Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2014, 02:31:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81828 Posts in 2244 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Benghazi and related matters
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Print
Author Topic: Benghazi and related matters  (Read 14635 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2013, 01:36:37 PM »

The secret war behind Benghazi
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_secret_war_behind_benghazi_mKbP26KAwILn2KKMs8NIWM
A stealth campaign of assassinations, run by CIA nominee John Brennan, resulted in the death of the US ambassador, a new book claims
By KYLE SMITH
Last Updated: 8:49 AM, February 10, 2013
Posted: 10:27 PM, February 9, 2013


What really happened in Benghazi?

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on the US consulate because of a secret low-level war in which American hit squads took out leaders of al Qaeda militias, which retaliated in Benghazi. There was never a protest at the consulate over the infamous anti-Islamist YouTube video.

So says the new 80-page e-book, “Benghazi: The Definitive Report” (William Morrow) by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb, two military veterans who specialize in reporting about clandestine operations at the website SOFREP.com. Their book, which they say is based on interviews with well-placed security types but contains virtually no checkable sourcing, is loaded with explosive allegations.

John Brennan was given free rein in North Africa by Obama, a book says.

The fall of Moammar Khadafy presented a tricky situation for us: Khadafy, though a despot to his own people, had nevertheless been cooperating with the US, which among other favors was granted the right to use Libyan territory for CIA black sites.

Moreover, the opposition to Khadafy wasn’t exactly led by a gang of Libyan George Washingtons. Many of the rebel leaders were sharia-loving members of al Qaeda who had come from jihadist strongholds in the cities of Derna and Benghazi, which are so tied up in Islamist fundamentalism that they were major exporters of guerilla warriors who fought the US in Iraq.

Having helped to engineer the ouster of Khadafy with air strikes left Obama with the problem of a revitalized al Qaeda springing up to fill the void.

Obama gave his chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, who is now the nominee to be the next leader of the CIA, a blank check. Brennan could do just about whatever he needed to do in North Africa and the Mideast, contend Murphy and Webb. Brennan chose to conduct a dangerous classified war without looping in Stevens, who paid with his life for his ignorance, according to the book.

The Joint Special Operations Command, which Brennan controls, is a collection of special forces outside of the regular military command originally formed as a hostage-rescue team. But in the middle of last summer, say Murphy and Webb, troops operating clandestinely under JSOC began infiltrating Libya.

“With the first phase of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) all but over,” say Murphy and Webb, “JSOC was starting in on ‘GWOT Season 2,’ as it were, where North Africa was seen as the most dangerous hub of terrorist activity.”

Murphy and Webb go on to make a shocking charge: “The nature of these operations remains highly classified. They were never intended to be known to anyone outside a very small circle in the Special Operations community and within Obama’s National Security Council. Ambassador Stevens, the CIA chief of station in Tripoli and then-director of the CIA, Gen. [David] Petraeus, had little if any knowledge about these JSOC missions.”
Logged
rickn
Newbie
*
Posts: 21


« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2013, 06:06:39 PM »

The knives are coming out against Brennan.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2013, 09:15:58 AM »

The knives are coming out against Brennan.

Rick, Yes, or the facts are coming out against Brennan.  Seems to me this does not insulate the President.  He put himself out of the loop and stayed out, then promoted the guy who bungled it.  His refusals to be briefed in person in a back and forth manner prior, and his quick exit to Las Vegas for campaign demagoguery are looking rather irresponsible in hindsight. 

I am stuck on the coverup, false statements by the President, Carney, Clinton, the sick and twisted performance putting out Susan Rice to buy him time to get past his reelection, right up to the outgoing Secretary shouting down legitimate oversight with her outburst: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!

Ambassador Stevens may have had little of no knowledge of the (alleged) operation, but he knew of the dangers in general and the absence of security.  This theory doesn't fully explain why he was sitting there in harm's way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2013, 10:28:30 AM »

Rick:


Good to have you join the conversation; I look forward to your input.

Back when all this started hitting the fan, this thread discussed well ahead of the general curve the notion of a gun-running operation to the Syrian opposition headed by Stevens (his last meeting before his death was with the Turkish consul) via Turkey.

What do you make of all this?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2013, 03:31:26 PM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/brennan-s-evasions_700510.html?nopager=1
Brennan’s Evasions


Feb 18, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 22 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES



John Brennan is no Chuck Hagel. That much was clear from the confirmation hearings on Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA. Unlike Hagel, who stumbled and mumbled through his performance, Brennan demonstrated a deep knowledge of his brief and answered (or gamely parried) tough questions with great self-assurance and forcefulness.




But several of Brennan’s answers before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were problematic. Indeed, his three and a half hours of testimony raised important questions on two issues central to his nomination: the politicization of intelligence and the Obama administration’s approach to fighting radical Islam. Brennan will face additional questions in both areas at a closed hearing on his nomination on February 12. He should.
 
During the hearing last week, several senators asked Brennan about the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) used by the CIA during the Bush administration. In a 2007 interview, Brennan offered a broad defense of the program. “There [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hardcore terrorists,” Brennan said. “It has saved lives,” he continued. “And let’s not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.”
 
In the same interview, however, Brennan criticized waterboarding as “inconsistent with American values” and “something that should be prohibited.” That wasn’t good enough for many Democrats, who not only believed that EITs were immoral but also desperately needed them to be deemed ineffective, even if the evidence demonstrated otherwise. So Democrats on the intelligence committee undertook a “study” of EITs in an effort to discredit them further. Not surprisingly, the report questions the practices’ effectiveness.





When Brennan was asked for his thoughts on the 350-page executive summary—again, prepared only by Democrats—he testified that it had changed his mind. “I must tell you, senator, that reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time. Now I have to determine what, based on that information as well as what CIA says, what the truth is.”
 
So Brennan trusts a partisan report produced by senators whose conclusions were announced before the study was even commissioned as much as his own firsthand, contemporaneous knowledge of the effectiveness of the program while he was at the CIA? As Senator Saxby Chambliss pointed out, Brennan received more than 50 emails on the results of interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, one of three al Qaeda leaders to be waterboarded. Brennan’s predecessors who have spoken about the issue publicly—Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta—have acknowledged that EITs produced valuable information. And a close look at the CIA inspector general’s report on EITs leaves readers with one inescapable conclusion: They worked.
 
If Brennan’s apparent change of heart on EITs causes concern about his ability to put analysis ahead of politics, his comments on Ali Harzi, a suspect in the Benghazi attacks last fall, raise questions about the Obama administration’s approach to radical Islam and—more immediately troubling—Brennan’s veracity.
 
Did John Brennan lie under oath? The answer appears to be yes.
 
Here’s the backstory. Senator Marco Rubio asked Brennan about Harzi, who was detained in Tunisia and eventually released by the Tunisian government. When Rubio asked why the United States couldn’t prevent Harzi’s release by the Tunisians, Brennan responded that the United States must respect Tunisian law and traditions. “The Tunisians did not have a basis in their law to hold him.” And when Rubio pushed further, Brennan dismissed his concerns and made a claim that simply isn’t true.
 
“We didn’t have anything on him, either,” Brennan said. “If we did, we would have made a point to the Tunisians to turn him over to us, but we didn’t have that.”
 
We didn’t have anything on him?
 
First, Harzi had a history. He’d been detained by the Tunisian government for five years, from 2006 to 2011, on terrorism charges. Among other concerns, he was then seeking to join his brother, a midlevel operative in Al Qaeda in Iraq. Second, after the Benghazi attack Harzi was detained in Turkey, at least in part on the basis of intelligence provided to the Turks by the U.S. government. Third, Harzi was held in Tunisia for three months on the strength of intelligence the U.S. government collected about his involvement in the Benghazi attacks. According to the Daily Beast, that intelligence included real-time social media updates from Benghazi about the unfolding attack. Fourth, Harzi’s own lawyer says that the Tunisian courts are still monitoring Harzi because he remains charged with membership in a terrorist group.
 
If Brennan believes the U.S. government doesn’t have “anything” on Harzi, it’s hard to find others who share that assessment.
 
“He was involved,” one U.S. official familiar with the investigation told The Weekly Standard. This view echoed those of several intelligence and law enforcement officials.
 
Fawzi Jaballah, an adviser to Tunisia’s justice ministry, said the Tunisian attorney general opposed the release. Interior minister Ali Larayedh said in a TV interview that Harzi is “strongly suspected to have been involved in the attack of Benghazi.”
 
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested during her final appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is evidence of Harzi’s involvement—just not evidence that can be presented in court.
 
“Upon his release, I called the Tunisian prime minister,” she testified. “A few days later [FBI] Director Mueller met with the Tunisian prime minister. We have been assured that he is under the monitoring of the court. He was released because at that time—and Director Mueller and I spoke about this at some length—there was not an ability for evidence to be presented yet that was capable of being presented in an open court.”
 
Of course, not having evidence that can be presented “in an open court” is very different from not having “anything on him.” Would an FBI team spend five weeks on the ground in Tunisia if the U.S. government had no evidence of his involvement in the attack? And why would the FBI director discuss Harzi with the prime minister of Tunisia if the U.S. government “didn’t have anything on him”?
 
The short answer: He wouldn’t. Three sources familiar with the investigation tell The Weekly Standard that one of the main reasons for Mueller’s mid-January stop in Tunisia was to press the Tunisian government for help with Harzi. And no one among the dozen U.S. officials spoken to for this story agreed with Brennan’s characterization that the U.S. government “didn’t have anything on him.” Harzi was not the most important figure in the Benghazi attacks, but there is no doubt the United States has evidence of his involvement.
 
Senator Lindsey Graham and Representative Frank Wolf worked with the State Department and the FBI to get the Tunisian government to allow the FBI access to Harzi. “There was a sense of urgency from the FBI in all of my discussions about him,” says Graham. “The FBI guys I talked to felt very strongly that this guy was involved. He was a prime target.”
 
Wolf, who has spoken regularly to senior State Department and FBI officials, says he had the same understanding. “The FBI team that went over there to interview him—they believe he was there [in Benghazi] and has a lot of information. I’m told he remains a person of significant interest.”
 
An FBI spokesman tells The Weekly Standard: “I don’t think there’s anything we can say on the record while this is under investigation.”
 
Brennan’s eagerness to downplay Ali Harzi should concern senators for another reason. It’s consistent with the Obama administration’s response to jihadist attacks and radical Islam more broadly. So when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit, the president falsely claimed he was “an isolated extremist” long after it was clear that he was a committed jihadist with strong ties to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And when Faisal Shahzad sought to blow up an SUV in Times Square, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called it a “one-off” attack by an unaffiliated individual, ignoring claims of responsibility from the Pakistani Taliban.
 
And on Benghazi, the Obama administration’s official line, as articulated by Susan Rice five days later, was that the attacks that killed four Americans were “spontaneous” and the result of an anti-Islam video. She said this despite a report from the CIA station chief in Libya that the assault had been a terrorist attack and also claims from the nation’s two top defense officials—Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey—that they knew this on the night of September 11. And Brennan’s claims of transparency notwithstanding, the White House still refuses to produce 70 emails that top administration and intelligence officials exchanged in preparing the “talking points” for Rice’s television appearances.
 
John Brennan may not be Chuck Hagel. But that’s not a reason to confirm him.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2013, 12:08:08 PM »


http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-did-white-house-deceive-us-after.html

Why did the White House deceive us after the Benghazi attack?
 
Ask Bill Kristol and Peter Wehner in The Wall Street Journal:

Presumably for two reasons. The first is that the true account of events undercut the president's claim during the campaign that al Qaeda was severely weakened in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The second is that a true account of what happened in Benghazi that night would have revealed that the president and his top national-security advisers did not treat a lethal attack by Islamic terrorists on Americans as a crisis. The commander in chief not only didn't convene a meeting in the Situation Room; he didn't even bother to call his Defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack.
This is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Is it too much to hope that President Obama is privately ashamed of his inattention and passivity that night? 
I think he is ashamed. Here's what I've been assuming happened: It looked like our people were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance. But then the fight went on for 7 or 8 hours. The White House folk decided there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable, and then they witnessed a valiant fight which they had done nothing to support. It was always too late to help. It was too late after one hour, then too late after 2 hours, then too late after 3 hours.... When were these people going to die already? After that was all over, how do you explain what you did?

IN THE COMMENTS: CWJ said:

Althouse's surmised timeline if true is the ultimate in —

"What difference, at this point, would it make?"

Perhaps Hillary was telling us more than met the eye.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2013, 11:35:07 PM »

Our President never made a phone call.  He didn’t talk to Leon Panetta, or any military personnel, or Hillary Clinton.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/white-house-no-phone-calls-benghazi/  He accepted the defeat at the first sign of a fight, then probably worked with his speechwriters on the Vegas event. 
They may have worked out the cover story about the video while the fighting was still going on, not knowing it would drag on for 7-8 hours before the last American was killed. 

No backup was ever ordered.  How do you not even try to help?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2013, 09:05:39 AM »

Sen. Lindsay Graham has been quite good on all this.  He spoke very well, very penetratingly on Bret Baier last night (good work by BB too-- as usual) seems to be playing things well in the manuverings in the Senate with regard to all this as well.

As for our Cic-- SHAME!!! SHAME!!! SHAME!!!  angry angry angry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2013, 09:08:39 AM »

Sen. Lindsay Graham has been quite good on all this.  He spoke very well, very penetratingly on Bret Baier last night (good work by BB too-- as usual) seems to be playing things well in the manuverings in the Senate with regard to all this as well.

As for our Cic-- SHAME!!! SHAME!!! SHAME!!!  angry angry angry

I'm no fan of Grahamnesty, but I agree that he did good work here.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2013, 09:24:56 AM »

We agree on him and amnesty, but respect for his work here

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/14/white-house-no-phone-calls-benghazi/

BTW, he also makes the excellent point that no one even knows who the survivors were nor is there any access to their AARs on what happened.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #60 on: February 15, 2013, 09:28:10 AM »

And we are still waiting for the ambassador's autopsy report.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #61 on: February 15, 2013, 10:24:54 AM »

I wonder to what extent Graham's view is influenced by his experience as JAG.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #62 on: February 15, 2013, 10:56:40 AM »

Interesting point BD, care to flesh that out for us?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #63 on: February 15, 2013, 01:00:17 PM »

Interesting point BD, care to flesh that out for us?

I can't flesh out the extent of the impact, but if you mean fleshing out the meaning of my question, that I can do.

1. Graham is one of the few senators who serve(d) in the military, and the only one in the JAG (I think).
2. This gives him an inside perspectivee on war that few current senators have, and perhaps more importantly a VERY different take on the law of war.
3. Public reports, such as Jack Goldsmith's excellent Power and Constraint, have documented Graham's impact in other, related but different, "lawfare" policy spaces.
4. Combine the above with values, party and fact that he sits on Armed Services and Judiciary (leadership role on Crime and Terrorism subcommittee), and I think there could be implications.


In addition to Power and Constraint, which I highly recommend, see below for some articles that tie his JAG experience into his policy views:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/05/05/95296/graham-miranda/?mobile=nc

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/46035721/senator-lindsey-graham-general-norton-schwartz-reflect-60th-anniversary-jag-corps (I can read it, not sure you will be able to, sorry)

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2013, 06:47:56 AM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/283507-gop-lawmaker-asks-how-obama-could-sleep-during-benghazi-attack
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #65 on: February 17, 2013, 11:28:18 PM »

Gregory is trying to argue why we should not be looking into it?  A coverup of what?

McCain showing a backbone answers the question:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/17/john-mccain-snaps-at-david-gregory-over-benghazi-do-you-care-whether-or-not-four-americans-died/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #66 on: February 27, 2013, 01:06:18 AM »



http://www.mintpress.net/cia-sex-scandal-continues-paula-broadwells-promotion-revoked/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #67 on: March 05, 2013, 10:50:14 PM »

I heard reports that we had some 20-30 people wounded that night and that 6-7 of them are still in the hospital and being held incommunicado?!?

Anyone have anything on this?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #68 on: March 05, 2013, 10:55:44 PM »

Don't know about the wounded, but like the Ambassador's autopsy, they are being hidden.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #69 on: March 05, 2013, 10:59:14 PM »

There was some Congressman or Senator being interviewed on FOX this morning while I was heading out the door so I didn't catch all the details, but the gist of it was that A LOT of people were wounded, some 6-7 so seriously that they are still in Walter Reed hospital and the Congressman/Senator in question was saying that he/Congress were being blocked from getting in to see them.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #70 on: March 05, 2013, 11:01:42 PM »

Wow, this would be a big deal if someone else was president.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2013, 03:33:36 AM »

There was some Congressman or Senator being interviewed on FOX this morning while I was heading out the door so I didn't catch all the details, but the gist of it was that A LOT of people were wounded, some 6-7 so seriously that they are still in Walter Reed hospital and the Congressman/Senator in question was saying that he/Congress were being blocked from getting in to see them.

http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/03/02/congressman-frank-wolf-to-secretary-kerry-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/  (Huh)
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2013, 12:41:21 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser-un-ambassador-said-to-be-front-runner/2013/03/09/3e54feba-8383-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

"Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who lost out in a bruising bid for the job of secretary of state, may have the last laugh."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2013, 01:45:49 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/susan-rice-as-national-security-adviser-un-ambassador-said-to-be-front-runner/2013/03/09/3e54feba-8383-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

"Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who lost out in a bruising bid for the job of secretary of state, may have the last laugh."

Last laugh at the American people she lied to?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2013, 03:00:55 PM »

National Security Adviser does not require senate confirmation.  Who knew that advise and consent was such a bad thing in some cases, could expose character flaws - like lying.  We need nothing but honest people in these positions - like Sandy 'boxers' Berger.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html  He described the episode as "an honest mistake." Oops, "It was not inadvertent."  Lies and smear, said Media Matters, prior to Berger's confession and plea bargain.  http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/07/23/anatomy-of-a-smear-sandy-berger-socks-shocker-l/131484

Susan Rice (in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack) will fit in fine with the likes of James Clapper (Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular), Jack Lew (can’t pass a budget without 60 votes) and John (cut-off-their-ears) Kerry to work with the President who promised unemployment would be down to 5% by 2013 if we pass his stimulus. http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-unemployment-chart-2012-9 

Unless the world ends now, we don't know who has the last laugh.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 543


« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2013, 03:21:28 PM »

Excellent article from the always-superb Frank Gaffney:

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/03/11/investigative-benghazigate/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #76 on: March 12, 2013, 07:32:15 PM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57573613/six-months-later-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/

By Sharyl Attkisson /
CBS News/ March 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors?


Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.


In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.


Source: Press officers partly responsible for Benghazi talking points changes
White House declines to release images from night of Benghazi attacks

Republicans demanded more information about Benghazi in recent weeks before they would agree to allow Obama Administration nominees to move forward in the Senate. A source familiar with material turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the Obama Administration in response tells CBS News that long sought-after FBI transcripts of some survivors were included but had been "blacked out" or redacted. Three Senate Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they want the survivors to be made available for interviews about what happened the night of the attacks.




Meanwhile, a State Department review board found that despite requests from Stevens for more security prior to the attack, there were no military resources in place close enough to come to the rescue of Americans during the attack. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified that troops have been placed on a higher state of alert since then.


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in January she was unaware of Stevens' unmet security requests. She said the highest ranking official who received them at the State Department was undersecretary Patrick Kennedy. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Dempsey said they were aware of Stevens' requests and concerns.




At a press conference on November 14, 2012, President Obama stated that his administration has provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi." Yet, when CBS News asked for White House photos from the night of the attacks, surveillance video that was promised last November, and answers to outstanding questions, a White House official told us that there would be no further comment.


CBS News has filed multiple Freedom of Information requests for Benghazi-related material, but none has been provided. Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is suing the U.S. government in an attempt to receive some of the denied information.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11935


« Reply #77 on: March 12, 2013, 07:38:03 PM »

If I were them, I'd avoid getting on the same plane with all the other survivors....

Still waiting on the Stevens autopsy report.


Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT:      Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Government should be collaborative.  Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.  Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA
.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57573613/six-months-later-where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/

By Sharyl Attkisson /
CBS News/ March 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors?


Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.


In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.


Source: Press officers partly responsible for Benghazi talking points changes
White House declines to release images from night of Benghazi attacks

Republicans demanded more information about Benghazi in recent weeks before they would agree to allow Obama Administration nominees to move forward in the Senate. A source familiar with material turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the Obama Administration in response tells CBS News that long sought-after FBI transcripts of some survivors were included but had been "blacked out" or redacted. Three Senate Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they want the survivors to be made available for interviews about what happened the night of the attacks.




Meanwhile, a State Department review board found that despite requests from Stevens for more security prior to the attack, there were no military resources in place close enough to come to the rescue of Americans during the attack. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified that troops have been placed on a higher state of alert since then.


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in January she was unaware of Stevens' unmet security requests. She said the highest ranking official who received them at the State Department was undersecretary Patrick Kennedy. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Dempsey said they were aware of Stevens' requests and concerns.




At a press conference on November 14, 2012, President Obama stated that his administration has provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi." Yet, when CBS News asked for White House photos from the night of the attacks, surveillance video that was promised last November, and answers to outstanding questions, a White House official told us that there would be no further comment.


CBS News has filed multiple Freedom of Information requests for Benghazi-related material, but none has been provided. Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, is suing the U.S. government in an attempt to receive some of the denied information.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #78 on: March 13, 2013, 12:17:20 AM »

"Still waiting on the Stevens autopsy report"


Interesting point made by one of the talk pundits:  Do you notice what President Obama and then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton both call the deceased ambassador?

Not Mr. Stevens, not Ambassador Stevens, never Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  They call him Chris.  First name only.  Buddy to buddy.  Nobody knew him better, except maybe his wife and kids.  Barack and Hillary, I wonder if he called them by their first names too.  Closest of friends, probably would be golfing together right now if he was around.

Yet 'Chris' couldn't get a message about security through to either one of them over a period of many months to save his life.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #79 on: March 13, 2013, 12:47:09 AM »

"Nobody knew him better, except maybe his wife and kids."

Tangent: Wasn't he gay?-- but the larger point you make is valid.

Anyway, when I go to and from the airport I often find myself in conversation with the taxi driver-- perhaps a cultural atavism from my youth as a New Yorker.  Where I live many of the drivers are from the mideast, Armenia, and occasionally Afghanistan.  These men are often someone who left a life of much higher status (doctor, engineer, teacher, etc) to come start a new life in America.   As a humble taxi driver typically they remain unseen as what they are, they are in the eyes of their passengers a taxi driver and are presumed to be as stupid as their English is clumsy.

But, again perhaps due to my youth as a New Yorker, I have been blessed to have familiarity and comfort with engaging with people from many parts of the world and to intuit their intended meaning through heavy accents and exceedingly fractured English.  Perhaps due to experiencing just how much it took me to learn to speak Spanish, a language linguistically close to English, I am humbled when I imagine what it must take to learn English when one's home language is radically different and unlike English to Spanish, good instruction material and teachers are next to non-existant.   

In that context, on my ride home from the airport last night my driver was from Afghanistan.  Gently I inquired if I might ask his perspective on things because here in America we have a hard time understanding that part of the world.  Not only was he game to engage, his English was actually rather good and we had a wonderful conversation about Afpakia, the war in Iraq, Libya and so forth.  It is without bragging that I say he was rather stunned at my level; indeed my feeling was more of shame at the level of ignorance with which he must silently endure.

Towards the end of the conversation, I asked if he had heard the news about the great numbers of our people wounded that night in Benghazi and that some were in the hospital and that US Congressmen trying to get through to them were being denied access.  This he, a man revealed by our conversation to be a man who had kept a close eye on developments in his homeland and the middle east as well, found hard to credit.

I told him, and what I predict here now, is that this is beginning to come to boil.  Let's do our part in getting the word to the lurkers on this forum who then go on to do good things with what they find here.   grin

The Adventure continues, , ,
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #80 on: March 20, 2013, 12:09:59 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/18/report-hacker-starts-distributing-confidential-memos-sent-to-hillary-clinton-on-benghazi-attack-libya/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #81 on: March 20, 2013, 01:22:03 PM »


I hope they prosecute the hacker but also learn from the info about what was going on / not going on relating to this attack and scandal, since no one else will tell us.  My understanding is that Valerie Jarrett was the director of the coverup.

"My good friend Chris" couldn't get his security requests answered to save his life.   If we are so far into this administration that they didn't even think to blame the disaster on George Bush, then this administration has almost nothing left.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW - that we let al Qaida win this round.  Hillary has moved on to gay marriage.  If she is out of public life, who cares what she thinks about social issues.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #82 on: March 20, 2013, 04:50:05 PM »

The failure to provide security is but the least of the three questions in this.  Govt. is stupid and incompetent, that is no surprise.

The bigger issues are

1) Why no help was sent?   Were our people left to die so the President could go on his fundraising trip? And, closely interactive with this is
2) what did the president know and when did he know it, ditto Hillary-and the lies to the American people about the nature of the attack.  Hillary's emails may well shed light on this.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2013, 05:21:34 PM »

Urgent Action on Benghazi Needed:
Call Your Congressman's Home Office
 
Dear Member:
 
We struck a nerve!  Your phone calls to Speaker Boehner and Chairman Mike Rogers drove home a powerful message:
 
Stop blocking the House Select Committee on Benghazi!  Start issuing subpoenas!  Now!
 
Some of Revive's members who called last week tell me Rep. Roger’s office was particularly livid about the phone calls!  Well, tough.  Frankly, six months of dancing and dithering with Team Obama is long enough already.  It’s time for House Republican Leaders to honor the memory of the four fallen Americans who Obama abandoned to death in Benghazi.  We can honor their sacrifice by exposing the truth and delivering justice, wherever it leads.  Understandably, some Republicans are relectant to 'go there'.  But now is not the time to dither.  'Benghazi-Gate' is the most treacherous scandal to threaten the Presidency since ‘Watergate’.  It's time to be bold.
 
Speaking of bold, Congressman Frank Wolf needs our help.  Back in January, Wolf introduced House Resolution 36, which establishes a House “Select Committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya”.
 
As of today, only 62 House Republicans have co-sponsored Wolf’s Resolution 36.
 
Is Your Favorite Republican Member of Congress one of 166 House Republicans Who Are Not a Cosponsor of House Resolution 36?

You Can Find Out By Clicking Here Now
 
If your favorite Republican Member of Congress is on this list, it is urgent for you to call them now at their home district offices.
 
In some cases, failing to cosponsor House Resolution 36 could merely be an oversight by your Congressman.  So be respectful, but firm. 

Tell your Congressman to cosponsor House Resolution 36, 'Establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya'.

If you’re angry about Benghazi, calling the home district offices of your favorite Republican congressman is the single most effective act you can take today to expose the truth about Benghazi.

But you can help out even more by forwarding this email to a friend.
Send to a friend
 
Revive America USA considers a vote on House Resolution 36 the very highest of priorities.

Revive plans to launch a powerful online advertising campaign to publicize the list of Republicans who are not cosponsoring House Resolution 36.

We want this list to appear everywhere!  We want to change their minds!
 
So please, if you have the financial means, help Revive America to continue its campaign to expose the truth about Obama and Benghazi.
 
Go Here to Donate
 
Yours for America,
 
Bob Adams
Founder & President
 
P.S. - Is your Member of Congress a cosponsor of House Resolution 36?  If their name is the list below, they are not cosponsors.  Please Call Them Now
 


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2013, 04:01:49 PM »

An Urgent Message from Revive America

Dear Member:

Congress is still on "Spring Recess" through the weekend, so please continue to call the home district offices of the 166 House Republicans who have not consponsored House Resolution 36, the House Select Committee on the Benghazi Terror Attack.  (You can find the list at the end of this email.)  If you have already called, please forward this email to family and friends.


Speaker Boehner and the three House Committee Chairmen investigating Benghazi haven't issued even a single subpoena, but they're promising a final report in "weeks not months".

But frankly, even the bumbling 'Pink Panther' character Inspector Clouseau knows you can't investigate a crime -- let alone a dispicable act of terror -- without issuing subpoenas and interviewing witnesses.

Here's what Senator Lindsey Graham says about the Benghazi witnesses:
 
"I've had contact with some of the survivors. Their story is chilling. They feel afraid to tell it. It's important they come forward to tell their story," Graham told FOX News. "Some are back working for the government. Some are still injured. The bottom line is they feel that they can't come forth. They've been told to be quiet."

Even in Chicago, this is called witness intimidation. 

Revive America USA will continue to fight in Congress for a full and complete investigation of Benghazi, but we need your help. 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2013, 10:43:05 PM »



By MARK HELPRIN
In the rush to paper over its delinquencies in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration seems unaware that its failures are fundamental rather than merely anomalous. They are, unfortunately, a portent of the future.

On March 26, this newspaper reported that "In the wake of the attack, the military has examined how to improve its rapid response forces," specifically by "adding special operations teams of roughly 10 troops to ships carrying larger Marine Expeditionary Units." MEUs shipborne in amphibious ready groups usually number 2,200 Marines in special forces, reconnaissance, armored reconnaissance, armor, amphibious assault, infantry, artillery, engineer and aviation battalions, companies and platoons. They can get over the beach fast, and they fight like hell.

On March 21, 2011, during Operation Odyssey Dawn, an American F-15 went down in Libya. Immediately after the Mayday, the 26th MEU started rescue operations from the USS Kearsarge, and a short time later two of its Harrier fighter jets, two CH 53 helicopters, and two MV 22 Ospreys were at the scene, with more than a hundred Marines. Hundreds more might easily have arrived if required. Forces like this could have shattered the assault in Benghazi in minutes. Adding 10 men to such echelons rich in special forces would have little relevance. Fine in itself, the proposal is an obfuscation. The issue is not the composition of already capable MEUs but rather that one was not available when the attack took place.

From World War II onward, the U.S. Sixth Fleet stabilized the Mediterranean region and protected American interests there with the standard deployment, continued through 2008, of a carrier battle group, three hunter killer submarines, and an amphibious ready group with its MEU or equivalent. But in the first year of the Obama presidency this was reduced to one almost entirely unarmed command ship. No MEU could respond to Benghazi because none was assigned to, or by chance in, the Mediterranean.

Whereas during most of the Obama years the United States has kept one ship in the Mediterranean, during World War I no less than Japan deployed 14 destroyers and a cruiser there. But today—with the Muslim Brotherhood watching over the Egyptian powder keg, terrorist warlords murdering our diplomats in Libya, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb reaching up from the Sahel into the Mediterranean littoral, instability in Tunisia, Bedouin kidnappers in the Sinai, Hamas rockets streaming from Gaza, Lebanon riding the Hezbollah tiger, Jordan imperilled, and a civil war raging in Syria —what possible reason could there be for a powerful Sixth Fleet?

Benghazi is a lesson in failings of probity writ small and large. Our policy, relentlessly pursued by the president, is to disarm. As China and Russia invigorate their defense industrial bases, we diminish ours. We are stripping our nuclear deterrent to and beyond the point where it will encourage proliferation among opportunistic states, endow China with parity, and make a first strike against us feasible.

In Korea, we depended upon tactical nuclear weapons, then pulled back after the North deployed chemical and biological weapons to check them. The obvious course was to build up conventional forces, but instead we cut them drastically. Although now with precision-guided munitions we can pick off much of what the North has, it will retain sufficient mass to make war's outcome uncertain and inflict millions of civilian casualties.

We hide behind nearly toothless Europeans who provide skittish diplomatic cover rather than substantive military support. With reduced naval, air, and ground forces, we bluff in the South China Sea, nurture adventurism in quarters of which we are not even aware, yet, and prove that though our diplomats may beg for protection, terrorists can spend eight hours attacking an American diplomatic post with utter impunity.

One finds in the Companion to British History the telling lines: "In the absence of most of the troops, there was an insurrection. . . . Colchester was burned . . . the IXth Legion ambushed and mostly destroyed."

Would that the president, or Hillary Clinton, possibly the next president, comprehend this. Her record-air-mile tenure as secretary of state, in which restless ambition was the cause of unambitious restlessness, brought one of the most confused approaches to the international system ever foisted upon the long suffering Republic, unless you think donating Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood was Napoleonic genius. Was her January performance before the Senate Benghazi hearings, in which she accepted responsibility while at the same time angrily rejecting it, worthy more of the Queen of Hearts or the Cheshire Cat? Notably, her husband, famously confused even about the meaning of is, always kept an MEU in the Mediterranean.

History and the present tell us unambiguously that we require vast reserves of strength used judiciously, sparingly where possible, overwhelmingly when appropriate, precisely, quickly, and effectively. Now we have vanishing and insufficient strength used injudiciously, promiscuously, slowly, and ineffectively.

Since 1972, the Democratic Party has reflexively advocated the reduction of American military power, even at the defining junctures of the Cold War. The George W. Bush administration spent a well intentioned two terms more or less switching out Sunni for Shiite in Iraq, poking hornets in Afghanistan, destabilizing Pakistan, and decapitalizing the armed forces. The tea party, knowing only the importance of fiscal discipline, does not understand the risks it is willing to accept to national security. And to the extent the current administration actually perceives the need to provide for defense, it always seems proudly to decide not to.

Do Americans understand that war and death abhor a vacuum of strength and will rush in when weakness opens a place for them? Do we care? At the moment, the power of decision rests with those who don't.

For the sake of comfort and illusory promises, a false idea of goodness, and the incoherent remnants of New Left ideology, we as a people have chosen drastically to diminish our powers of action in the world even as they bear upon our self defense. Having established and advertised this, we will rue the day we did. Benghazi, a brightly illustrative miniature, is only a symbol of things to come.

Mr. Helprin is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and the author, most recently, of the novel "In Sunlight and In Shadow" (Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt, 2012).
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #86 on: April 10, 2013, 04:03:01 PM »



http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SOF-700-Letter-4713.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #87 on: April 12, 2013, 01:11:48 PM »



An Urgent Update on Benghazi: Cosponsors Surge to 90 for House Resolution 36
 
Dear Member:
 
When Revive America first started our campaign for a House Select Committee on Benghazi, the DC-Establishment didn’t give us a snowball’s-chance-in, well, Benghazi. 
Speaker Boehner said he opposed the Select Committee as far back as November.  Chairman Mike Rogers, the powerful Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called it "very expensive”.  No wonder only 48 House Republicans had the audacity to defy Speaker Boehner on Benghazi.
 
It was game over.
 
Obama thought he was home free (unlike Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods) and Speaker Boehner avoided the embarrassing spectacle of a ‘Watergate-Style’ committee on Benghazi, but Boehner, Rogers, and Obama didn’t count on you, and nearly 200,000 conservative members of Revive America USA.
 
Because of your persistent phone calls to Congress, we’ve gone from 48 to 62, and now to 90 cosponsors in the past week!
 
In fact, West Virginia Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito just signed-on this morning as a cosponsor!
 
All of your phone calls, letters, and donations to Revive America’s campaign are paying-off – big time.   We can win this fight! Go Here Now to Help Us.  Now Revive isn’t the only group fighting for the Select Committee.  In fact, we stand in very good company.  On Wednesday, 700 Special-Ops veterans blasted Congress for giving “no serious effort” to Benghazi.
 
And then, in a stunning announcement that’s still rocking Capitol Hill, Ms. Patricia A. Smith, the mother of Navy Seal Sean Smith, endorsed House Resolution 36. Ms. Smith’s son was one of the four American heroes abandoned by Obama to die at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.
 
In a very short period of time, we’ve built up a ton of momentum.  Now is not the time to let up.  Let’s win this fight today!
 
Go Here Now to Help Us   
We need to keep cranking-up the pressure.
 
Mr. Speaker, we won’t “STAND DOWN”.  And neither should you.
 
There are two ways you can help:
 
     1). Call Speaker John Boehner at (202) 225-3121. Tell him to lead or      get out of the way of House Res. 36.
 
     Call Chairman Mike Rogers at (202) 225-3261. Tell him to support      House Res. 36.
 
     Call Members of Congress who may not be onboard with us yet.  Ask      them, why not?  You can find the list by Going Here
 
     And very important -- Call Congressman Frank Wolf to Thank Him for      His Leadership at (202) 225-3121
 
     2). I know not everyone can contribute, especially after four years of      Obama.  But if you can help, we urgently need your financial support to      win this huge battle, and frankly, our resources are nearly exhausted. 
 
     We are so very close to a huge victory. 
     Revive America will fight this battle until the very end, but we can only      go as far as you’ll take us.
 
     Please Go Here Now to Donate Any Amount
 
Thank you for standing with me.
 
For America,
 
Bob Adams
Founder & President
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #88 on: April 15, 2013, 12:55:45 PM »

We Are Winning!
 
Dear Member:
 
Only three weeks ago, Revive America launched its campaign for a House Select Committee on Benghazi.
 
At the time, the odds were overwhelmingly against us.
 
And odd as it may seem, our chief opposition wasn’t Barack Obama. 
 
It wasn’t even Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats.
 
It was none other than House Speaker John Boehner.
 
Back in November, Speaker Boehner announced his opposition to creating a House Select Committee on Benghazi. 
 
He still opposes it. 
 
That could also be why only 48 House Republicans dared until recently to cosponsor H. Res. 36, which establishes the Committee.
 
Because on Capitol Hill, what Speaker Boehner says, goes.  He has immense power.
 
But Revive America doesn’t answer to Speaker Boehner. 
 
So we fought back, and you helped us to make the difference - big time!
 
Because of your persistent phone calls to Congress, just in the past week, support for the House Select Committee on Benghazi has surged to a whopping 102 cosponsors!
 
We picked-up 40 new cosponsors last week!
 
Clearly, Speaker Boehner is losing control over Benghazi.
 
Every new cosponsor is a ‘vote of no confidence’. 
 
We are winning this fight!  Please Go Here Now to Help Us
 
Ms. Patricia Smith, the mother of Navy Seal Sean Smith, has officially endorsed the creation of a House Select Committee on Benghazi.
 
Here is part of what she wrote in her letter of endorsement:
 
“Please, Please help me find out who is responsible and fix it so no more of our sons & daughters are abandoned by the country they love.  It is very difficult to find out.  Leon Panetta advised Pres. Obama that the attack was occurring and Pres. Obama went to bed without sending help.  It is too late for my son but not too late for those that follow” – Patricia A. Smith, Mother of Sean Smith, Killed in Benghazi
 
Thank you for all that you are doing to help.
 
Sincerely,
 
Bob Adams
Founder & President
 
P.S. – Because of your support, we picked-up 40 new cosponsors last week!  Help Revive America to force the hand of Speaker Boehner this week, and to expose the truth about Obama, Hillary, and Benghazi.  Go Here Now to Support Our Campaign

 
There is no limit to what you can donate. Revive America USA, Inc., can accept unlimited individual and corporate contributions.

REVIVE AMERICA USA, INC operates as a social welfare organization organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to REVIVE AMERICA USA are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.

Paid for by Revive America USA, Inc.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.ReviveAmericaUSA.com


Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2013, 06:00:27 AM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/294375-boehners-hand-forced-on-benghazi

From the article:

Speaker John Boehner is trying to head off a GOP rebellion over his handling of the investigation into last year’s fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by releasing an interim report of evidence by his panel chairmen.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #90 on: April 24, 2013, 10:22:43 AM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/294375-boehners-hand-forced-on-benghazi
From the article:
Speaker John Boehner is trying to head off a GOP rebellion over his handling of the investigation into last year’s fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by releasing an interim report of evidence by his panel chairmen.



Full Report, 46 page pdf: http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/benghazi.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #91 on: April 25, 2013, 08:38:52 AM »

The White House accused Republicans of a political distraction Wednesday after House committee chairmen asked President Obama to release a State Department cable that they said would prove Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary off state, signed off on security cuts at the diplomatic post in Benghazi ahead of the attack Sept. 11.
 
According to the committee chairmen, the April 2012 Clinton cable denies the U.S. Embassy in Libya’s request for more security. Five months later, the outpost in Benghazi was attacked and four Americans were killed, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“An April 19, 2012, cable bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature acknowledged requests for additional security, but nevertheless ordered the withdrawal of security assets to proceed as planned,” the chairmen of five House committees wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama.
 
“Given the gravity of this issue, we request that you immediately make the April 19, 2012, State Department cable public.”
 
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Mrs. Clinton’s signature on the cable was standard for all diplomatic cables and was a practice continued from prior administrations.
 
He accused the Republicans of trying to “stoke a false controversy.”
 
Mrs. Clinton resigned as secretary of state this year, but political analysts say she could make another run for the White House in 2016. If she does, questions about her role in Benghazi are sure to dog her.
 
Officials in Libya made repeated requests for more security and reported to headquarters that the situation was deteriorating in Benghazi. The British Embassy, the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross withdrew their personnel from Benghazi.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEE RELATED: Obama, Clinton blew Benghazi response: Republican report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. Clinton has testified that she never saw the requests for more security and that subordinates made decisions to reduce protection.
 
But in an interim report released Tuesday, the chairmen of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Oversight & Government Reform Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee said the evidence shows otherwise.
 
The chairmen cleared the intelligence community of blame, saying it gave plenty of warning that an attack could happen. The chairmen also cleared the Pentagon, saying the military did what it could to respond, but it was limited.
 
Instead, the lawmakers said it was Mr. Obama and his aides at the White House, along with Mrs. Clinton and her team at the State Department, who failed.
 
“The report demonstrates that reductions in security levels prior to the attacks were approved at the highest levels of the State Department,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce, California Republican, said Wednesday. “The report also finds that in the days after the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to cover up the State Department’s responsibility for this disaster.”
 
Mr. Carney said the administration is focused on trying to track down those who orchestrated the attack.
 
He said the House “efforts to politicize this have failed in the past and are not helpful to the broad national security efforts we share.”
 
Mr. Royce, though, said the State Department must answer more questions.
 
He also said he will introduce a bill to give the department’s internal review process more freedom. He and fellow Republicans were critical of the internal review on Benghazi, saying it stopped short of tracing the decision to withdraw security to the highest levels, and it didn’t recommend any discipline for officials in the chain of command who were involved in that decision.
 
The administration initially said the attack was spontaneous mob violence sparked by an anti-Muslim video but later called it an organized terrorist assault.
 
The Republican report said the White House was responsible for prohibiting the mention of terrorism, and the report said administration officials were trying to shield themselves from criticism that they had been too lax in security.
 
The Republican report reflected an internal battle within the House caucus. Rank-and-file Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attack was dying out, and they had called for a Watergate-style special committee to investigate. Republican leaders resisted, saying the chairmen of the five committees could handle the work.
 
Democrats on the five committees fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely and that the result was biased.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/24/white-house-clintons-signature-benghazi-cable-stan
 
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2155


« Reply #92 on: April 25, 2013, 12:23:42 PM »

I look forward to more on this. I asked a sitting US senator about this yesterday. He expressed continued, genine concern in the ongoing investigation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #93 on: April 25, 2013, 06:06:23 PM »

I hope the investigations also will determine why no help was sent to our people under fire and WTF the president was doing , , , besides jetting off to a fundraiser.  The same question for SecState Clinton as well.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #94 on: April 30, 2013, 11:11:14 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/explosive-report-forces-were-available-to-help-americans-under-attack-in-benghazi/

The Brett Baier Special Report is hard on this story too.  Tomorrow night will be part 3.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #95 on: May 01, 2013, 01:23:52 PM »

Prosecute Hillary.
Last week, Speaker Boehner published an Interim Progress Report from the Committees investigating Benghazi that affirms, with absolutely no doubt, that Hillary Clinton lied under oath.
Despite her assertion that she had never seen any documents telling of a heightened threat or requesting increased security, she personally signed off on a drawdown of embassy security personnel in Libya.
All of her "emotional testimony," all of her assertions that "what difference does it make" about the reason Americans died in Benghazi, all of the snide remarks of the Administration about the Republican investigation are now revealed as nothing but a disgusting attempt to hide from the truth and deceive the American people.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
What needs to happen at this point is abundantly clear.
You don't lie about the death of four Americans – including two Navy SEALs – and get away with it. It's time for former Secretary of State Clinton to be prosecuted for perjury.
The case for prosecution is well established, and there are no grounds to give Hillary a pass. In fact, the report by the House explicitly states that Secretary Clinton was "seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."
There is a strong precedent for taking such action against a senior Administration official. In 2005, Scooter Libby – the Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney – was indicted on charges of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice in relation to the Plume affair. Libby resigned his government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.
If you'll recall from back then, liberals in the government and in the media were doing everything but calling for Libby's head. They were practically frothing at the mouth with indignation that he'd leaked information to the press and lied about it. No one had died, no American property had been destroyed – just the politics of it was enough.
But of course it's different when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Whitehouse Spokesman Jay Carney has already started the liberal spin machine at full throttle, making the outrageous assertion that Hillary signed off on all kinds of things – we can't expect her to actually read what she's signing.

Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.

As far as this White House is concerned – and the vast majority of the mainstream media – lying under oath is no big deal. Sure, a few American heroes may have been murdered. Radical Islamists may have destroyed our "diplomatic facility"; with rocket launchers. Our own Ambassador may have been slain. But you can't possibly expect them to take accountability for their actions – or even expect them to own up to their mistakes. That's simply beneath a member of the Obama Administration.
This despicable arrogance has to stop. And, since there is absolutely no indication that Barack Obama or his liberal allies have any intention of taking responsibility, we must do everything in our power to bring them to justice.
The fact of the matter is that the tragedy in Benghazi could have very likely been averted if it weren't for Hillary's signature on that document months prior. She knew the dangers. She knew what the people on the ground saw, and she knew what they needed to deal with it.
But Hillary Clinton didn't do a damn thing about it. And because of that, people died. Then she willingly and repeatedly lied to the American people, to the media, and – while under oath – to Congress.
We're demanding that she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If you want to see justice served, and this destructive administration finally held accountable, I urge you in the strongest terms to join us on this mission. Talk to your friends and neighbors, and share this message with everyone you know.
Speaker Boehner is showing his willingness to do right by our service people by releasing this report. Now we have to let him and the rest of Washington know that this needs to be the beginning, and not the end.

Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
We need a chorus of voices from all across America demanding that Hillary – and any other member of the Obama Administration involved in the Benghazi cover-up – be indicted immediately. Our service people abroad and the American people deserve accountability from the United States government.
We must never allow those who put everything on the line for this country to receive such an abhorrent disservice and then have the whole affair swept under the rug. It's time to restore responsibility and honor to our government.
That starts with indicting – and ultimately prosecuting – Hillary Clinton for her lies.
Sincerely,
 
Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks
P.S. Everything we have seen from this administration since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, points to a colossal leadership failure in the Obama Administration and their attempts to cover up the truth about what happened. And now, the smoking gun, HILLARY LIED.It is up to us to hold them accountable and to demand real leadership. Please help us hold their feet to the fire with any contribution you can afford. And then sign the petition today to demand a special select committee to investigate the truth about what happened on September 11, 2012.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #96 on: May 01, 2013, 02:02:26 PM »

Similarly, the House charged Attorney General Eric Holder with a Contempt of Congress over its non-responsiveness in the Fast and Furious, Dead Mexicans and Border Guard scandal.  It turns out that the Attorney General declined to prosecute himself.  Allowing that to go unanswered was the set up for the next coverup.  http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/holder-contempt/index.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #97 on: May 03, 2013, 10:07:06 AM »

Suddenly, Three Big Developments in the Investigation Into the Benghazi Attack

This news cycle has three new pieces of news related to the Benghazi attack that you must see and keep handy for the next time you hear a White House press secretary say it was "a long time ago" or a secretary of state ask "what difference does it make?"

DEVELOPMENT ONE, courtesy CNN's Paul Cruickshank, Tim Lister, Nic Robertson, and Fran Townsend:
Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.
One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.
Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it's not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.
So, unless these multiple sources are wrong, this can accurately be described as an al-Qaeda attack, either preplanned or a target of opportunity.

DEVELOPMENT TWO, from Adam Housley of Fox News:
On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help -- but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.
The disconnect was one example of what sources described as a communication breakdown that left those on the ground without outside help.
"When you are on the ground, you depend on each other -- we're gonna get through this situation. But when you look up and then nothing outside of the stratosphere is coming to help you or rescue you, that's a bad feeling," one source said.
Multiple sources spoke to Fox News about what they described as a lack of action in Benghazi on Sept. 11 last year, when four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.
"They had no plan. They had no contingency plan for if this happens, and that's the problem this is going to face in the future," one source said. "They're dealing with more hostile regions, hostile countries. This attack's going to happen again."
Under normal circumstances, authorities in Benghazi would have fallen under the chief of mission, one source said -- the person in charge of security in the country who in this case was Stevens. But once Stevens was cornered and members of his security detail pushed his distress button, that authority would have been transferred to his deputy. However, that deputy was out of the country.
That meant the authority then reverted directly to the U.S. State Department, and oversight of the response to the attack that night fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who were calling the shots.
It would be very useful to know more about this source. Perhaps it's someone with an agenda, or someone whose recollection of that night is inaccurate. But if it was someone within the special-operations community, someone with firsthand knowledge of what happened that night, well . . . then this is explosive. There was a call for help, there were actions that could be taken, and the State Department decided against it. If it really did lead all the way back to Hillary Clinton, this would end her 2016 chances.  "She left Americans to die horrible deaths" is pretty much the worst charge a presidential candidate could possibly face.
And while we don't know with absolute certainty that what this source is saying is true . . . if it is true, it would explain a lot about the third big development:

DEVELOPMENT THREE, courtesy Fox News' James Rosen:
The State Department's Office of Inspector General is investigating the special internal panel that probed the Benghazi terror attack for the State Department, Fox News has confirmed.
The IG's office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB -- led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen -- failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.
The IG's office notified the department of the "special review" on March 28, according to Doug Welty, the congressional and public affairs officer of the IG's office.
This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi.
Since the ARB report was issued in December -- finding that "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" well below Clinton were to blame for the "inadequate" security at Benghazi -- Clinton and other top officials have routinely referred questioners to the conclusions of the board report. Now the methodology and final product of the ARB are themselves coming under the scrutiny of the department's own top auditor.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #98 on: May 05, 2013, 07:53:36 PM »

Definitely worth the time!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 08:24:36 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30869


« Reply #99 on: May 06, 2013, 08:07:43 PM »

When even a pravda like CBS starts covering the story, things could get interesting real quickly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 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!