya’s Prime Minister, has threatened to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker trying to pick up the illicit oil from the oil terminal guards, who are mostly former rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and have been on strike over low pay and alleged government corruption since July.

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

Though the Nato intervention against Gaddafi was justified as a humanitarian response to the threat that Gaddafi’s tanks would slaughter dissidents in Benghazi, the international community has ignored the escalating violence. The foreign media, which once filled the hotels of Benghazi and Tripoli, have likewise paid little attention to the near collapse of the central government.

The strikers in the eastern region Cyrenaica, which contains most of Libya’s oil, are part of a broader movement seeking more autonomy and blaming the government for spending oil revenues in the west of the country. Foreigners have mostly fled Benghazi since the American ambassador, Chris Stevens, was murdered in the US consulate by jihadi militiamen last September. Violence has worsened since then with Libya’s military prosecutor Colonel Yussef Ali al-Asseifar, in charge of investigating assassinations of politicians, soldiers and journalists, himself assassinated by a bomb in his car on 29 August.

Rule by local militias is also spreading anarchy around the capital. Ethnic Berbers, whose militia led the assault on Tripoli in 2011, temporarily took over the parliament building in Tripoli. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has called for an independent investigation into the violent crushing of a prison mutiny in Tripoli on 26 August in which 500 prisoners had been on hunger strike. The hunger strikers were demanding that they be taken before a prosecutor or formally charged since many had been held without charge for two years.

The government called on the Supreme Security Committee, made up of former anti-Gaddafi militiamen nominally under the control of the interior ministry, to restore order. At least 19 prisoners received gunshot shrapnel wounds, with one inmate saying “they were shooting directly at us through the metal bars”. There have been several mass prison escapes this year in Libya including 1,200 escaping from a prison after a riot in Benghazi in July. 

The Interior Minister, Mohammed al-Sheikh, resigned last month in frustration at being unable to do his job, saying in a memo sent to Mr Zeidan that he blamed him for failing to build up the army and the police. He accused the government, which is largely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, of being weak and dependent on tribal support. Other critics point out that a war between two Libyan tribes, the Zawiya and the Wirrshifana, is going on just 15 miles from the Prime Minister’s office.

Diplomats have come under attack in Tripoli with the EU ambassador’s convoy ambushed outside the Corinthia hotel on the waterfront. A bomb also wrecked the French embassy.

One of the many failings of the post-Gaddafi government is its inability to revive the moribund economy. Libya is wholly dependent on its oil and gas revenues and without these may not be able to pay its civil servants. Sliman Qajam, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, told Bloomberg that “the government is running on its reserves. If the situation doesn’t improve, it won’t be able to pay salaries by the end of the year”.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #345 on: September 04, 2013, 02:11:01 PM »

GM: 

Excellent follow-up on this and well-needed.

If I may give all of us a collective pat on the back, this is one of the many strengths of this forum-- we do follow up on matters that are no longer shiny objects , , ,

Good work gents!

TAC!
Marc
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #346 on: October 01, 2013, 04:34:12 PM »

Once again this forum is in the forefront , , ,

http://nationalreview.com/corner/359557/libya-muslim-brotherhood-and-other-jihadists-grab-massive-amounts-us-weapons-andrew-c

 In Libya, Muslim Brotherhood and Other Jihadists Grab ‘Massive Amounts’ of U.S. Weapons
By Andrew C. McCarthy
September 26, 2013 6:51 AM


Evidently, the Obama administration’s idea of solving the problem of what is being called “theft” of U.S. weapons by Islamic supremacists in Libya is simply to give weapons to Islamic supremacists in Syria. The reality, of course, is that once Obama embarked on his unauthorized and unprovoked war in Libya, the arming of jihadists became inevitable, as did atrocities like the Benghazi massacre. And now, urged on by bipartisan Beltway clerisy, we are poised to repeat the calamity. Kudos to Fox, not only for this significant reporting but also for stating the detail Washington likes to omit: The Muslim Brotherhood — not moderate and not peace-loving — is among the jihadist organizations grabbing U.S. weapons. According to Fox’s Adam Housley:

    EXCLUSIVE: The recent theft of massive amounts of highly sensitive U.S. military equipment from Libya is far worse than previously thought, Fox News has learned, with raiders swiping hundreds of weapons that are now in the hands of militia groups aligned with terror organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The equipment, as Fox News previously reported, was used for training in Libya by U.S. Special Forces. The training team, which was funded by the Pentagon, has since been pulled, partly in response to the overnight raids last August.

    According to State Department and military sources, dozens of highly armored vehicles called GMV’s, provided by the United States, are now missing. The vehicles feature GPS navigation as well as various sets of weapon mounts and can be outfitted with smoke-grenade launchers. U.S. Special Forces undergo significant training to operate these vehicles. Fox News is told the vehicles provided to the Libyans are now gone.

    Along with the GMV’s, hundreds of weapons are now missing, including roughly 100 Glock pistols and more than 100 M4 rifles. More disturbing, according to the sources, is that it seems almost every set of night-vision goggles has also been taken. This is advanced technology that gives very few war fighters an advantage on the battlefield.

    “It’s not just equipment … it’s the capability. You are giving these very dangerous groups the capability that only a few nations are capable of,” one source said. “Already assassinations are picking up in Tripoli and there are major worries that the militias are using this stolen equipment to their advantage. All these militias are tied into terrorist organizations and are tied to (salafists).”

    The “salafists” are a jihadist movement among Salafi Muslims. This growing movement in Libya directly endangers the U.S.-supported government, and sources worry that this sensitive equipment is now going to be used by these groups in an attempt to overthrow the government and install a more hardline Muslim leadership.

    Some diplomats, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are seeing the kinds of conditions that opened the door to the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack now appearing in Tripoli and across the rest of Libya.  They worry that American convoys and western convoys will be attacked using these stolen weapons and vehicles.

The whole report is worth reading. Recall, by the way, that the U.S. installations in Benghazi, in addition to British convoys and installations, were repeatedly attacked in and around Benghazi even before the September 11, 2012, Benghazi massacre. But by all means, let’s do it again in Syria.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #347 on: October 05, 2013, 06:15:02 PM »

U.S. Forces in Libya Capture Qaeda Leader Linked to ’98 Embassy Bombings

United States forces captured a leader of Al Qaeda indicted in the 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, ending a 15-year manhunt by seizing him in broad daylight near the Libyan capital, American officials said.

The suspect, born Nazih Abd al Hamid al-Ruqhay and known by his nom de guerre, Abu Anas el-Liby, has been high on the list of the United States government’s most-wanted fugitives since at least 2000, when a New York court indicted him for his part in planning the embassy attacks. The F.B.I. had offered a bounty of up to $5 million for information leading to his capture.

Abu Anas was captured alive near Tripoli in a joint operation by the United States military, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., and was in American custody, a United States official said.

READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/Al-Qaeda-Suspect-Wanted-in-US-Said-to-Be-Taken-in-Libya.html?emc=edit_na_20131005

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #348 on: October 07, 2013, 10:06:02 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/world/africa/american-raids-in-africa.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131007&_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31504


« Reply #349 on: October 10, 2013, 10:52:17 AM »

Libyan prime minister freed following pre-dawn capture
________________________________________
 
Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan has been released hours after he was seized in a pre-dawn raid by militiamen loosely tied to the government. More than 100 armed men possibly from the Libya Revolutionaries Operations Rooms (LROR) captured Zeidan from his hotel residence in the capital Tripoli. The LROR said it was acting under orders from the prosecutor general, however the justice ministry denied this claim and said the prosecutor general had not issued a warrant. An LROR spokesman said Zeidan's arrest had come after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the Libyan government knew about a U.S. operation last Saturday to capture suspected al Qaeda leader Anas al-Libi.  (Nice work John!) Conversely, the militant group, the Anti-Crime Committee, also claimed responsibility for Zeidan's capture, saying they were holding him for corruption and harming state security. Zeidan was freed after being held for about six hours, however the circumstances of his release are unclear. Some reports have said security forces or armed locals were involved, and spokesman for the Libyan government Mohamed Yahya Kabr said Zeidan was "freed, not released."
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!