Adriana Cohen: Benghazi truth emerges

071814clinton.jpg



Photo by:
AP (File)
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Sunday, September 7, 2014


By:
Adriana Cohen



Three CIA military contractors who were in the fight for their lives when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, gave a riveting first-hand account in a bombshell interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier of what really happened that night.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans — including Winchester native Glen Doherty — lost their lives in the brutal attack by Islamist terrorists who launched RPGs, mortars and heavy fire into both the consulate and nearby annex — for 13 hours — while the White House and State Department ignored their cries for help.

When our consulate was attacked, these three CIA first responders wanted to immediately rush over to the compound to rescue Stevens and other personnel but say they were repeatedly told to wait and “stand down” for nearly 30 minutes by their CIA base chief, who was with them that deadly night. Their team leader was a CIA official who got direct orders from Washington to wait multiple times.

This long delay cost Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith their lives.

Baier’s report is based on a book coming out Tuesday, “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,” written by Boston University journalism professor Mitchell Zuckoff along with the CIA contractors.

BAIER: If I gave you that 30 minutes back, would Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith be alive today?

KRIS PARONTO (CIA contractor): Yes, they would still be alive.

BAIER: You in on that?

JOHN TIEGEN (CIA contractor): I strongly believe if we would have left immediately, they would still be alive today.

Not only did the delay cost two Americans their lives, but these three CIA security contractors and two others, Tyrone Woods and Doherty, were still fighting for their own lives as the attack continued. They requested air support and military back-up from the State Department — but Hillary Clinton didn’t answer that 3 a.m. phone call. No help came. And good American men lost their lives because of it.

The Obama Administration — of course — denies they told anybody at the CIA annex to “stand down.” It’s no surprise they’ve been playing word games on what “language” they used to order the CIA security team to wait. Former President Bill Clinton — when caught in a sex scandal which led to his impeachment — spliced words during the investigation saying, “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” With an ongoing congressional Benghazi investigation and upcoming midterm elections, the White House and their spokesmen are doing the same.

And America’s not buying it. They know a cover-up when they see one.

Prior to the Sept. 11 attack, Obama was selling the phony narrative that terrorism was “on the run.” So instead of admitting he was wrong when Islamist terrorists attacked our consulate, his administration made up the phony story that protesters upset by a video attacked our consulate and murdered these brave Americans. And then they went into cover-up mode. They put politics first and violated the “leave no man behind” military code.

And with a complicit mainstream media they got away with it, and Obama got re-elected. Politics and personal career ambitions should never trump human life. But in the Obama/Clinton regime, it does.

My heart goes out to the victims’ families.

Adriana Cohen is co-host of “Trending Now” on Boston Herald Radio. Go to adrianacohen.com or follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16.


Source
.

Caravan To Midnight - Episode 84 Tosh Plumlee

CTM Shows

Published on Jun 25, 2014

Benghazi: Is Middle East Chaos coming to US mainland?

.

.

SHOCKING: Company That Created Obamacare Website LINKED To Benghazi Video

by Shoebat Foundation on June 17, 2014

By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies
**SHOEBAT EXCLUSIVE**

In a SHOCKING discovery, CGI Federal – the Canadian Company that built the Obamacare website – appears to have a connection to the “Innocence of Muslims” video the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks.

And here’s how it was done:

The evidence is well established that in 2010, CGI acquired Stanley Associates, which “provides services to the U.S. federal civilian, defense and intelligence agencies”. [1]

When the crudely produced video “Innocence of Muslims” was posted to a YouTube it needed a boost, especially since it was posted by someone no one had ever heard of and who had only uploaded two videos – that were basically the same.

Well, a YouTube channel known as NewsPoliticsNow3 (NPN3) has been connected to Stanley Associates, the service provider for U.S. defense and “intelligence”.

On September 11, 2012, NewsPoliticsNow3 (NPN3) uploaded a short version of the video (only 1:32 of it). It was in fact NPN3 (see screenshot below taken 19 hours after video uploaded) which gave the crude movie a new title “Innocence of Muslims”, instead of the name given previously (click on image to enlarge).

Note: Screen capture from 9/12/12 (top right). NPN3 posted “Innocence of Muslims” trailer 19 hours earlier… on 9/11/12.

After NPN3 caused the video to gain more than four million views of its 1:32 long trailer, NewsPoliticsNow3 took down the video on or before 9/20/12. The skids of Sam Bacile’s YouTube channel had been sufficiently greased; his video was off and running. NPN3 had done its job of priming the pump; then it vanished.

The evidence that NPN3 is a creation of Stanley is captured in the following screenshot:

Screen shot reveals NPN connection to Stanley as well as CGI merger with Stanley in 2010.

And the evidence of Stanley’s working for the Feds is ironclad. The CGI press release announcing the completion of the merger identifies Stanley as a company that…


…provides services to the U.S. federal civilian, defense and intelligence agencies.

The Obama Administration played its role accordingly. It’s important to remember the words of then Secretary of S

tate Hillary Clinton at the first “Istanbul Process” meeting she chaired along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary-General on July 15, 2011. Hillary said, as relayed byShoebat.com:


…we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

As an agent of Stanley Associates, NPN3 would have been needed as a front, as an agitprop agent. The Obama administration needed to be involved in making the video go viral while creating the perception that it“had absolutely nothing to do with it”. The video was supposed to invoke “peer pressure and shaming” without the hint of government involvement.

After all, these were the words of Hillary Clinton herself and how she envisioned it.

Here is a screen shot of the NPN3 YouTube channel on September 15, 2012 in which the 1:32 long trailer garnered more than 4.5 million views. By September 20th, the channel was gone:

NewsPoliticsNow3 screen shot from 9/15/12. Over four million views of its 1:32 trailer.

The one person who has a history with both Stanley Associates and CGI Federal’s role in developing the Obamacare website is the company’s President Donna Ryan. Here is an excerpt from her bio:


Ms. Donna A. Ryan has been the President of CGI Federal Inc. since September 28, 2011. At CGI Federal Inc., Ms. Ryan is responsible for leading CGI’s strategy, growth and client delivery across the Civilian, Defense and Intelligence Sectors of the U.S. Federal Government. As a member of CGI’s Management Committee, she also participates in the development and execution of CGI’s global strategy. Ms. Ryan had been Senior Vice President at Stanley, Inc. since August 2010.

August of 2010 is when the acquisition of Stanley by CGI was finalized, according to what appears to be a CGI PowerPoint presentation, which also refers to CGI as:


A global leader in IT, business process, and professional services, CGI partners with federal agencies to provide end-to-end solutions for defense, civilian, and intelligence missions

Ryan has a history that includes being a Senior VP with Stanley and President with CGI Federal. While holding both titles, Ryan also made several trips to the White House.

Prior to Stanley Associates’ apparent involvement with the NPN3 YouTube channel upload of the short 1:32 video on September 11, 2012, the name “Innocence of Muslims” was never used. When casting for the movie was being done, it was entitled “Desert Warrior”. The alleged June 30th screening at the Vine Theatre was entitled “Innocence of Bin Laden” and the two videos uploaded to the Sam Bacile YouTube channel were identified only as “Muhammad Movie Trailer” and “The Real Life of Muhammad” respectively. Here is a September 17, 2012 screen shot of the Sam Bacile YouTube Channel:

Note the names of the video (Neither is identified as “Innocence of Muslims”).

In conclusion, strong probable cause exists to suggest that it was Stanley’s NPN3 that created the name “Innocence of Muslims” which became the signature of the Obama administration’s outrage, broadcast all over the world. It was the “Innocence of Muslims” title that the Obama administration pointed to for leaving a trail of libel, murder, and American blood in its wake. Regardless of Nakoula’s role in producing and uploading the video, he didn’t give the video the title that would live on in infamy.

REFERENCES
[1] In a series of videos posted to YouTube by a man going by the handle of “Montagraph”, an image capture of the NPN avatar ties back to Stanley Associates, as the screen shot above demonstrates. Two other entities must be brought into the equation first – Stanley Associates, Inc. and a YouTube channel identified asNewsPoliticsNow3, no longer in existence.

Keep in mind that Shoebat.com has made the case that “Innocence of Muslims” was about agitprop and that the Obama administration was involved – to varying degrees – in the production and covert marketing of the video. In a Shoebat.com exclusive, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who appeared in the video, told us that the filmmaker – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – informed her that he is a Muslim, not the Coptic Christian he was portrayed to be.

Putting something up on the internet in the hopes of it going viral can be a futile endeavor, even when it’s an excellent product… or… video. When it’s a third-rate, two-bit video – as “Innocence of Muslims” was, a substantial delivery system would almost definitely be necessary. That’s where NewsPoliticsNow comes in.

The filmmaker’s son Abanob Nakoula created the Sam Bacile YouTube channel and posted two videos in July of 2012.

Source

.

John B Wells' Caravan To Midnight - Episode 53 with Tosh Plumlee

Caravan To Midnight - Episode 53 Tosh Plumlee & John B Wells



Caravan To Midnight

Published on May 6, 2014

Join John B. Wells as he welcomes Tosh Plumlee on board for an epic conversation including details about the Benghazi cover-up, and much more.
.
.

Obama Sticks It to the GOP with Rice Appointment

Photo: REUTERS/Jim Bourg



By DAVID FRANCIS, The Fiscal Times
June 5, 2013



By adding embattled U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to his inner circle, Obama is provoking Republicans while bringing Chicago-style politics to the Beltway.

Choosing Rice as national security chief is a politically shrewd choice since she will not have to be confirmed by the Senate--she can take the job without facing-off with her Republican critics.

It’s also a clear show of confidence in Rice, who has been under nearly constant fire because of her role in the aftermath of September’s Benghazi attack. Days after four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Rice appeared on NBC’s "Meet the Press" and other news networks and told the country that the attack was prompted by an Anti-Islam film produced in the United States.

"There's no question, as we've seen in the past with things like 'The Satanic Verses,' with the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we've seen," Rice said.

“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video,” Rice said.

Her statements later proved false as the government’s “talking points” emails revealed that the terrorist organization Al Qaeda was behind the attack.

Since then, Republicans have charged that Rice intentionally lied to protect the president before an election. They allege she downplayed the seriousness of the incident to prevent the president from looking soft on security issues.

Republican anger over their perception of Rice’s actions forced her to withdraw her name from consideration as Secretary of State. In recent months, Rice’s name has been synonymous with the alleged Benghazi cover-up, as Republicans continue to insist she misled the public.

Her appointment is a giant snub to Republicans by Obama who simply doesn’t care about their criticisms. Rice has been a willing sacrificial lamb for the White House, standing silent as Republicans accused her of lying. By making her an untouchable part of his inner circles, he’s rewarding her loyalty.

Obama is also sticking it to Republicans by forcing them to work with someone whom they’ve openly despised for months. Some have grudgingly said they’ll now work with her to keep the nation safe.

“I will not be petty. I will put my differences on Benghazi aside and work with her," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said. John McCain (R-AZ) added on Twitter, "I’ll make every effort to work w/ her on important issues."

Republicans are already gearing up to challenge Obama’s pick to replace Rice, Samantha Power. In a book about genocide Power alleged the United States failed to meet its moral obligation to stop mass killings in Africa and the Balkans.

“I don’t know about you, but it might be helpful to have someone representing America at the UN who doesn’t think we are the source of world’s ills,” Keith Urbahn, a former chief of staff to former Pentagon chief Donald H. Rumsfeld, tweeted this morning.

Power will to be grilled on her book when she sits in front of the Senate for confirmation hearings, but she’s likely to get confirmed. Obama and his allies will find a way to get it done.

Both Rice and Power are bold, controversial picks that the White House knows will irk Republicans. But that doesn’t matter to the president. Nearly six years in office has shown Obama to be an expert at getting what he wants, no matter the opposition. That’s the Chicago way.



Source: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/06/05/Obama-Sticks-It-to-the-GOP-with-Rice-Appointment.aspx#1WFKDEGZCZPzkXws.99

.

P.S.

Remember the spontaneous reaction to the video?

NRCC Communications


Published on May 8, 2013


On Face the Nation immediately after the attack on our mission in Benghazi, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said it was a spontaneous protest caused by an inflammatory video.

.

White House Aide Calls Criticism of Obama ‘Offensive’

May 19, 2013, 1:51 pm

By BRIAN KNOWLTON


A senior adviser to President Obama mounted a combative defense of the administration on Sunday, saying that the controversies enveloping the White House were the result of Republican lawmakers trying to “drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped-up hearings and false allegations.”

The remarks came from Dan Pfeiffer, a member of the president’s inner circle, as he appeared on all five major Sunday morning talk shows in an effort to move the administration past what commentators have described as a “hell week” of controversy and missteps. He pointedly rejected Republican criticisms of the president’s actions and leadership style as “offensive” and “absurd,” and he said the administration would not be distracted from doing the nation’s business.

In his appearances, Mr. Pfeiffer faced often tough questioning over the Internal Revenue Service’s targeted reviews of conservative groups; the lethal attack on an American diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, last September; and the Justice Department’s seizure of journalists’ records.

He repeatedly pointed the finger at Republicans for exploiting the three issues for political purposes, even as he urged them to work with the administration on legislation to revamp the immigration system and trim the budget deficit.

His warning against “fishing expeditions” came when he was asked on the CBS program “Face the Nation” about a remark by the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, who had told The New York Times that he had instructed staff not to spend more than 10 percent of their time on the three controversies.

The program’s host, Bob Schieffer, asked whether that meant that the White House did not take the issues seriously.

“Oh, no. Absolutely not,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “There are some very serious issues here, particularly the I.R.S., where there was inexcusable conduct that needs to be fixed. And that’s going to happen.” But he said that the president and his staff needed to keep “actually doing the people’s work and fighting for the middle class.”

Republicans appearing on the Sunday shows insisted that they would be aggressive in pushing for fuller investigations, particularly of the I.R.S. and Benghazi matters. The administration has promised to cooperate, but is also fighting to keep the problems from overshadowing its agenda.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, said on “Fox News Sunday” that investigators examining the I.R.S. scandal needed to answer key questions: “Who knew? When did they know? Why did they do this? How high up in government did it go?”

Mr. Ryan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, which held an often testy hearing into the I.R.S. matter on Friday, said Americans had lost confidence in their government, adding, “This is arrogance of power, abuse of power, to the nth degree.”

Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican who is also on the committee, said that an inspector general’s review of the I.R.S. matter that was released last week – it largely blamed ineffective I.R.S. management for the undue scrutiny of Tea Party groups – was “just the beginning of this process.”

Mr. Pfeiffer tried to clarify a key point – Mr. Ryan’s “when did they know” – about exactly when Mr. Obama learned that an I.R.S. unit had given extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. The president’s response to a reporter’s question on Thursday had seemed open to interpretation.

But Mr. Pfeiffer said repeatedly on Sunday that the president had learned about the matter only weeks ago. That was appropriate, Mr. Pfeiffer said, given the importance of insulating the I.R.S. from White House pressures.

Mr. Pfeiffer made the administration’s Republican critics the prime target of his anger. “There is no question Republicans are trying to make political hay here,” he said of the I.R.S. scandal. And regarding Benghazi, he said on Fox, “There’s a series of conspiracy theories the Republicans have been spinning about this since the night it happened.”

When Chris Wallace, the Fox host, pressed Mr. Pfeiffer to explain exactly what Mr. Obama was doing last Sept. 11, as reports emerged of the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi – specifically whether the president had gone to the Situation Room to monitor events – Mr. Pfeiffer dismissed the question as irrelevant and rejected what he said was an implication of presidential inattention. Four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed in the attack.

“The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen and didn’t take action is offensive,” Mr. Pfeiffer said, adding, “There’s no evidence to support it.”

But the minority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, picking up on a recent Republican theme, cast the various scandals as symptoms of a deeper problem. “There is a culture of intimidation through the administration,” he said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “The I.R.S. is just the most recent example.”

The president has insisted that it would have been wrong to be involved earlier in the I.R.S. matter or to interfere with the Justice Department’s investigation into leaks that led to the seizure of the journalists’ records. That has provoked criticism that his management style leans too far in the other direction – so detached as to be ineffectual.

Mr. Pfeiffer brusquely dismissed those suggestions.

“I think that’s an absurd proposition,” he said on Fox, adding, “What would be a real problem is if he was involved in those cases.”

He said that a cardinal rule of the presidency is “you don’t get involved with independent investigations, and you don’t give the appearance of doing so.”

Some Republicans have sought to link the I.R.S. scandal to their concerns about the president’s health care law, calling for Sarah Hall Ingram, who had headed the I.R.S. section involved in the tax-exempt determinations, to be relieved of her current role in carrying out that law.

Mr. Pfeiffer said no such step should be taken before a monthlong investigation ordered by the new acting I.R.S. commissioner is completed. “No one has suggested that she did anything wrong yet,” he said.

But Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, said that he did not think the I.R.S. review would suffice. “I think a special counsel is going to wind up being necessary,” he said on the ABC News program “This Week.”

..

Source

XXXXXX

Who is Dan Pfeiffer?

7 hours ago
More images
Daniel Pfeiffer
Spokesman to Vice President Al Gore
Daniel Pfeiffer is Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Advisor to the President for Strategy and Communications. He was previously a member of Obama's presidential transition team.Wikipedia


Born: December 24, 1975 (age 37), Wilmington
Education: Georgetown University
Spouse: Sarah Feinberg (m. 2006)
Office: Deputy White House Communications Director since 2009

.

---IHS---

.

Arsenio: Yes, an epidemic of Mass Hysteria!   

Great Political Science programs at Georgetown University?

.

.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

US News | Syria News | More ABC News Videos

White House Benghazi Attack Talking Points Edited

By Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
Follow on Twitter
May 10, 2013 6:33am

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.




AFP/Getty Images

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:


“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.


Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

.

Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department

Posted: 05/10/2013 12:49 pm EDT | Updated: 05/11/2013 1:50 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points_n_3253638.html?ir=Politics 


By DONNA CASSATA, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi.

An interim report by Republicans on five House committees last month had detailed how the talking points were changed, days after the Sept. 11 attack and in the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign. New details about the political concerns and the names of the administration officials who wrote emails concerning the talking points emerged on Friday.

The White House has insisted that it made only stylistic changes to the intelligence agency talking points in which Rice suggested that protests over an anti-Islamic video set off the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Before the presidential election, the administration said Rice's talking points were based on the best intelligence assessments available in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

But the report and the new details Friday suggest a greater degree of White House and State Department involvement.

The latest developments are certain to add fuel to the politically charged debate over Benghazi. Republicans have suggested that the Obama administration sought to play down the possibility of terrorism during the campaign and has misled the country. A senior administration official reiterated Friday that the talking points were based on intelligence assessments and developed during an interagency process, which included the CIA, officials from the Director of National Intelligence, State Department, FBI and the Justice Department.

The official commented only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation

Last Sept. 14, two days before Rice's appearance, the CIA's initial draft of the talking points referred to Islamic extremists taking part in the attack in Benghazi, possible links to Islamic extremist group Ansar al-Sharia, a CIA assessment of threats from extremists linked to al-Qaida and a mention of five previous attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

A congressional official who reviewed 100 pages of emails and the 12 pages of talking points said former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about the talking points, writing that they "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill."

The reference to al-Sharia was deleted, but Nuland wrote later that night, "these don't resolve all my issues and those of my building leadership, they are consulting with NSS," a reference to the National Security staff within the White House.

A meeting of senior officials was convened on Saturday morning after the attack to work on the talking points and they included officials from the White House, State Department and CIA.

Deleted from the final talking points were mention of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya and Islamic extremists, according to the congressional official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the emails that have not been released.


Source
.

White House Spokesman Throws State, CIA Under Bus

12:20 PM, MAY 10, 2013 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

At a White House press briefing on May 1, Barack Obama spokesman Jay Carney attempted to frame new reporting on the Benghazi attacks as old news by noting that the attacks had taken place "a long time ago." 

Just ten days have passed since he uttered that infelicitous phrase. But it feels like a long time ago.

National Journal’s Ron Fournier takes a close look at the Obama administration’s unraveling spin in a piece today headlined: “Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi.”

He describes the process that led to the removal of very carefully phrased references to Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda linked group operating in Benghazi and responsible for several previous attacks against western targets, including diplomatic facilities. By the time the Obama administration removed those rather generic references to Ansar al Sharia, the original reporting of their involvement had been bolstered by new intelligence, in multiple streams and from a variety of sources.

And yet, as Fournier puts it: “The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.”

That’s important. But Fournier, who covered the White House from the front row of the briefing room for years for the Associated Press, picked up on very carefully phrased language that White House spokesman Jay Carney has used in his most recent explanations of the revision of the talking points.

Fournier writes: “In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying ‘the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.’”

It’s an important catch. And there’s more.

The White House is also still assigning responsibility for the talking points mess to the CIA and the intelligence community.

Back on October 10, Carney said: “Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community — not opinions — assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.”

Carney said this week: “What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points.”

Is Carney’s claim technically true? Did the intelligence community draft and redraft the talking points? Perhaps. The intelligence community certainly drafted the talking points. And internal Obama administration emails suggest that Mike Morell, the deputy director of the CIA, may have been the official to physically make the changes to previous CIA drafts.

But if Carney is suggesting that the only substantive changes came after suggestions from the intelligence officials – and that seems to be the point of his statement – what he is saying is demonstrably untrue. The most significant and substantive changes came after policymakers at the State Department and White House suggested revisions.

The simple fact that reporters are now having to parse the carefully-phrased utterances of top Obama administration officials – including and especially the president’s chief spokesman – means that, yes, Benghazi is a real scandal.

But the problem isn’t primarily Carney. Here’s what Barack Obama said in an appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 18, 2012:

“When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world, immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and people try to piece together exactly what happened,” he explained. “And what I have always tried to do is to make sure we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. And we’re still in that process now. But everything we get, every piece of information we get—as we got it—we laid it out for the American people.”

Every piece of information we get – as we got it – we laid out for the American people.

The opposite is closer to the truth. The evidence is clear that senior Obama administration officials, including top advisers to the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, participated in a coordinated effort to keep the real story of Benghazi from the American people.

The question is whether the president will do now what he promised he would do – “a long time ago.”

Clash Erupts at Benghazi Hearing

POLITICS
Updated May 8, 2013, 1:15 p.m. ET


By SIOBHAN HUGHES

WASHINGTON—House Republicans and Democrats clashed Wednesday at a congressional hearing featuring three State Department officials, who are testifying about what happened before, during and after the fatal attacks last year on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.



Associated Press
Eric Nordstrom, the former chief security officer for the American diplomatic outpost in Libya, answera questions in October 2012.


House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) opened the hearing by complaining that the Obama administration had ignored congressional inquiries—a claim top State Department officials have flatly said is wrong. He also said that the two men who headed an independent board that reviewed what went wrong in Benghazi had declined to testify.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), the committee's top Democrat, challenged an impression left by Republicans that a military team could have gotten to Benghazi before the second attack on the consulate compound, and that the second attack might have been stopped if a fighter jet had been sent.

"Our committee has a fundamental obligation to conduct responsible oversight," Mr. Cummings said. "What we have seen over the past two weeks is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way, but rather a launch of unfounded accusations to smear public officials."

More Covearge
WATCH: Live stream of the hearing
Gregory Hicks' Testimony: How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded
Testimony: Thompson | Hicks | Nordstrom
State Department report
Senate report from US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Text of the House GOP report

Earlier
GOP Report Slams Obama Administration on Benghazi (4/23/2013)
Senate Report Widens Fault for Benghazi Failures (12/30/2012)
Four at State Department Removed After Libya Report (12/19/12)
State Department Faulted in Libya Attack(12/19/12)



Mark Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations at the State Department, said he was at his desk when the first reports arrived indicating an attack in Benghazi. He said he decided that the U.S. needed to activate a group called the Foreign Emergency Support Team, and notified the White House, but was told that meetings had already taken place that determined the team wasn't "in the menu of options."

Mr. Thompson said he thought that it was important to "act now" because "you don't know what's going to happen in two hours."

The State Department has said that the team, based in the U.S., wouldn't have arrived in Libya in time to make any difference. Daniel Benjamin, the head of counterterrorism at the time of the September attacks, has said that the question of whether to deploy the team was posed early, and the State Department made the correct decision against sending it.

Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, began his testimony with a chronology of the attacks from his viewpoint. Last month, he told congressional investigators that the U.S. might have prevented a second attack that killed two Central Intelligence Agency contractors if the military had been able to get a fighter jet to Benghazi as soon as possible, according to a partial transcript of an April interview released by House Republicans.

The Pentagon has repeatedly said that planes couldn't have arrived in time. A State Department Accountability Review Board report released in December found that "there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

A third witness, Eric Nordstrom, the former chief security officer for the American diplomatic outpost in Libya, said in prepared testimony that the Benghazi compound failed to meet security standards, even though it faced some of the gravest security threats. In his prepared testimony, he also asked why a review board investigating the attacks didn't expand its probe to cover decisions made higher up the chain of command.

Democrats see the hearing as a politically motivated effort to keep alive an eight-month-old story and drag in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 Democratic presidential contender.

A State Department official said Tuesday that the department already has a "tough assessment" from an Accountability Review Board convened by Mrs. Clinton. The board faulted a "lack of proactive senior leadership" for security arrangements in Benghazi and said physical security was "profoundly weak."

Republicans are convinced that more digging will show that the Obama administration put politics before security in Benghazi. Republicans say that they themselves aren't motivated by politics but by a desire to seek justice for U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans killed in the attacks. They included an information officer and the two CIA contractors.

The hearing is a prelude to at least two more that Republicans hope to use to keep a spotlight on the attacks.

Mr. Nordstrom, who was in charge of security in Libya until shortly before the attacks, said in prepared testimony that the review board's process seemed professional but left some things unexamined.

Mr. Nordstrom, according to this prepared remarks, also said that he told officials in February 2012 that he wouldn't support occupancy of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi until security upgrades had been completed. He will say that senior State Department decision makers "determined that funding would not be provided," and will ask who waived requirements that embassy facilities meet security standards.

Real-time Washington News and Insight

Witness Hicks: How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded

Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, on Wednesday testified to a House committee about the night of the attacks at the Benghazi facility and how the U.S. reacted. Here is a partial transcript.

Who's Who: The Benghazi Hearing Witnesses

Seib & Wessel: What We're Reading Wednesday

Source

/

House panel to hear from eyewitnesses on Benghazi attack

Politics: Congress

May 1, 2013 | 7:00 pm


Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional CorrespondentThe Washington Examiner
@susanferrechio


Popular in Politics

Shock poll: Wealthy, not middle class, support Obama
Chris Matthews to Tim Carney: Don’t mock me on my show
Book: Obama surrounds self with 'idolizers,' plots legacy with scholars
Boy Scouts rule change could bankrupt iconic group
Issa: New Benghazi hearing will ‘expose new facts’ Obama ‘has tried to suppress’

FILE - In this Friday, Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, Libyan military guards check one of the U.S. Consulate's burnt out buildings during a visit by Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif, not shown, to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya to express sympathy for the death of the American ambassador, Chris Stevens and his colleagues in the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the consulate. (AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon, File)


House Republicans scheduled a new hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attacks and suggested it would include new testimony from eyewitnesses to the deadly Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate who will provide firsthand reports about what happened that day.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., scheduled a May 8 hearing entitled "Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage." It will be the latest attempt by congressional Republicans to demonstrate that the Obama administration misled the public about the true nature of an attack that killed four people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Issa did not disclose the witness list but promised the hearing "will expose new facts and details that the Obama administration has tried to suppress."

A top committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., went further, telling Fox News that the testimony will be "explosive."

"Firsthand accounts by eyewitnesses [are] much more compelling, much more persuasive," Gowdy said of the hearing.

Republicans have for months been clamoring for additional information from the Obama administration about the attacks on the mission in Benghazi that left Ambassador Chris Stevens dead.

"Benghazi is warming up," Gowdy told Fox. "It is not going away, despite the efforts of this administration."

While many congressional Democrats appear satisfied with the Obama administration's handling of the attacks and the aftermath, Republicans believe the State Department did not provide adequate security for American diplomats at the consulate and charge that the administration hasn't been forthcoming about what its investigation of the attack found because it is trying to conceal its own negligence.

A lawyer and former Republican operative said State Department officials are preventing "whistleblower" witnesses to the attack from revealing what they saw.

When President Obama was asked about Benghazi whistleblowers in a Tuesday press conference, he said he was "not familiar" with anyone being prevented from talking.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, when pressed again on the matter Wednesday, suggested Republicans are politicizing an old issue.

"Benghazi happened a long time ago," Carney said. "We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi."

The FBI on Wednesday released photos of "three individuals who were on the grounds" of the Benghazi consulate when it was attacked.

The photos, which were posted online by Foreign Policy magazine, are accompanied by an FBI request for information about the attack "from Libyans and people around the world."

Issa, meanwhile, wrote to the CIA, State Department and Defense Department requesting security clearances for lawyers representing the whistleblowers so lawmakers can gather information about the attack.

"The department's unwillingness to make the process for clearing an attorney more transparent appears to be an effort to interfere with the rights of employees to furnish information to Congress," Issa told the State Department in an April 25 letter.

Congress has conducted a number of hearings on Benghazi but some Republicans have called for a select committee to examine the matter. The House GOP issued a report last month that concluded former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed off on a memo rejecting increased security in Benghazi. An independent review board, however, did not fault Clinton and she denies ever seeing the security request.

sferrechio@washingtonexaminer.com

Source

.

Dem Rep to Hillary During Benghazi Hearing: ‘You Are a Hero’

By Andrew Johnson
January 23, 2013 4:45 P.M.

 

During this afternoon’s hearing in the House on the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead, Democratic representative Juan Vargas took the time to lavish praise on Hillary Clinton: “You are a hero to many, especially women. You seem to bring out these deep aspirations that they have in ways that I’ve never seen before.”

Source


Related:

P.S. Finally found it on Thursday 1/24/2013 -

4:14 PM: Rep. Juan Vargas: "My daughter wouldn't let me in the house [if I didn't say] you are a hero to women." (Also: "I was a Jesuit for five years.")

Source: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/live-hillary-clinton-testifies-benghazi-hearing/61306/

.

.

The character assassination of Hillary Clinton

Kathleen ParkerOpinion Writer


By Kathleen Parker, Published: January 1


The new year began not with a cannonball off the “fiscal cliff” but with an outbreak of conspiratorial cynicism.

This time it’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose fall and concussion, followed by a blood clot between her brain and skull, has prompted an embarrassment of theories. The gist: That woman will do anything to avoid testifying about Benghazi.

Several commentators on the right opined via Twitter and TV, those most deadly hosts for the parasites of rumor and innuendo, that Clinton was faking her concussion to duck out on her appearance before congressional committees investigating the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

An independent report published last monthplaced substantial responsibility for the deaths on the State Department. Not only was security at the Benghazi compound weak, relying heavily on local forces with conflicting loyalties, but requests for additional security apparently were ignored or denied.

The sentiment that Clinton might not wish to testify on the matter is not without reason. It is hard to imagine the agony of knowing that one’s lack of vigilance may have contributed to four deaths. But the attacks on Clinton during her illness, essentially attacks on her character, have been cruel and unfair. What must the world think of us?

Clinton, who fainted as a result of dehydration after a bout of flu, hit her head and suffered a concussion, after which a blood clot was discovered. She had to be hospitalized while blood-thinning medications were administered and monitored.

Although her critics backed off once the clot was reported, initial responses ranged from “She’s faking” to demands for proof of her concussion.

One writer demanded her medical records. John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, called Clinton’s affliction a “diplomatic illness” to avoid testifying about Benghazi. Later he suggested that details were skimpy in an effort to protect her potential 2016 presidential run.

“I think it’s the too-cute-by-half approach that’s reflected in the absence of transparency that’s going to end up damaging her and damaging her credibility,” he said on Fox News.

Again, Clinton may well prefer to miss her day before the firing squad, but it is unlikely that doctors or a hospital would assist a secretary of state — or anyone — in concocting a fake affliction.

Besides, you can’t have it every which way. Immediately after the Benghazi attacks, Clinton took full responsibility for the events and was accused by Republicans of falling on her sword to protect President Obama. Now that she’s temporarily indisposed and unable to elaborate on her admitted responsibility, those same critics insist she’s trying to avoid taking personal responsibility.

The viciousness of the pundit class is disheartening and disgusting. And these days everyone’s a pundit. Got an opinion? Why, step right up to the microphone. If you’re “good TV,” you too can be a “contributor.”

Out in the hinterlands, where Americans consume “news” that suits their political proclivities, opinions are formed on the basis of what-he-said. Reputations and lives are ruined on the tines of pitchforks glimmering in the light of torch-bearing mobs. And those are just the “news” shows.

One doesn’t have to be a fan of Hillary Clinton, though a Bloomberg poll says that two-thirds of Americans are, to feel tainted by the relish with which she and many others have been attacked — unfairly and disproportionately. Susan Rice, who was Obama’s favorite to replace Clinton as secretary of state, comes to mind.

But this isn’t a problem only for women or Democrats. The rush to character assassination seems to be our only bipartisan imperative and is a blight on our political system. In this brooding age of superstition and portent, every misspoken word is a lie, every human error a hanging offense.

This is to suggest not that we be naive or credulous but that we seek some balance in our approach to discovery. At the moment, we seem to be ricocheting between hysteria and delusion.

Eventually, Clinton will have to step forward and take her medicine. She is slated to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-January, though the date hasn’t been set. The nation clearly needs answers on what happened in Benghazi, and no doubt Clinton will provide them.

This is not blind faith in a favored politician but respect for a process that relies on accepted rules of order. We owe our representative to the world — which is to say, ourselves — at least this much.

kathleenparker@washpost.com

Source

.

Benghazi report threatens to tarnish Clinton's legacy

By Halimah Abdullah, CNN
updated 2:48 PM EST, Thu December 20, 2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to testify on the Benghazi incident in January.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to step down from her Cabinet position in January
An review on Benghazi cited "systemic failures" at the State Department
High-ranking State officials have resigned or been disciplined
If Clinton runs in 2016, the sting of the Benghazi report will have lessened, experts say

Washington (CNN) -- The year 2012 was supposed to herald Hillary Clinton's swan song, a golden departure amid speculation that she might consider another run at the presidency in 2016.

Instead, the outgoing Secretary of State has found herself and her agency at the center of a scathing report about bloody attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

On Wednesday, four State Department officials, including two who oversaw security decisions at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, were disciplined after a review of security failures there, senior State Department officials told CNN. One resigned, while three others have been placed on administrative leave and relieved of their duties, said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

An independent review released Tuesday cited "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the agency Clinton heads. The review board completed its investigation this week. Clinton received a copy of the report on Monday and said in letters to the heads of those committees that she accepted every one of its recommendations, including strengthening security, adding fire safety precautions and improving intelligence collection in high-threat areas.

Benghazi siege: The ambassador's last minutes

Citing health reasons, Clinton delays testimony

Clinton, who had been recovering from stomach flu last week and a concussion following a fainting spell, informed the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs committees over the weekend that, at the advice of her doctors, she would be unable to testify at upcoming hearings about the deadly events in Benghazi. In her place, deputies Thomas Nides and Bill Burns will testify on Thursday.

Initially, that did not sit well with some members of Congress, especially Republicans, who have been highly critical of the Obama administration's handling of the Libya attack.

CNN Poll: Majority dissatisfied but don't think administration misled on Benghazi attack

"I know that Secretary Clinton was unable to be able to testify tomorrow in an open setting," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, told reporters Wednesday. "I do think it's imperative for all concerned that she testify in an open session prior to any changing of the regime. I think that that's very important for her, I think it's very important for our country, and I think it's very important to really understand sort of the inner workings of the State Department itself."

Clinton to testify before House panel in January

However late Wednesday, House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, indicated that Clinton will indeed testify in front of the committee sometime in mid-January.

Ros-Lehtinen issued a statement saying, "We still don't have information from the Obama administration on what went so tragically wrong in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four patriotic Americans. We have been combing through classified and unclassified documents and have tough questions about State Department threat assessments and decision-making on Benghazi. This requires a public appearance by the Secretary of State herself. Other Cabinet secretaries involved should also be held publicly accountable."

Lawmakers are right to demand answers of Clinton, said David Rothkopf, editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

"Hillary Clinton must take her fair share of responsibility for the mismanagement that led to the Benghazi disaster. And I believe she has. Her response to it, the appointment of a serious review effort led by (Ambassador Thomas) Pickering and (Adm. Mike) Mullen, its swift, thorough and unflinching completion of its duties and her acceptance of all its recommendations has been a textbook case of how to handle a crisis responsibly," Rothkopf said.

Sizing up Kerry as secretary of State

It is a crisis that has left an indelible mark on the careers of several high profile Obama administration officials.

Rice attacked for Benghazi comments

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration to become the top U.S. diplomat after drawing heavy criticism from Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans over her public statements about the Benghazi attacks.

In a letter to Obama, Rice said the Senate "confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive, and costly — to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities. That trade off is simply not worth it to our country."

Clinton praised Rice as a capable leader and insisted "she made very clear in her appearances that the information was subject to change as more facts were gathered and analyzed by the intelligence community" in a press conference at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference in Dublin earlier this month.

Disciplinary actions at State

Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of diplomatic security, has resigned his post. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb is among the other three officials placed on administrative leave pending further action, a source told CNN.

Boswell and Lamb oversaw security for the Benghazi mission. Lamb testified before Congress about the security precautions. Documents show Lamb denied repeated requests for additional security in Libya.

State Department resignations follow Benghazi report

But there is no reason to think Clinton's presidential prospects are dimmed, political experts say.

Positive public support

Before the report came out, Clinton had enjoyed wildly popular approval ratings in nationwide polls. A Bloomberg National Poll released this month showed 70% of Americans have a mostly or very favorable view of Clinton, with 24% holding a mostly or very unfavorable opinion of the nation's top diplomat. Similar polls from Politico/George Washington University, ABC News/Washington Post and the Siena College Research Institute showed consistent high marks.

"The report certainly isn't the 'hail and farewell' Hillary Clinton hoped for, and it isn't pretty. But two points: Clinton has been in the national public eye for 20 years, so any new piece of information is put into a much larger context. That will help her," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Though the Benghazi attacks will likely come up should Clinton venture a presidential run, the impact will have lessened, Sabato said.

"Think about 2012 when Benghazi was a fresh issue. How much did it help the GOP in the end? Somewhere between nada and zilch. Only a small portion of the electorate seemed interested, and overwhelmingly, they were already voting Republican," Sabato said. "I have a hard time believing that Benghazi will make much difference after the passage of four more years."

Rothkopf agrees.

"I do not believe the Benghazi case will have any impact on her presidential prospects. No one in public life for as long as she has been has an absolutely blemish-free record, and hers is vastly more distinguished and blemish-free than most," Rothkopf said.

"Further, truth be told, the misfires prior to Benghazi really occurred much farther down the food chain within the State Department," he said. "Suggesting errors in judgment regarding a particular post in a particular country fall within the direct purview of the Secretary of State is a gross misreading of the nature and demands of her job."

CNN's Dana Davidson, Dana Bash, Elise Labott , Adam Levine and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

Source

.

4 State Department officials quit after report on Benghazi attack

The four officials resign after a high-level panel held them responsible for failing to act on requests for greater security for the U.S. mission in Libya.




A man looks at documents at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, a day after it was attacked by militants, who killed four Americans. (Ibrahim Alaguri / Associated Press / September 12, 2012)

Panel faults security failures in Benghazi attacks

Clinton accused of faking illness to avoid Benghazi testimony

Susan Rice withdraws name from running for secretary of State

By Paul Richter and Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times

December 19, 2012, 7:39 p.m.



WASHINGTON — Four senior State Department officials resigned under pressure Wednesday after an independent review board determined that they had operational responsibility for "grossly inadequate" security when Islamic militants killed four Americans at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

At a news conference, retired Adm. Michael G. Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a leader of the independent panel, said "senior officials in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of leadership and management ability."

The Sept. 11 assault, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, has forced a wholesale reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its diplomatic facilities and employees, especially in dangerous areas.

It has also set off a bitter struggle between the White House and Republican critics who contend the Obama administration failed to provide adequate security and sought to conceal its lapses during the presidential campaign.

The senior State Department staffers who resigned included Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary for diplomatic security; Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security; and another unnamed person in the diplomatic security bureau, officials said. Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who oversaw Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, was identified by the Associated Press as the fourth official to resign.

They were held responsible for failing to act on requests for more guards and better fortifications for the U.S. compound in Benghazi, a city overrun by armed militiamen.

The resignations were a rare step for the State Department and an indication of how seriously top officials consider the lapses, veteran U.S. diplomats said.

No senior officials were forced out, for example, after the August 1998 bombings by Al Qaeda of U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, which killed more than 200 people and injured several thousand.

Nor was anyone disciplined in the CIA after an independent review board found "systemic breakdowns" of security when an Al Qaeda suicide bomber killed seven CIA officers on their base in Khowst, Afghanistan, in December 2009.

Yet some Republican lawmakers who have focused on the Benghazi attacks insisted the resignations and corrective steps recommended by the panel were inadequate and demanded more sweeping reform.

"This shouldn't be about just asking a few department heads politely to resign," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "You better be reaching down for fundamental change."

In its report released late Tuesday, the Accountability Review Board concluded that the State Department's Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs bureaus failed to coordinate security activities and relied on undependable Libyan militia and local security contractors to protect the facility.

Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-leaders of the five-member panel, briefed closed sessions of the Senate and House foreign affairs committees Wednesday. The committees will meet in open session Thursday to hear from Deputy Secretaries of State William J. Burns and Thomas Nides.

Pickering said the board decided that direct responsibility reached the level of assistant secretary of State and no higher. That was "where the decision making in fact takes place — where, if you like, the rubber meets the road," he said.

Still, the issue could affect the legacy of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to step down next month. She is widely viewed as a leading presidential candidate in 2016.

The unclassified portion of the report — a separate classified section was given to lawmakers — does not mention the CIA. Only a handful of U.S. diplomats worked in Benghazi, compared with more than two dozen intelligence officers. Two of the four Americans killed in the attacks died at the CIA base, called the Annex.

Despite the intelligence operation, the report concludes there was "little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests." That included the Feb. 17 militia, which was hired to help protect the U.S. facilities but apparently fled during the attack.

"That's in part an intelligence failure," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. "We did not know how unreliable the militias were and how compromised they may be."

"There's plenty of responsibility to go around, and I think the resignations are an indication that people are taking it seriously," Schiff said.

paul.richter@latimes.com

ken.dilanian@latimes.com

Source

.