Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Monday, September 16, 2024
Sunday, September 07, 2014
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
.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Islamist Militia Storm US Embassy in Tripoli (VIDEO)
Elisha
Published on Aug 31, 2014
Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli
Amateur video: Islamist militia storm U.S. embassy in Tripoli
WATCH: Islamic Militants Occupy Abandoned CIA Annex, Swim in Pool Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli (VIDEO)
Earlier today, a Libyan Islamic militant group said it had “secured” a U.S. Embassy compound in Libya’s capital city of Tripoli.
Now, a YouTube video has emerged that appears to show Islamic militia members inside a CIA residential annex that was abandoned when U.S. left the region a month ago due to escalating violence.
According the reports, the same Islamic militia is guarding the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, roughly a mile away.
Footage shows a large crowd of people inside the compound seemingly celebrating and jumping into a swimming pool.
Libyan Rebels Take Over U.S. Embassy In Tripoli | VIDEO
Amateur video: Islamist militia storm U.S. embassy in Tripoli Rebels In Libya Take Over Evacuated US Embassy Buildings In ...
Amateur Video: Islamist Militia Storm US Embassy in Tripoli
Amateur Video: Islamist Militia Storm US Embassy in Tripoli Footage shows a large crowd of people inside the compound ...
Amateur video Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Watch: Amateur video: Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Watch: Amateur video: Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Watch: Amateur video: Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Watch: Amateur video: Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
The Dawn of Libya' Islamist militia storms US embassy compound in Tripoli Footage reportedly taken inside the compound shows ...
Video Shows Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Amateur video Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Amateur video Shows Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli
Amateur video Islamist militia storm US embassy in Tripoli
Amateur video Shows Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli
Libyan Rebels Take Over U.S. Embassy In Tripoli | VIDEO
Amateur video: Islamist militia storm U.S. embassy in TripoliRebels In Libya Take Over US Embassy Buildings In TripoliLibyan ...
Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli Islamist Militia Storm US embassy in Tripoli
.
.
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Libya crumbles as the United States looks the other way
Smoke fills the sky over Tripoli after rockets fired by one of Libya's militias struck and ignited a tank in the capital's main fuel depot, Tripoli, Libya, 03 August 2014. The Libyan Health Ministry said that 179 people have been killed in clashes over the last week in Tripoli following a struggle between rival militias over control of the capital's airport and in the eastern city of Benghazi where according to media sources Government troops continue to fight Islamist militias. (Sabri Elmhedwi/EPA)
By Editorial Board August 7 at 7:49 PM
THREE YEARS after U.S. and NATO forces helped liberate Libya from the dictatorship of Moammar Gaddafi, the country is beginning to look a lot like another nation where an abrupt U.S. disengagement following a civil war led to chaos: Afghanistan in the 1990s. In Libya, heavily armed militias are battling for control of Tripoli and Benghazi as well as the international airport. The United States, France and other Western governments involved in the 2011 military intervention have evacuated their diplomats and abandoned their embassies. A U.N. mission that was supposed to help broker political accords also left.
Last month in Benghazi, the Ansar al-Sharia militia, which has ties to al-Qaeda and was involved in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault that killed the U.S. ambassador there, stormed a military base and then declared the city the seat of an “Islamic emirate.” That’s what the Taliban called Afghanistan. According to The Post’s Karen DeYoung, some U.S. counterterrorism officials believe Libya’s Islamists could seek to align themselves with the Islamic State, the al-Qaeda offshoot that controls western Iraq and eastern Syria. Whether or not that happens, it’s not hard to foresee eastern Libya becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks against nearby Europe or even the U.S. homeland.
U.S. and Western responsibility for this mess is heavy. Having tipped the outcome of the war against the Gaddafi regime, NATO quickly exited Libya, which was left with no army or political institutions but was awash in weapons. Repeated Libyan requests for assistance in restoring security were brushed off; a small-scale NATO training program based outside the country was little more than symbolic. As in the case of Afghanistan, Congress rejected the Obama administration’s aid requests.
Libya’s attempt to establish a working democracy, meanwhile, was overtaken by infighting among militias, which slowly polarized along an Islamist-secular divide. Libyans appear to prefer secular government:Islamists fared poorly in a parliamentary election held in June. But their military forces, which include a militia from the coastal city of Misurata as well as Ansar al-Sharia, are formidable.
The Obama administration has done its best to ignore Libya’s collapse, even as Republicans in Congress obsess over conspiracy theories about the 2012 Benghazi attack. Administration officials continue to peddle the empty line that “Libya’s challenges can really only be solved by the Libyans themselves,” as Secretary of State John F. Kerry put it this week. Officials point to the newly elected parliament, which convened in the eastern city of Tobruk last weekend, as a possible vehicle for a political settlement.
That’s hardly likely. Pacification of Libya would probably require another Western intervention and a peacekeeping force, coupled with a far more robust international mediation mission. The chances that such an intervention will be mounted, of course, are minuscule; the Obama administration would almost certainly not endorse it.
Of course, the notion that the United States should intervene against the budding al-Qaeda menace in Afghanistan during the 1990s also was dismissed as fanciful. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, recriminations were plentiful. Yet the lessons of Afghanistan seem to have been lost in U.S. policy toward the contemporary Middle East.
.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Increased security fears force BP staff to quit Libya
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 16:23 EST, 12 May 2013 | UPDATED: 16:23 EST, 12 May 2013
Exit: BP is withdrawing staff from Libya
BP said it was withdrawing staff from Libya on Sunday night just weeks after warning it is reconsidering plans to drill for oil due to increased worries about safety.
The oil giant said some non-essential staff would leave Libya after the government voiced concerns about deteriorating security in Tripoli.
Libya had refused to give any ground over requests by international oil firms operating in the OPEC producer to bring in their own foreign security staff at its oil fields.
BP said: ‘We are taking some non-Libyan staff out of Tripoli following advice by the foreign office.’
The British embassy said on Friday it was also cutting staff due to growing unrest in the capital, where armed groups seized two government ministries last month to raise the profile of a number of causes.
Source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2323512/Increased-security-fears-force-BP-staff-quit-Libya.html#ixzz2T8CCzTmr
.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
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
/
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Death for Preaching Christ in ‘Liberated’ Libya
February 22, 2013 By Raymond Ibrahim
Four foreign Christians—including one who holds American-Swedish citizenship—were arrested days ago in Libya. According to the Guardian, their crime is arousing “suspicion of being missionaries and distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty.”
Apparently the four Christians had “contracted a local printer to produce pamphlets explaining Christianity.” Proselytizing to Muslims—that is, preaching to them another religion—was banned even under the late Col. Muammar Gaddafi.
Libyans—strongly supported by U.S. President Obama in the name of “freedom”—got rid of Gaddafi but kept the distinctly anti-freedom law.
Discussing this case, Libyan security official Hussein Bin Hmeid, trying to justify the Islamic ban on free speech, observes: “Proselytizing is forbidden in Libya. We are a 100% Muslim country and this kind of action affects our national security.” Indeed, Muslim governments—most notably Iran’s—constantly suppress any talk of Christianity, claiming it threatens “our national security.” Such is the tribal mentality of Islam which everywhere declares: If you’re not one of us, you must be an enemy trying to subvert our way of life.
Is the flipside of this prevalent mentality also true—that if Muslims are not one of us, they must be trying to subvert our way of life?
Nor should the arrested Christians expect much sympathy from more “moderate” Libyans. According to Benghazi lawyer and “human rights activist” Bilal Bettamer, Christians should not offend Muslims by trying to share their faith: “It is disrespectful. If we had Christianity we could have dialogue, but you can’t just spread Christianity. The maximum penalty is the death penalty. It’s a dangerous thing to do.”
Indeed, like “blasphemy”—whether in the guise of Muhammad cartoons or movies—proselytizing to Muslims is one of the many forms of free speech to be specifically banned by Islamic Sharia. According to Muslim tradition, this ban goes back to the second “righteous” caliph, the 7th century Omar. After conquering a group of Christians, he stipulated any number of humiliating conditions for them to live by, including:
Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims….
Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it.
As Muslims continue turning to Islam—all to Western praise and encouragement—expect the things of Islam to continue returning in big ways.
The Guardian report adds: “Libya, a conservative Muslim country, has no known Christian minority, and churches, the preserve of foreign residents, have seen few of the attacks seen in Egypt and Tunisia, where there have been church burnings.”
The Guardian reporter may have wanted to point out that, less than two months ago, on Sunday, December 30, an explosion rocked a Coptic Christian church near the western city of Misrata, in the very place where U.S. backed rebels hold a major checkpoint. The explosion killed two people and wounded two others.
And even though it is true that there are few church attacks in Libya, that is simply because there are few churches to attack in the first place—not because of some Libyan “tolerance” to churches. After all, one never hears of church attacks in Saudi Arabia. Yet that is not because Saudis are “tolerant,” but rather because they have nipped the church problem in the bud by not allowing a single church to exist on Saudi soil. Hence, no churches for Muslim mobs to attack, bomb or burn. Conversely, where there is a large Christian population, such as in Nigeria, which is roughly half Christian, Muslims are bombing churches on practically a weekly basis.
Finally, there is the rewriting of history that is foisted by Muslims everywhere, not to mention ignorant Westerners, as exemplified in this report. All of those quoted—including the writer—seem to think that Libya was born a Muslim country. Hence, in the words of Libyan “human rights” activist Bilal Bettamer, “you can’t just spread Christianity.”
What, then, do we do with real history? The fact is, although Libya is today practically entirely Muslim, it certainly wasn’t always so. In fact, before the 7thcentury Islamic invasions, Libya was predominantly Christian. The fact that Libya’s immediate neighbors to the west and east, Algeria and Egypt, were backbones of early Christianity—giving the world giants of theology like St. Augustine and St. Athanasius, to name but a few—certainly suggests that Libya was mostly a Christian nation, excluding some Berber tribes.
Yet Islam came and killed and converted them all to itself. And now, to keep them in line, it will kill any who try to proclaim a different message, especially the message of their conquered forefathers.
.
.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
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.
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.
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
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.
.
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
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
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
.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Panel faults security failures in Benghazi attacks
A high-level panel faults the State Department for systematic security failures, which left the U.S. mission in Libya ill-equipped to deal with the attacks.
A man brandishes his weapon at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, the night it came under attack by Islamist militants. (AFP/Getty Images / September 11, 2012)
Related photos »
GOP senators criticize Susan Rice after meeting on Benghazi attack
Fog of politics on Benghazi
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
December 18, 2012, 11:03 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The State Department was guilty of "systematic failures" in security that made the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Libya possible, a high-level investigative panel concluded in an unflinching examination made public late Tuesday.
The panel faulted the department for ignoring requests from U.S. diplomats in Tripoli for security assistance and for relying on ill-prepared local militias and inadequate equipment to protect the mission in Benghazi. It found that two key bureaus failed to properly coordinate their security planning, and it pointed to a failure in leadership by officials at several levels.
"Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a … security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the report says.
The attacks by dozens of Islamist militants killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a broad reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its thousands of diplomats in dangerous parts of the world. The incident has also become the focus of a months-long battle between the Obama administration and Republican critics, who contend officials have sought to cover up their lapses.
United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was among those caught up in the political fray, eventually withdrawing her name from consideration as secretary of State after fierce criticism of her comments on television talk shows regarding the Benghazi attacks.
According to the report, which is likely to represent the government's lasting judgment on the attacks, the assault was the calculated effort of militants and not a "spontaneous" reaction of an outraged crowd, the first explanation offered by U.S. officials.
Yet the five-member independent panel said that, despite the lapses, no officials had failed to carry out their duties in a way that required disciplinary action.
It also determined that there had been "no immediate, specific intelligence" on the threat against the mission.
The report prepared for lawmakers includes classified sections.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a letter to congressional committees that she has accepted "every one" of the Accountability Review Board's 29 recommendations, several of which remain classified.
She praised the board, saying that it had offered "a clear-eyed look at serious, systematic challenges that we have already begun to fix."
To begin remedying the problems, officials are planning to reallocate $1.3 billion that was to be spent in Iraq to add hundreds of Marine guards and diplomatic security personnel, and to bolster security infrastructure in dangerous locations.
The board, which was convened in September, was led by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen. The two will meet Wednesday in closed session with the Senate and House foreign affairs committees to discuss the findings.
On Thursday, the committees will convene again in public session to discuss the report with Clinton's deputies, William J. Burns and Thomas Nides. Clinton had agreed to appear before the committees Thursday, but asked to be excused last weekend after suffering a mild concussion in a fall. She has told the committees she would answer their questions in January.
The report criticizes officials for waiting to react to specific threats rather than anticipating the dangers that U.S. officials could face in a deteriorating security environment.
More than a year after the end of the end of a revolution that brought down Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, the nation is still overrun by rival armed groups and lacks a central authority that can guarantee security for foreign missions, as it is required to do under international agreements.
Accountability Review Boards are set up under federal law to examine failures and assign blame. This one found shortcomings in the bureaucratic system, in personnel and equipment.
The report details how the Libyan militias that were supposed to protect the compound were not capable of carrying out the assignment. It deems the mission's fire-safety equipment and physical protections inadequate, and adds that the security arrangements were weakened by the relative inexperience and rapid turnover of personnel, despite their courage.
It also cites "diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity."
The report says the mission security shortcomings were made clear by Stevens' trip to Benghazi. Stevens, one of the most respected U.S. diplomats in the region, believed that he faced no special threat in his visit to Benghazi, even though the general level of risk had been on the rise for much of the year.
And the security officials assigned to protect him were not even aware of the specifics of his plans to travel outside the compound during his visit, the panel said.
The investigative panel found that although officials in the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had sought more security staffing in Benghazi, they had generally not done enough to try to improve security at the lightly protected Benghazi mission.
It said their faith in a local militia and contract security personnel was "misplaced," noting that some militia members had stopped accompanying the mission vehicles to protest their salary and hours.
Among State Department personnel, "there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations," the report says.
The report says certain senior officials in the State Department's Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs bureaus, whom it didn't identify, "demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability" in their responses. "However, the board did not find a reasonable cause to determine that any individual employee breached his or her duty," it adds.
The report calls for a strengthening of security and for the department to "urgently review the proper balance between acceptable risk and expected outcomes in high risk, high threat areas."
paul.richter@latimes.com
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
December 18, 2012, 11:03 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The State Department was guilty of "systematic failures" in security that made the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Libya possible, a high-level investigative panel concluded in an unflinching examination made public late Tuesday.
The panel faulted the department for ignoring requests from U.S. diplomats in Tripoli for security assistance and for relying on ill-prepared local militias and inadequate equipment to protect the mission in Benghazi. It found that two key bureaus failed to properly coordinate their security planning, and it pointed to a failure in leadership by officials at several levels.
"Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a … security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the report says.
The attacks by dozens of Islamist militants killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a broad reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its thousands of diplomats in dangerous parts of the world. The incident has also become the focus of a months-long battle between the Obama administration and Republican critics, who contend officials have sought to cover up their lapses.
United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was among those caught up in the political fray, eventually withdrawing her name from consideration as secretary of State after fierce criticism of her comments on television talk shows regarding the Benghazi attacks.
According to the report, which is likely to represent the government's lasting judgment on the attacks, the assault was the calculated effort of militants and not a "spontaneous" reaction of an outraged crowd, the first explanation offered by U.S. officials.
Yet the five-member independent panel said that, despite the lapses, no officials had failed to carry out their duties in a way that required disciplinary action.
It also determined that there had been "no immediate, specific intelligence" on the threat against the mission.
The report prepared for lawmakers includes classified sections.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a letter to congressional committees that she has accepted "every one" of the Accountability Review Board's 29 recommendations, several of which remain classified.
She praised the board, saying that it had offered "a clear-eyed look at serious, systematic challenges that we have already begun to fix."
To begin remedying the problems, officials are planning to reallocate $1.3 billion that was to be spent in Iraq to add hundreds of Marine guards and diplomatic security personnel, and to bolster security infrastructure in dangerous locations.
The board, which was convened in September, was led by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael G. Mullen. The two will meet Wednesday in closed session with the Senate and House foreign affairs committees to discuss the findings.
On Thursday, the committees will convene again in public session to discuss the report with Clinton's deputies, William J. Burns and Thomas Nides. Clinton had agreed to appear before the committees Thursday, but asked to be excused last weekend after suffering a mild concussion in a fall. She has told the committees she would answer their questions in January.
The report criticizes officials for waiting to react to specific threats rather than anticipating the dangers that U.S. officials could face in a deteriorating security environment.
More than a year after the end of the end of a revolution that brought down Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, the nation is still overrun by rival armed groups and lacks a central authority that can guarantee security for foreign missions, as it is required to do under international agreements.
Accountability Review Boards are set up under federal law to examine failures and assign blame. This one found shortcomings in the bureaucratic system, in personnel and equipment.
The report details how the Libyan militias that were supposed to protect the compound were not capable of carrying out the assignment. It deems the mission's fire-safety equipment and physical protections inadequate, and adds that the security arrangements were weakened by the relative inexperience and rapid turnover of personnel, despite their courage.
It also cites "diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity."
The report says the mission security shortcomings were made clear by Stevens' trip to Benghazi. Stevens, one of the most respected U.S. diplomats in the region, believed that he faced no special threat in his visit to Benghazi, even though the general level of risk had been on the rise for much of the year.
And the security officials assigned to protect him were not even aware of the specifics of his plans to travel outside the compound during his visit, the panel said.
The investigative panel found that although officials in the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had sought more security staffing in Benghazi, they had generally not done enough to try to improve security at the lightly protected Benghazi mission.
It said their faith in a local militia and contract security personnel was "misplaced," noting that some militia members had stopped accompanying the mission vehicles to protest their salary and hours.
Among State Department personnel, "there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations," the report says.
The report says certain senior officials in the State Department's Diplomatic Security and Near East Affairs bureaus, whom it didn't identify, "demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability" in their responses. "However, the board did not find a reasonable cause to determine that any individual employee breached his or her duty," it adds.
The report calls for a strengthening of security and for the department to "urgently review the proper balance between acceptable risk and expected outcomes in high risk, high threat areas."
paul.richter@latimes.com
.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Obama's Libyagate
The question is not whether president Obama called the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi - Libya a Terrorist act? Where an Ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed; But, rather, why did the Obama White House blame the killings on a bogus video “The Innocence of Muslims”, that demeans Muhammad and Muslims? The administration categorized the fatal aggression an unfortunate, violent reaction to a hate crime against Muslims?
That is the real issue.
PANDERING and APOLOGIZING TO THE KILLERS?
Why did Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice use the media and the U.N. to blame the bizarre video clip for the assassination of an American diplomat and 3 others in a supposed non-enemy state? When it was actually a organized guerilla assault? It was not civil unrest or a riot? It was an attack!
During the second Presidential Debate on October 16, 2012, Mitt Romney failed to point out the ruse that really makes this fiasco stand out. The fact is that 4 people were killed in an American consulate and the White House blamed it on a video. That is the point that candidate Romney was not able to verbalize.
Romney was on to something (about the Benghazi killings) last Wednesday night when president Obama and Candy Crowley were successful in stifling his speech; However, with the latest findings this developing story is going to spiral and go viral. Watch out when the floodgates are opened; I see a flood the size of Watergate coming upon the scene.
A.L.
Barack Obama condemns 'slander' of the 'prophet' Muhammad at UN
Hillary Clinton calls anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims 'disgusting and reprehensible'
Ambassador Rice: Anti-Islam Film Responsible For Attacks, Not Administration's Policy
.
That is the real issue.
PANDERING and APOLOGIZING TO THE KILLERS?
Why did Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice use the media and the U.N. to blame the bizarre video clip for the assassination of an American diplomat and 3 others in a supposed non-enemy state? When it was actually a organized guerilla assault? It was not civil unrest or a riot? It was an attack!
During the second Presidential Debate on October 16, 2012, Mitt Romney failed to point out the ruse that really makes this fiasco stand out. The fact is that 4 people were killed in an American consulate and the White House blamed it on a video. That is the point that candidate Romney was not able to verbalize.
Romney was on to something (about the Benghazi killings) last Wednesday night when president Obama and Candy Crowley were successful in stifling his speech; However, with the latest findings this developing story is going to spiral and go viral. Watch out when the floodgates are opened; I see a flood the size of Watergate coming upon the scene.
A.L.
Barack Obama condemns 'slander' of the 'prophet' Muhammad at UN
Hillary Clinton calls anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims 'disgusting and reprehensible'
Ambassador Rice: Anti-Islam Film Responsible For Attacks, Not Administration's Policy
.
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria
Michael Kelley | 54 minutes ago
AP
See Also
US Weapons Are Going To Hard-Line Jihadists Fighting To Topple The Syrian Regime
US State Department Official Killed In Libya Was A Top Online Gamer
REPORT: It Was A NATO Mortar That Killed 5 Turkish Civilians Last Week
The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky and there's certainly more to be known.
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is "the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda."
That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a "Front to Liberate Syria" to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.
That potential connection starts with who Ambassador Stevens worked with during the Libyan revolution and ends with who he hosted on the night of his death.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition and began coordinating U.S. assistance to the rebels.
The top military commander of the rebels, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the pro-al-Qaeda Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).
After Gaddafi fell the LIFG disbanded and some of the fighters joined the amorphous group Ansar al-Shariah (Soldiers of Shariah), which reportedly participated in the attack that took Stevens' life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported the a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).
Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc.
Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. (The official U.S. stance is that it is opposed to providing Syrian rebels with heavy weapons.)
Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."
So this much is fairly certain: Libya has been sending seasoned Islamic fighters, heavy weapons and presumably money to Syria in support of the opposition.
The uncertain part is where Stevens, and the U.S. government, fits into all of this.
If the new Libyan government was sending jihadists and 400 tons of lethal cargo to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
Reuters reported that satellite photos exposed a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, was used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."
We also know that about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors left the Benghazi base after it was exposed. Could these two CIA groups be connected as start and end points to help funnel heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition?
We know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey, but CNN reports that FSA members are "cutting their own deals to get weapons" from well-armed extremists so it raises questions about who the CIA is arming.
We know that U.S. weapons are ending up in the hands of hard-line Islamists in Syria. It turns out that many of these jihadists are the same ones that Stevens helped arm to topple Gaddafi.
On September 11 Stevens held an evening meeting with a Turkish diplomat before retiring to his room at 9 p.m. Gunfire and explosions began 40 minutes later. Is Steven's guest for his last meeting just another eerie coincidence?
Either way it seems that the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is much stronger than has been officially acknowledged.
SEE ALSO: Don't Believe What Politicians Saying About The Benghazi Attack >
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29khCMHWv
.
.
AP
See Also
US Weapons Are Going To Hard-Line Jihadists Fighting To Topple The Syrian Regime
US State Department Official Killed In Libya Was A Top Online Gamer
REPORT: It Was A NATO Mortar That Killed 5 Turkish Civilians Last Week
The details of the September 11 attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still murky and there's certainly more to be known.
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez argues that the key issue is "the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda."
That relationship, Lopez argues, could be connected to the rise of Islamic brigades in Syria, who recently created a "Front to Liberate Syria" to wage jihad against the Syrian regime and turn the country into an Islamic state.
That potential connection starts with who Ambassador Stevens worked with during the Libyan revolution and ends with who he hosted on the night of his death.
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition and began coordinating U.S. assistance to the rebels.
The top military commander of the rebels, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the pro-al-Qaeda Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).
After Gaddafi fell the LIFG disbanded and some of the fighters joined the amorphous group Ansar al-Shariah (Soldiers of Shariah), which reportedly participated in the attack that took Stevens' life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported the a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).
Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc.
Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. (The official U.S. stance is that it is opposed to providing Syrian rebels with heavy weapons.)
Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."
So this much is fairly certain: Libya has been sending seasoned Islamic fighters, heavy weapons and presumably money to Syria in support of the opposition.
The uncertain part is where Stevens, and the U.S. government, fits into all of this.
If the new Libyan government was sending jihadists and 400 tons of lethal cargo to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.
Reuters reported that satellite photos exposed a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, was used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."
We also know that about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors left the Benghazi base after it was exposed. Could these two CIA groups be connected as start and end points to help funnel heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition?
We know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey, but CNN reports that FSA members are "cutting their own deals to get weapons" from well-armed extremists so it raises questions about who the CIA is arming.
We know that U.S. weapons are ending up in the hands of hard-line Islamists in Syria. It turns out that many of these jihadists are the same ones that Stevens helped arm to topple Gaddafi.
On September 11 Stevens held an evening meeting with a Turkish diplomat before retiring to his room at 9 p.m. Gunfire and explosions began 40 minutes later. Is Steven's guest for his last meeting just another eerie coincidence?
Either way it seems that the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is much stronger than has been officially acknowledged.
SEE ALSO: Don't Believe What Politicians Saying About The Benghazi Attack >
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz29khCMHWv
.
.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
A FEW Hours before the DEBATE -
| USA TODAY - |
David Jackson. David Jackson has been a reporter for more than three decades, and now covers the White House for USA TODAY. He enjoys politics, books, movies, and college football -- not necessarily in that order.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes "responsibility" for Benghazi attack
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to take responsibility for the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 in a series of interviews on Monday.
"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton told CNNMonday after arriving in Lima, Peru, for a visit. The series of interviews with U.S. television networks were Clinton's most direct comments on the deadly attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.
"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she told CNN.
Speaking with CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan, Clinton expressed personal regret for Stevens' death.
Benghazi becoming political cudgel for GOP
Amb. Stevens' father wants politics out of his son's death
Rep. Cummings: Benghazi probe turning into witch-hunt
Play VIDEO
Clinton: "I care deeply" about what happened in Benghazi
"Nobody wants to get answers more than I do," Clinton said. "These were people who I care deeply about. I knew Chris Stevens. I asked him personally to be in Benghazi during the revolution. I personally nominated him to be ambassador because I couldn't think of a better person to represent the United States: Somebody who understood what was at stake for Libya what was at stake for U.S. I saw how these revolutions could be so positive or hijacked. He understood that. He was instrumental in working with Libyans. I care deeply about what happened that night."
Since the Sept. 11 attack, the State Department has come under intense scrutiny from Republicans over how it handled security at the consulate in Benghazi in the months before the attacks. In a hearing held by the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week, Eric Nordstrom, the former regional chief security officer for the State Department, told the committeehis pleas for more security were ignored.
Play VIDEO
GOP continues attacks on handling of Benghazi crisis
"I don't want us to reach any conclusions about what we did or didn't do without the full context," Clinton told Brennan. "I mean I understand why people want to ask questions but I just caution that we need to look at everything and everything needs to be explained at the same time."
Watch: Graham on Libya: WH misleading or incompetent
Watch: Vice presidential debate: Libya
U.S. taps new top diplomat for Libya
"We have 275 posts around the world. We have more than 60,000 people. We live in a dangerous, risky ... environment today in many places around the world and we are constantly calculating, particularly led by our security professionals, about what needs to be done, where assets need to be."
Republicans have accused some in the Obama administration of misleading Americans on the nature of the attack, initially blaming the violence on an anti-Muslim movie that went viral online and inflamed protests in the Middle East. That explanation has since been discarded, and the administration acknowledges it was a well-organized terrorist attack.
United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice's comments on "Face the Nation," five days after the attack, that there was no indication from U.S. intelligence that the attack was planned in advance have been particularly panned by critics.
But Clinton said Rice had the "same information that everyone got and I think she very clearly said here's what we know now but this is going to change."
" I have to say I know there's been a lot of attention paid to who said what when but I think what happened is more important. We were attacked and four brave Americans were killed. ... Everybody in the administration has tried to say what we knew at the time with the caveat that we would learn more and that's what's happened. ... I think it's part of what the fog of war causes."
In a statement, U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said Clinton's acceptance of responsibility was "a laudable gesture" but said President Obama is "bears full responsibility" for both the security failures leading up to the attack and for how it was initially portrayed by administration officials.
Source
Related: .
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Real-time Libya: Who knew what, when?
Liz Cheney on Fox News last night spoke about the Libya fiasco, zeroing in on the actions of Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who denied requested security but also followed events in Libya on 9/11/2012 in real time :
She followed minute by minute. She, and one would presume the State Department higher-ups, were then aware there was an organized assault on the consulate. My gosh, if only she had briefed Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice or gotten to the president before his Sept. 25 speech to the United Nations so many false impressions could have been prevented. There would never have been any confusion about a spontaneous film protest, right?
Seriously, something doesn’t make sense. Do we think no one else ever got the benefit of that information that mid-level bureaucrat Charlene Lamb had? This was the most urgent issue of the moment in which everyone (the White House, the public, the media) wanted to know what happened in Benghazi. So why not look at the real-time video? Why not ask Lamb what she saw and heard?
If Rice was going on five Sunday news shows to give the official account of events, wouldn’t she have had the benefit of that information? If the White House spokesman was going to come out day after day to tell what happened, wouldn’t Lamb’s real time-intelligence be the first thing he’d be told about?
You have to either assume Lamb kept this critical information under wraps or that she did send it into the stream of intelligence that was used by the secretary of state and the White House. If the latter, why did so many people, including the president, tell a story that wasn’t true?
One other incident deserves immediate, further scrutiny. On Sept. 28, not the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper but his spokesman put out a statement saying that the intelligence community had given wrong information about the attack. It read in part: “As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”
Did DNI not have access to the same information that Lamb did? It was a curious statement even before Lamb testified, giving no time frame as to when DNI knew it was a terrorist attack. Lt. Col. Andrew Wood knew it was a terror attack immediately, he testified. We had intercepts between the attackers and al-Qaeda operatives within 24 hours. So why was DNI giving out information to support a theory unsupported by existing information? Maybe it is time for Clapper, not his spokesman, to come testify as well.
We are reaching that point in the course of all scandals in which the participants fall into two camps — the honest public servants and whistleblowers, on one side, and the rest, who by omission or commission have helped deceive the public. History, not to mention U.S. attorneys, are not kind to the latter, most especially when they aren’t candid under oath. So now is the time for those in the State Department and the intelligence agencies to come clean, tell us who knew what when and let the chips fall where they may. Better to tell the story than have it told by others, don’t you think?
By | 09:45 AM ET, 10/11/2012
Former Military Team Chief Says Security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya Was Too Weak
Published on Oct 10, 2012 by VOAvideo
The House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee has held the first congressional hearing into the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Republicans are criticizing the Obama administration for failing to provide adequate security and Democrats are accusing Republicans of trying to politicize the tragedy. VOA Congressional Correspondent Cindy Saine reports.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)