Darrell Issa Sabotages His Party’s Benghazi Investigation
A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.
And that undermines the argument that the White House knew otherwise and was purposely covering it up.
The reason why this memo is important is because the foundation of the Republican claims of a Benghazi cover-up is based on the idea that the White House intentionally lied and blamed a YouTube video for the attack.
White House officials are elated that Issa opened his mouth because the memo confirms what the administration has been saying all along. There is no conspiracy or cover-up. The intelligence community was concerned about the video even while the attack was still going on.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Epiphany
68 responses to Darrell Issa Sabotages His Party’s Benghazi Investigation
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Anomaly 100 May 22nd, 2014 at 20:58
But he seems so nice!
MR. RIGHT May 22nd, 2014 at 21:00
You know he’s a secret Muslim right?
Anomaly 100 May 22nd, 2014 at 21:06
Well DUH!
fahvel May 23rd, 2014 at 04:04
caint be no musselman cuz he’s a huwyin serfer doood.
Anomaly 100 May 22nd, 2014 at 20:58
But he seems so nice!
MR. RIGHT May 22nd, 2014 at 21:00
You know he’s a secret Muslim right?
Anomaly 100 May 22nd, 2014 at 21:06
Well DUH!
fahvel May 23rd, 2014 at 04:04
caint be no musselman cuz he’s a huwyin serfer doood.
MR. RIGHT May 22nd, 2014 at 20:59
Poor Darrel Issa, he huffs and he puffs and he blows his own house down.
dizlz May 22nd, 2014 at 21:32
{{perfection}} Have been chuckling over the similar thought. I love it. Already evil incarnate, he’s now gone full mad.
Jake May 22nd, 2014 at 22:40
Thats a change for him, usually he burns them down.
Shades May 22nd, 2014 at 22:51
After he steals the cars from the garage.
MR. RIGHT May 22nd, 2014 at 20:59
Poor Darrel Issa, he huffs and he puffs and he blows his own house down.
Diz May 22nd, 2014 at 21:32
{{perfection}} Have been chuckling over the similar thought. I love it. Already evil incarnate, he’s now gone full mad.
Shades May 22nd, 2014 at 22:51
After he steals the cars from the garage.
SophieCT May 22nd, 2014 at 21:45
So, do we still have to blow all those tax payer dollars on yet another overpriced “investigation?”
bobrobertson May 22nd, 2014 at 21:48
AKA MR. RIGHT
Well you’d think there were hearings and reports already, but if FOX didn’t report on them, then they didn’t happen.
Sam Freedom May 23rd, 2014 at 19:02
If there was any evidence that would Prove the administration innocent, surely someone in the know would have produced it by now… unless, of course, investigation serves as surgeanother great distraction from Obama’s poor performance.
Dwendt44 May 23rd, 2014 at 19:08
If there was any evidence that would prove the administration was guilty of something, they’d have found it by now.
SophieCT May 22nd, 2014 at 21:45
So, do we still have to blow all those tax payer dollars on yet another overpriced “investigation?”
bobrobertson May 22nd, 2014 at 21:48
AKA MR. RIGHT
Well you’d think there were hearings and reports already, but if FOX didn’t report on them, then they didn’t happen.
Dwendt44 May 23rd, 2014 at 19:08
If there was any evidence that would prove the administration was guilty of something, they’d have found it by now.
Dwendt44 May 23rd, 2014 at 00:02
Since when do facts ever enter into Issa’s rants?
Sam Freedom May 23rd, 2014 at 19:00
Its a shame you don’t realize he’s an honest guy. If he was dishonest, he would’ve stolen the document or repressed it. Certainly the administration would’ve produced it by now had they known about it… right?
Duh…
Dwendt44 May 23rd, 2014 at 19:06
Issa and honesty have never met.
Dwendt44 May 23rd, 2014 at 00:02
Since when do facts ever enter into Issa’s rants?
Sam Freedom May 23rd, 2014 at 19:00
Its a shame you don’t realize he’s an honest guy. If he was dishonest, he would’ve stolen the document or repressed it. Certainly the administration would’ve produced it by now had they known about it… right?
Duh…
Dwendt44 May 23rd, 2014 at 19:06
Issa and honesty have never met.
Obewon May 23rd, 2014 at 01:04
Where do we donate to the Rep. Issa in 2016~ PAC? Darrell’s the perfect GOP candidate to pair with Texas’s tumbleweed that blew in from Canada, or that Killa from Wasilla. Chairman Issa / Tarpit Ted, featuring SoS Palin until 2015~
Obewon May 23rd, 2014 at 01:04
Where do we donate to the Rep. Issa in 2016~ PAC? Darrell’s the perfect GOP candidate to pair with Texas’s tumbleweed that blew in from Canada and the killa from Wasilla. Chairman Issa / Tarpit Ted with Palin running for half-term as SoS.
fahvel May 23rd, 2014 at 03:59
transparency in govt -openess, duh, maybe no secret documents – waddayathink of dat? An honest govt -(belly laugh now!)
Raylusk May 23rd, 2014 at 16:25
Please get back on your meds before commenting further.
fahvel May 23rd, 2014 at 03:59
transparency in govt -openess, duh, maybe no secret documents – waddayathink of dat? An honest govt -(belly laugh now!)
Raylusk May 23rd, 2014 at 16:25
Please get back on your meds before commenting further.
OOPS! Darrell Issa Accidentally Sabotages Republican Benghazi ‘Investigation’ Talking Point | Atlas Left May 23rd, 2014 at 10:06
[…] h/t: Liberaland […]
Brandt Hardin May 23rd, 2014 at 15:04
Can’t we move on to more important issues facing our country?! This is a dog and pony show to attack Hillary before 2016 and continue to stonewall Obama on every relevant issue. At every turn of the corner, the blame is placed solely on the POTUS as if he were an Emperor without a system of checks and balances. Watch the GOP apply the blackface and bamboozle our President at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html
Brandt Hardin May 23rd, 2014 at 15:04
Can’t we move on to more important issues facing our country?! This is a dog and pony show to attack Hillary before 2016 and continue to stonewall Obama on every relevant issue. At every turn of the corner, the blame is placed solely on the POTUS as if he were an Emperor without a system of checks and balances. Watch the GOP apply the blackface and bamboozle our President at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html
Sam Freedom May 23rd, 2014 at 18:55
Liberals are so stupid.
First, “sabotage” shows intent to destroy. At best, one might say Issa “weakened” Republicans case.
HOWEVER….
Libs are so stupid because ALL THE ADMINISTRATION HAD TO DO WAS PRODUCE PROOF THEY HAD AT THE START… UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY WANTED THIS REPUBLICAN INVESTIGATION AS YET ANOTHER DISTRACTION.
You guys are such clowns…
Paul_in_RI May 23rd, 2014 at 19:48
Issa must be removed from office by the electorate in 2014. He is a liar and an evil, bad guy. He is on the Road to Perdition. Satan welcomes him as a brother.
Paul_in_RI May 23rd, 2014 at 19:48
Issa must be removed from office by the electorate in 2014. He is a liar and an evil, bad guy. He is on the Road to Perdition. Satan welcomes him as a brother.
wsi May 25th, 2014 at 21:04
Face it– Obama and Campaign members did not want any “distractions” from their precious Presidential run before the election! E-mails document that the White House officials rushed in with judgement regarding the blame of a Youtube video BEFORE the CIA even finished their own investigation! Where did this idea of blaming the video come from –especially while the attack was still occurring?? This contradicts the White House statement that the CIA were the first to place blame on the video. This all took place DURING the attack!!–Instead of sending in immediate military aid which was available, or requesting aid from our allies, one of the first moves was to disguise this incident, and call Youtube!! Where was President Obama–was he not in the Situation Room? Why were Ambassador Stevens’ previous requests for additional security denied? Why did the White House send out Susan Rice to continually perpetuate the blame on the video for days, when this did not match evidence??–her e-mail instructions were: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy”; and “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges”. Why did the White House not get information immediately from the CIA who received info. the morning after (Sept. 12) from eyewitnesses (8 trained people who all verified that this was definitely an organized attack with precisely fired mortars)? Even after all of this, why did it take until Sept. 19 for it to be first called a terrorist attack by one White House official and President Obama declined to call it a terrorist attack even as late as Sept. 24 when asked?
arc99 May 25th, 2014 at 21:07
your right talk radio bullsh*t has been debunked so many times, I am not going to waste time doing it again.
please proceed and let the entire nation observe the pile of unrelenting insanity that has swallowed the political right.
wsi May 25th, 2014 at 21:11
No Bull here–just answer the simple questions above.
arc99 May 25th, 2014 at 21:27
your questions have been answered, many times over.
here is just one example. your statement that immediate military assistance was available is completely false.
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140115/NEWS05/301150016/Benghazi-report-AFRICOM-general-offered-ambassador-help-before-attack
The highly critical report says the U.S. military ***was not positioned to help the Americans in need***, though the head of Africa Command had offered military security teams that Stevens — who was killed — had rejected weeks before the attack.
wsi May 26th, 2014 at 12:03
No. Many of the most important questions have not been
answered “many times over”, but thank you for responding to the comment about the availability of military help.
1. Ambassador Stevens had been debating the
policy of letting go the security team from the Dept. of Defense. He did not “reject” military security teams;
he did not have the authority to accept the offer and there also was an issue with diplomatic immunity for any special security forces.
2. Yes- military help was available. It just went unused. F-18s
out of a nearby Naval base in Italy could have been deployed with reasonable safety in that airspace.
The most pressing questions remain– impressive list: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/4/unanswered-questions-on-benghazi-attack
I suppose one question regarding why the White House
perpetuated the blame on the video has been answered by Ben Rhodes in his e-mail to Susan Rice: He instructed her to
“underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,”
TiredOfThemAll May 26th, 2014 at 12:14
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 1;
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: “Talking Points Went Through The Normal Interagency
Coordination Process.” The
Senate Committee on Intelligence review determined there was no effort by the
administration to cover-up or alter the talking points for political
purposes:
The Majority concludes
that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed
normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by
the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up”
facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA
Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012,
“They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified
public talking points-go through.” In fact, the purpose of the
National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security
agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist
attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role
appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination.
Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at
the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
with the explicit goal of reducing information “stovepipes” between
and among agencies. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In
Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Slate’s Weigel: Rhodes
Email Relied On CIA Talking Points. Laying
out a timeline of events, Slate’s David Weigel pointed out that the Rhodes
email came “hours after the CIA and State Department were urging that
the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest.” Weigel added
that “it’s just lazy journalism or lazy politicking to blame
Rhodes for a talking point that was fed from the CIA.” [Slate, 4/30/14]
Email Consistent With
Intelligence Reports At The Time. The
email issued by Rhodes, which advised Rice on her upcoming appearances,
provided information about global protests and said specifically about the
attack, “the currently available information suggests that the
demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the
US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate
and subsequently its annex.” The language used by Rhodes is nearly
identical to the initial draft of the CIA talking points, and was consistent
with the intelligence community.
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: Intel Reports Linked Inflammatory Video To Benghazi Attack. A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that “some
intelligence suggests” an inflammatory video linked to violent protests
around the region led terror groups to conduct “similar attacks with
advanced warning”:
It remains unclear if any
group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether
extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some
intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order,
following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video,
suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks
with little advance warning. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S.
Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Former CIA Acting Director
Believed At The Time Video Might Have Motivated Attack. Former CIA acting director Mike Morrell has testified that
the CIA chief of station in Libya believed at the time that the video
might have motivated the attackers. [The Daily Beast, 4/2/14]
Cairo Protests Cited By
CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” mentioned
in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to
the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article
reported “Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to
Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on
Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests.” The article went on
to note that protesters “had penetrated the perimeters of the American
Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or
consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of
violence.” [The New York Times, 9/14/12]
Slate’s Dickerson: Emails
Show “White House Believed The Story They Were Pushing.” Slate chief political correspondent John Dickerson wrote
that while the newly released documents “clearly show that the White House
pushed the video story,” they also show “proof that the White House
believed the story they were pushing,” given that the CIA “made
spontaneity its first and most durable claim that weekend” by initially
blaming the video. [Slate, 4/30/14]
wsi May 26th, 2014 at 20:39
It is curious as to why the White House contacted Youtube regarding the
video during the attacks and BEFORE receiving their “talking points”
from the CIA. If anything, this “debunking” information just reinforces how ill-prepared our defense strategies and foreign policy were! This information also does not explain how “al-Qaeda” was taken OUT of the talking points from the White House, or how the blame of the video and protests made their way INTO the talking points, perpetuated for many days after the real story was unraveled.
The CIA talking points never mentioned the Internet video. Then Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell stated he
was surprised when he saw Rice blame the Benghazi attack on the video. He told Congress “that’s not something the
[CIA] analysts have attributed the attack to.
Also, the U.S. allowed weapons to flow into the hands of
al-Qaeda militants: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html
TiredOfThemAll May 26th, 2014 at 21:30
What is curious??
That was the first thought that EVERYONE involved had, as it was happening all over.
It just makes sense except for those who resist the truth.
Citizens Committee on Benghazi?????
A group of conspiracy theorists made up of birthers and Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s real father wackos??
They have as much credibility as the fake moon landing people.
No wonder David Frum said, “Republicans have been Fleeced, Exploited And Lied To’ by a Conservative Entertainment Complex”
And William Kristol said, on Conservativism becoming a racket;
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and
eventually degenerates into a racket.”
What a racket.
TiredOfThemAll May 26th, 2014 at 12:15
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 2;
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: Committee Found No Evidence Of Intentional Delay Or Obstruction
By The Chief Of Base Or Any Other Party. A Senate Committee on Intelligence review of the Benghazi
attacks found no evidence of a “stand down” order given to responding
units during the attack:
The Committee explored
claims that there was a “stand down” order given to the security team
at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration
that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the
Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of
Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S.
personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) or DoD, prevented the
mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee
has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.
[…]
The Committee has reviewed
the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the
mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee
has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated. [Review Of The
Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012,
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: No Military Resources Could Have Provided Additional
Support. A Senate Committee on
Intelligence found that military assets were not in place to respond in time:
According to Major General
Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff: There
were no ships available to provide any support that were anywhere close to the
facility at Benghazi. The assets that we had available were Strike Eagles
loaded with live weapons that could have responded, but they were located in Djibouti,
which is the equivalent of the distance between here [Washington D.C.] and Los
Angeles. The other fighters that might have been available were located in
Aviano, Italy. They were not loaded with weapons. They were not on an alert
status. We would’ve had to build weapons, load weapons, get tankers to support
it, and get it there. There was no way that we were going to be able to do
that. Unfortunately, there was not a carrier in the Mediterranean that could
have been able to support; the assets that we mobilized immediately were the
only assets we had available to try to support.
[…]
There have been
congressional and public questions about why military assets were not used from
the U.S. military base in Souda Bay, Crete. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on February 7, 2013, that (1) the military asset in Souda Bay, Crete,
“wasn’t the right tool for the particular threat we faced;” (2)
” … the aircraft were not among the forces that we had at
heightened alert;” and (3) the “boots-on-the ground
capabilities” that DoD deployed would have arrived too late, so they did
not deploy to Benghazi. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities
In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: Personnel At Nearby CIA Annex Came To Compound’s Aid. The Senate Committee on Intelligence review found that the
groups responding to the Benghazi attack were credited with saving lives of the
personnel in diplomatic facility:
Although there was no
formal written agreement about how security should be handled between the two
facilities in Benghazi, there was a common understanding that each group would
come to the other’s aid if attacked, which is what happened the night of
September 11, 2012.102 IC personnel immediately came to the aid of their
colleagues at the Temporary Mission Facility, and fought bravely to secure TMF
[The Mission Facility] personnel and their own Annex facility. The Committee
interviewed U.S. personnel in Benghazi that night, and they credited their
lives being saved to the personnel who responded to the attacks. [Review Of
The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12,
2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
AP: Six-Member Quick
Reaction Team And 60 Libyan Militiamen In Benghazi Responded To The Attack. The AP reported that a “six-member quick reaction
security team arrived on the scene from its compound across town, the officials
said. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompanied the team, and it again tried to
secure a perimeter around [Ambassador Chris] Stevens’ building, taking turns
searching inside.” [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]
TiredOfThemAll May 26th, 2014 at 12:16
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 3
AP: Reinforcements From
Embassy In Tripoli Arrived The Same Night. The quick-response team returned to its compound across
town and the same night, a “team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy
in Tripoli arrived on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reached
the security compound,” the AP explained. [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]
Wash. Post’s Ignatius: Reinforcements From Tripoli Arrived Before Second
Attack In Benghazi. Washington
Post foreign affairs
columnist David Ignatius described a “detailed CIA timeline” of the
events that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, which shows that the
reinforcements sent by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrived on the scene in
Benghazi prior to the second attack of the night being launched:
·11:56 p.m.: CIA officers
at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms.
Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01
a.m., and some assume the fight is over.
·1:15 a.m.: CIA
reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve
hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA
case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t
leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by
negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport;
obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea
is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is
already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar
al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.
·5:04 a.m.: The team from
Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli,
goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions.
·5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan
assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit
the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has
been reported. They don’t know they’re in place until the indirect fire begins,
nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their
laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire.
At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others
are wounded. [The Washington Post, 11/1/12]
CBS/AP: Panetta Says U.S.
Military Did Not Intervene Because Attack “Was Over Before The U.S. Ha[d]
Sufficient Information On Which To Act.” An October 25 article by CBS News and the
Associated Press reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters
that the U.S. military “was prepared to respond” to the Benghazi
attack “but did not do so because it lacked what he called ‘real-time
information.” The article quoted Panetta as saying, “You don’t deploy
forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on … (We) felt we could
not put forces at risk in that situation.” Panetta also told reporters,
“It was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was
happening.” [CBS/Associated Press, 10/25/12]
Additional Reinforcements
Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was
Concluded. In
an interview, Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya
Gregory Hicks said that a flight that special
forces were scheduled to take, but did not, would have taken off
after 6:00 a.m., local time — approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the
CIA annex that killed two people. ]
TiredOfThemAll May 26th, 2014 at 12:17
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 4;
LA Times: Two “Key Witnesses” Were “Grilled For Hours”
On Capitol Hill. According
to an October 28, 2013 report in the Los Angeles Times, “Two
of the Justice Department’s key witnesses in last year’s terrorist attack on
the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, were summoned to Capitol Hill this month
and grilled for hours in separate legal depositions” by House Oversight
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):
Two of the Justice
Department’s key witnesses in last year’s terrorist attack on the U.S. mission
in Benghazi, Libya, were summoned to Capitol Hill this month and grilled for
hours in separate legal depositions.
[…]
Issa, mounting his own
congressional investigation, learned the agents’ names in May, and in September
began pushing for access to them. The agents are Alec Henderson, who was
stationed in Benghazi, and John Martinec, then based in Tripoli. [Los
Angeles Times, 10/28/13]
LA Times: Rep. Issa Learned Identity Of Survivors Through Previous
Benghazi Testimony. According to
the October 28 Los Angeles Times article, Issa learned
the identities of the witnesses through former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory
Hicks, who had been stationed in Tripoli during the attack:
The powerful Republican
House chairman learned the identities of the three agents from Gregory Hicks,
the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who testified before the
committee.
Hicks revealed that
“Martinec ran into my villa [in Tripoli] yelling, ‘Greg, Greg, the consulate’s
under attack.'” He said Martinec had been in phone contact with Henderson
in Benghazi, and that Henderson told Martinec “the consulate had been
breached and there were at least 20 hostile individuals armed in the
compound.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/13]
Daily Beast: Multiple CIA
Officers Who Were At The Base During The Attack Testified Before Congress. According to a May 24 report by The Daily Beast,
multiple CIA officers who were in Benghazi at the time of the attack have
already testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
On Wednesday, Deputy CIA
Director Mike Morell — along with CIA officers who were at the agency’s
Benghazi base on the night of the attack — testified at a classified hearing
before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the closed
hearing, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the proceedings, Morell
was asked by Republican members about how the second wave of attackers knew to
go to the CIA annex, which was a mile away from the diplomatic mission. Morell
responded that at this point the CIA did not know whether the attackers had
known the location of the annex or learned about it on the evening of the
attack, according to these sources. [The Daily Beast, 5/24/13
William May 26th, 2014 at 20:49
Yes- military help was available. It just went unused. F-18s
out of a nearby Naval base in Italy could have been deployed with reasonable safety in that airspace
As a retired Naval aircrewman, I really REALLY need to know what a flight of F-18’s could have done in this situation. Please be specific, and I cannot wait.
arc99 May 25th, 2014 at 21:32
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/buck-mckeon-darrell-issa-benghazi-106255.html
Republican Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon is slamming the testimony of a key Benghazi witness before the committee of Republican Oversight Chair Darrell Issa.
.
.
.
McKeon added, “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents. We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/buck-mckeon-darrell-issa-benghazi-106255.html#ixzz32mUXBMHY
craig7120 May 26th, 2014 at 21:38
Yep. Ok. You’re right. It was all a ruse.
It worked, we won an election.
Feel better?
We’re gonna whip your asss again in ’16
The phony scandal will be Obama’s real birth certificate discovered, cause the gop and their base are fools that can’t outsmart liberals when it comes to finding those responsible for scandals.
Global warming is real, ha ha
wsi May 25th, 2014 at 21:04
Face it– Obama and Campaign members did not want any “distractions” from their precious Presidential run before the election! E-mails document that the White House officials rushed in with judgement regarding the blame of a Youtube video BEFORE the CIA even finished their own investigation! Where did this idea of blaming the video come from –especially while the attack was still occurring?? This contradicts the White House statement that the CIA were the first to place blame on the video. This all took place DURING the attack!!–Instead of sending in immediate military aid which was available, or requesting aid from our allies, one of the first moves was to disguise this incident, and call Youtube!! Where was President Obama–was he not in the Situation Room? Why were Ambassador Stevens’ previous requests for additional security denied? Why did the White House send out Susan Rice to continually perpetuate the blame on the video for days, when this did not match evidence??–her e-mail instructions were: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy”; and “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges”. Why did the White House not get information immediately from the CIA who received info. the morning after (Sept. 12) from eyewitnesses (8 trained people who all verified that this was definitely an organized attack with precisely fired mortars)? Even after all of this, why did it take until Sept. 19 for it to be first called a terrorist attack by one White House official and President Obama declined to call it a terrorist attack even as late as Sept. 24 when asked?
arc99 May 25th, 2014 at 21:07
your right talk radio bullsh*t has been debunked so many times, I am not going to waste time doing it again.
please proceed and let the entire nation observe the pile of unrelenting insanity that has swallowed the political right.
wsi May 25th, 2014 at 21:11
No Bull here–just answer the simple questions above.
arc99 May 25th, 2014 at 21:27
your questions have been answered, many times over.
here is just one example. your statement that immediate military assistance was available is completely false.
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140115/NEWS05/301150016/Benghazi-report-AFRICOM-general-offered-ambassador-help-before-attack
The highly critical report says the U.S. military ***was not positioned to help the Americans in need***, though the head of Africa Command had offered military security teams that Stevens — who was killed — had rejected weeks before the attack.
wsi May 26th, 2014 at 12:03
No. Many of the most important questions have not been
answered “many times over”, but thank you for responding to the comment about the availability of military help.
1. Ambassador Stevens had been debating the
policy of letting go the security team from the Dept. of Defense. He did not “reject” military security teams;
he did not have the authority to accept the offer and there also was an issue with diplomatic immunity for any special security forces.
2. Yes- military help was available. It just went unused. F-18s
out of a nearby Naval base in Italy could have been deployed with reasonable safety in that airspace.
The most pressing questions remain– impressive list: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/4/unanswered-questions-on-benghazi-attack
I suppose one question regarding why the White House
perpetuated the blame on the video has been answered by Ben Rhodes in his e-mail to Susan Rice: He instructed her to
“underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,”
OldLefty May 26th, 2014 at 12:14
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 1;
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: “Talking Points Went Through The Normal Interagency
Coordination Process.” The
Senate Committee on Intelligence review determined there was no effort by the
administration to cover-up or alter the talking points for political
purposes:
The Majority concludes
that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed
normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by
the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up”
facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA
Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012,
“They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified
public talking points-go through.” In fact, the purpose of the
National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security
agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist
attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role
appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination.
Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at
the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
with the explicit goal of reducing information “stovepipes” between
and among agencies. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In
Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Slate’s Weigel: Rhodes
Email Relied On CIA Talking Points. Laying
out a timeline of events, Slate’s David Weigel pointed out that the Rhodes
email came “hours after the CIA and State Department were urging that
the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest.” Weigel added
that “it’s just lazy journalism or lazy politicking to blame
Rhodes for a talking point that was fed from the CIA.” [Slate, 4/30/14]
Email Consistent With
Intelligence Reports At The Time. The
email issued by Rhodes, which advised Rice on her upcoming appearances,
provided information about global protests and said specifically about the
attack, “the currently available information suggests that the
demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the
US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate
and subsequently its annex.” The language used by Rhodes is nearly
identical to the initial draft of the CIA talking points, and was consistent
with the intelligence community.
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: Intel Reports Linked Inflammatory Video To Benghazi Attack. A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that “some
intelligence suggests” an inflammatory video linked to violent protests
around the region led terror groups to conduct “similar attacks with
advanced warning”:
It remains unclear if any
group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether
extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some
intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order,
following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video,
suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks
with little advance warning. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S.
Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Former CIA Acting Director
Believed At The Time Video Might Have Motivated Attack. Former CIA acting director Mike Morrell has testified that
the CIA chief of station in Libya believed at the time that the video
might have motivated the attackers. [The Daily Beast, 4/2/14]
Cairo Protests Cited By
CIA Talking Points Were Sparked By The Anti-Islam Video. The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” mentioned
in both versions of the CIA talking points were part of a global reaction to
the anti-Islam video. A September 14 New York Times article
reported “Anti-American rage that began this week over a video insult to
Islam spread to nearly 20 countries across the Middle East and beyond on
Friday, with violent and sometimes deadly protests.” The article went on
to note that protesters “had penetrated the perimeters of the American
Embassies in the Tunisian and Sudanese capitals, and said that 65 embassies or
consulates around the world had issued emergency messages about threats of
violence.” [The New York Times, 9/14/12]
Slate’s Dickerson: Emails
Show “White House Believed The Story They Were Pushing.” Slate chief political correspondent John Dickerson wrote
that while the newly released documents “clearly show that the White House
pushed the video story,” they also show “proof that the White House
believed the story they were pushing,” given that the CIA “made
spontaneity its first and most durable claim that weekend” by initially
blaming the video. [Slate, 4/30/14]
wsi May 26th, 2014 at 20:39
It is curious as to why the White House contacted Youtube regarding the
video during the attacks and BEFORE receiving their “talking points”
from the CIA. If anything, this “debunking” information just reinforces how ill-prepared our defense strategies and foreign policy were! This information also does not explain how “al-Qaeda” was taken OUT of the talking points from the White House, or how the blame of the video and protests made their way INTO the talking points, perpetuated for many days after the real story was unraveled.
The CIA talking points never mentioned the Internet video. Then Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell stated he
was surprised when he saw Rice blame the Benghazi attack on the video. He told Congress “that’s not something the
[CIA] analysts have attributed the attack to.
Also, the U.S. allowed weapons to flow into the hands of
al-Qaeda militants: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html
OldLefty May 26th, 2014 at 21:30
What is curious??
That was the first thought that EVERYONE involved had, as it was happening all over.
It just makes sense except for those who resist the truth.
Citizens Committee on Benghazi?????
A group of conspiracy theorists made up of birthers and Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s real father wackos??
They have as much credibility as the fake moon landing people.
No wonder David Frum said, “Republicans have been Fleeced, Exploited And Lied To’ by a Conservative Entertainment Complex”
And William Kristol said, on Conservativism becoming a racket;
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and
eventually degenerates into a racket.”
What a racket.
OldLefty May 26th, 2014 at 12:15
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 2;
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: Committee Found No Evidence Of Intentional Delay Or Obstruction
By The Chief Of Base Or Any Other Party. A Senate Committee on Intelligence review of the Benghazi
attacks found no evidence of a “stand down” order given to responding
units during the attack:
The Committee explored
claims that there was a “stand down” order given to the security team
at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration
that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the
Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of
Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S.
personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) or DoD, prevented the
mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee
has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.
[…]
The Committee has reviewed
the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the
mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee
has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated. [Review Of The
Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012,
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: No Military Resources Could Have Provided Additional
Support. A Senate Committee on
Intelligence found that military assets were not in place to respond in time:
According to Major General
Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff: There
were no ships available to provide any support that were anywhere close to the
facility at Benghazi. The assets that we had available were Strike Eagles
loaded with live weapons that could have responded, but they were located in Djibouti,
which is the equivalent of the distance between here [Washington D.C.] and Los
Angeles. The other fighters that might have been available were located in
Aviano, Italy. They were not loaded with weapons. They were not on an alert
status. We would’ve had to build weapons, load weapons, get tankers to support
it, and get it there. There was no way that we were going to be able to do
that. Unfortunately, there was not a carrier in the Mediterranean that could
have been able to support; the assets that we mobilized immediately were the
only assets we had available to try to support.
[…]
There have been
congressional and public questions about why military assets were not used from
the U.S. military base in Souda Bay, Crete. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on February 7, 2013, that (1) the military asset in Souda Bay, Crete,
“wasn’t the right tool for the particular threat we faced;” (2)
” … the aircraft were not among the forces that we had at
heightened alert;” and (3) the “boots-on-the ground
capabilities” that DoD deployed would have arrived too late, so they did
not deploy to Benghazi. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities
In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, 1/15/14]
Senate Select Committee On
Intelligence: Personnel At Nearby CIA Annex Came To Compound’s Aid. The Senate Committee on Intelligence review found that the
groups responding to the Benghazi attack were credited with saving lives of the
personnel in diplomatic facility:
Although there was no
formal written agreement about how security should be handled between the two
facilities in Benghazi, there was a common understanding that each group would
come to the other’s aid if attacked, which is what happened the night of
September 11, 2012.102 IC personnel immediately came to the aid of their
colleagues at the Temporary Mission Facility, and fought bravely to secure TMF
[The Mission Facility] personnel and their own Annex facility. The Committee
interviewed U.S. personnel in Benghazi that night, and they credited their
lives being saved to the personnel who responded to the attacks. [Review Of
The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12,
2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]
AP: Six-Member Quick
Reaction Team And 60 Libyan Militiamen In Benghazi Responded To The Attack. The AP reported that a “six-member quick reaction
security team arrived on the scene from its compound across town, the officials
said. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompanied the team, and it again tried to
secure a perimeter around [Ambassador Chris] Stevens’ building, taking turns
searching inside.” [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]
OldLefty May 26th, 2014 at 12:16
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 3
AP: Reinforcements From
Embassy In Tripoli Arrived The Same Night. The quick-response team returned to its compound across
town and the same night, a “team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy
in Tripoli arrived on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reached
the security compound,” the AP explained. [Associated Press, 10/10/12, via The Denver Post]
Wash. Post’s Ignatius: Reinforcements From Tripoli Arrived Before Second
Attack In Benghazi. Washington
Post foreign affairs
columnist David Ignatius described a “detailed CIA timeline” of the
events that occurred during the attack in Benghazi, which shows that the
reinforcements sent by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrived on the scene in
Benghazi prior to the second attack of the night being launched:
·11:56 p.m.: CIA officers
at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms.
Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01
a.m., and some assume the fight is over.
·1:15 a.m.: CIA
reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve
hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA
case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t
leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by
negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport;
obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea
is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is
already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar
al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.
·5:04 a.m.: The team from
Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli,
goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions.
·5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan
assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit
the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has
been reported. They don’t know they’re in place until the indirect fire begins,
nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their
laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire.
At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others
are wounded. [The Washington Post, 11/1/12]
CBS/AP: Panetta Says U.S.
Military Did Not Intervene Because Attack “Was Over Before The U.S. Ha[d]
Sufficient Information On Which To Act.” An October 25 article by CBS News and the
Associated Press reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters
that the U.S. military “was prepared to respond” to the Benghazi
attack “but did not do so because it lacked what he called ‘real-time
information.” The article quoted Panetta as saying, “You don’t deploy
forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on … (We) felt we could
not put forces at risk in that situation.” Panetta also told reporters,
“It was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was
happening.” [CBS/Associated Press, 10/25/12]
Additional Reinforcements
Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was
Concluded. In
an interview, Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya
Gregory Hicks said that a flight that special
forces were scheduled to take, but did not, would have taken off
after 6:00 a.m., local time — approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the
CIA annex that killed two people. ]
OldLefty May 26th, 2014 at 12:17
Everyone of these things have been debunked.
Part 4;
LA Times: Two “Key Witnesses” Were “Grilled For Hours”
On Capitol Hill. According
to an October 28, 2013 report in the Los Angeles Times, “Two
of the Justice Department’s key witnesses in last year’s terrorist attack on
the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, were summoned to Capitol Hill this month
and grilled for hours in separate legal depositions” by House Oversight
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):
Two of the Justice
Department’s key witnesses in last year’s terrorist attack on the U.S. mission
in Benghazi, Libya, were summoned to Capitol Hill this month and grilled for
hours in separate legal depositions.
[…]
Issa, mounting his own
congressional investigation, learned the agents’ names in May, and in September
began pushing for access to them. The agents are Alec Henderson, who was
stationed in Benghazi, and John Martinec, then based in Tripoli. [Los
Angeles Times, 10/28/13]
LA Times: Rep. Issa Learned Identity Of Survivors Through Previous
Benghazi Testimony. According to
the October 28 Los Angeles Times article, Issa learned
the identities of the witnesses through former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory
Hicks, who had been stationed in Tripoli during the attack:
The powerful Republican
House chairman learned the identities of the three agents from Gregory Hicks,
the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who testified before the
committee.
Hicks revealed that
“Martinec ran into my villa [in Tripoli] yelling, ‘Greg, Greg, the consulate’s
under attack.'” He said Martinec had been in phone contact with Henderson
in Benghazi, and that Henderson told Martinec “the consulate had been
breached and there were at least 20 hostile individuals armed in the
compound.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/13]
Daily Beast: Multiple CIA
Officers Who Were At The Base During The Attack Testified Before Congress. According to a May 24 report by The Daily Beast,
multiple CIA officers who were in Benghazi at the time of the attack have
already testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
On Wednesday, Deputy CIA
Director Mike Morell — along with CIA officers who were at the agency’s
Benghazi base on the night of the attack — testified at a classified hearing
before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the closed
hearing, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the proceedings, Morell
was asked by Republican members about how the second wave of attackers knew to
go to the CIA annex, which was a mile away from the diplomatic mission. Morell
responded that at this point the CIA did not know whether the attackers had
known the location of the annex or learned about it on the evening of the
attack, according to these sources. [The Daily Beast, 5/24/13
William May 26th, 2014 at 20:49
Yes- military help was available. It just went unused. F-18s
out of a nearby Naval base in Italy could have been deployed with reasonable safety in that airspace
As a retired Naval aircrewman, I really REALLY need to know what a flight of F-18’s could have done in this situation. Please be specific, and I cannot wait.
arc99 May 25th, 2014 at 21:32
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/buck-mckeon-darrell-issa-benghazi-106255.html
Republican Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon is slamming the testimony of a key Benghazi witness before the committee of Republican Oversight Chair Darrell Issa.
.
.
.
McKeon added, “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents. We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/buck-mckeon-darrell-issa-benghazi-106255.html#ixzz32mUXBMHY
craig7120 May 26th, 2014 at 21:38
Yep. Ok. You’re right. It was all a ruse.
It worked, we won an election.
Feel better?
We’re gonna whip your asss again in ’16
The phony scandal will be Obama’s real birth certificate discovered, cause the gop and their base are fools that can’t outsmart liberals when it comes to finding those responsible for scandals.
Global warming is real, ha ha