Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/the_man_behind_the_benghazi_cover-up.html#ixzz2SWlYw5V5
Much worse than Watergate: Americans need a fullscale investigation of Benghazi
Jeffrey T. KuhnerBenghazi may turn out to be President Obama’s Watergate.
The scandal is a growing cancer on the administration, threatening its very existence. The more information comes out, the more damning it is. This is why Democrats — and their media allies — are desperately trying to sweep the truth under the rug. Mr. Obama’s political survival is at stake.
High-profile lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing are in touch with State Department whistleblowers who were on the ground in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, when our diplomatic mission was attacked by jihadists. Mr. diGenova says they can no longer remain silent.
The whistleblowers want to testify before a House congressional committee. There is only one problem. According to Mr. diGenova and Ms. Toensing, the whistleblowers are being prevented — and intimidated — from speaking out by the Obama administration.
Vindictive State Department officials are denying their request for legal representation. Since the whistleblowers’ potential testimony relates to classified information, they refuse to go forward in public without effective legal representation. The possible personal and professional consequences are immense.
If — and I stress if — they testify, then the Obama presidency is in mortal jeopardy. Mr. diGenova stresses that the whistleblowers possess information that will expose the administration’s lies and cover-up. Republicans on Capitol Hill should pursue this scandal to the end.
Benghazi should have been prevented. During the summer of 2012, Al Qaida thugs were roaming the streets of the city. The Red Cross and the British diplomatic mission pulled out. Our consulate had been physically attacked several times. This is why U.S. officials there repeatedly asked the State Department for bolstered security. It was denied.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified under oath at a House hearing in January that she was unaware of any requests for extra security.
“I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention,” she said. That is false. According to a recent congressional report, Mrs. Clinton knew about the cables. In fact, she not only denied the extra protection, she explicitly ordered that consulate security be cut back. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Mrs. Clinton’s signature that acknowledges the demand for more security assistance but insists that reductions in security assets should continue.
Moreover, the report also found that State Department officials deliberately manipulated White House talking points to remove any references of culpability by Foggy Bottom for the negligence in security.
The connections to terrorism and Al Qaida were purged. The White House wanted to shield Mr. Obama from any political damage in the midst of an election campaign. The administration covered up the obvious: Far from being smashed, Al Qaida had mounted a successful jihadist attack on U.S. soil, killing four Americans — including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. This is why Mr. Obama’s surrogates concocted the patently false narrative of a flash mob storming the consulate in protest of an anti-Muslim video. Their goal was to deceive the American public.
The media is also deliberately ignoring another aspect of Benghazigate. The administration refused to send in military reinforcements as Islamist thugs were storming the consulate. AC-130 gunships and U.S. special forces were at a military base only several hours away. They could have rescued our besieged personnel from the compound. Instead, they were ordered to do nothing, leaving Stevens and his colleagues twisting in the wind.
The attack continued for more than nine hours. Yet Mr. Obama refused to lift a finger to save endangered American lives.
Why is the administration so determined to stonewall a serious investigation into Benghazi? The real answer may lie beyond cynical politics. Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, has repeatedly asked about the CIA’s alleged illicit role in smuggling weapons from our Benghazi compound to Turkey and eventually into Syria. The Obama administration has been secretly arming the Islamic rebels in the vicious Syrian civil war, according to numerous news organizations. Mr. Paul has cited multiple media reports documenting the CIA smuggling operation in Benghazi. Stevens was critical of the operation. He also feared for his life.
The truth about Benghazi could expose the CIA’s clandestine involvement. If that is the case, the Obama administration would be implicated not only in something nefarious, but a lawless and criminal enterprise. Mr. Obama would be no better than a gunrunner, an international arms smuggler. Even his leftist media hacks would have to abandon him.
This is why Republicans must demand Watergate-style hearings on Benghazi. The American people have a right to know whether the president is a criminal.
Benghazigate is much worse than Watergate. At its core, Watergate was about the cover-up of a third-rate burglary. For this crime, President Nixon was forced to resign. Benghazigate is about the cover-up of the killing of four Americans. The families of Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith deserve to know the truth. It’s time we gave it to them. Let the whistleblowers speak.
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/05/much-worse-than-watergate-americans-need-a-fullscale-investigation-of-benghazi/
Emails Reveal State Department Benghazi Cover Up
ReplyDeleteMay 4, 2013
By Lonely Conservative
Emails reveal how the State Department and White House knew from day 1 the attack in Benghazi was carried out by terrorists with links to Al Qaeda, but they decided to change their talking points and lie to the American people. They knew even before the body of Christopher Stevens was dragged through the streets of Benghazi, but they were more concerned about covering their butts.
Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.
As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
The article is long, but you should read the whole thing. Never in the initial assessment was the You Tube video mentioned, but State Department officials, Hillary Clinton and President Obama all went out and blamed the “demonstration” on the video.
Ace of Spades and The Other McCain have more. But what difference does it make?
http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/05/emails-reveal-state-department-benghazi-cover-up/
This will NEVER be fully investigated or at least its findings made public. This is truly a dark day in America's history.
ReplyDeleteI've been of the opinion since about the week after the attack that the video thing was a face-saving lie. I don't know about the logistical and tactical issue re responding during the drawon-out event or after the initial attack. But it's clear to me the administration wanted to keep to the party line about AQ being defeated and on the run, yes?
ReplyDeleteAnd then there was that appallingly cold, stupid trip to Las Vegas.
I'll honestly be surprised if much comes from this latest chapter.
Jean
A good 'ole fashioned impeachment would be nice. ;-)
DeleteI don't see it happening. My version of reality, in tis case, bites, yes?
DeleteJean
Nah, I highly doubt it too, but one can wish...........
DeleteSome day, years from now the truth will be known. There are to many career government employees that were involved and when the current administration is gone, they will tell the whole story. Unless of course, Hillary is elected and the cover up will continue.
DeleteWhat will be done? Nothing.
I said months ago, if not here then several places elsewhere, that the mal and misfeasence of this administration would eventually come to light. We have seen multiple instances of others that when once departed from the clutches can't wait to expose the arrogance, delusion and deceit this administration is wont to be.
DeleteIf nothing else, may this exposure be the final nail in the coffin of Hillary Clinton's apirations for the White House.
"I'm ready for the 3AM phone call" indeed.
No comments from the left...??
ReplyDeleteAnd break up the intoxication you all have with smelling your own flatulence?
DeleteNear the end of that piece up top, there was actually a good paragraph toward the end about gun running. As a liberal, this is certainly something I am concerned about. However, TD, the bottom line is that when it comes to Obama, you are all collectively just a bunch if vindictive assholes. You care nothing about gun running when it is a Republican doing it. But, you are all so fucking bitterly obsessed with seeing Obama do down. And on that score, I will chuckle slightly when you all shriek with outrage when this latest act of the circus ends just like all the others. It's not about me defending Obama, because I'm not. It's about calling out bitter loser behavior.
From the get go, I thought the cover story was complete bullshit and that the real deal was that the CIA was doing the naughty, clandestine shit that it always does while helping to ensure that there is always some kind of conflict going on somewhere in the world. Our foreign policy is to pit nations against each other to keep them from uniting and going against out interests, which is oil. When it was Reagan, Republicans cheered when he and his bag men openly defied congress by saying they didn't recollect their dealings.
Make no mistake Brandt, and I am deadly serious about this, I do not support this clandestine shit. But, what bothers me even more is the ruthless, vindictive nature of the right to take any fucking measure possible to impeach a Democrat POTUS. Likely, just as they did with Plame, they will stomp around ripping the cover off of all kinds of shit and inevitably compromise what the CIA is doing and then blame Obama when another dozen agents get killed. In vague terms TD, you talk about the evils of government. The real deal, of course, is that you simply hate the left and Obama. You support freedom, but only see a threat to freedom from the left.
If you really thought about it, the CIA likely has as much to hide as Obama does and this has not changed for decades. If you are really concerned about the underhanded shit we do around the world, good for you. However, nothing you ever post suggests that. Sorry in advance that you will not get what you want out of this, which is only to see Obama go down.
Max,
Delete"you 'all' "? Quite a net you cast, yes?
Plame? Valerie Plame? That was a while ago, and from what I remember, the issue was her so-called cover being revealed, but I also remember reading that at many DC social get-togethers, her husband would introduce Ms. Plame as 'my wife, the spy'.
I've heard the conspiracy theory about gun-running into Syria. That mess is exactly that, a real morass. But if the alleged gun-running somehow affected, or worse, was the cause of, the deaths of four Americans, gee, dontcha think maybe, just maybe, that was wrong? I made my view on this known. Political embarassment. I don't think that, if proven beyond any reasonable doubt, merits impeachment. The rest? Well, we'll see how it plays out, yes?
Jean
To what republican gun running are you referring, by the way?
" But if the alleged gun-running somehow affected, or worse, was the cause of, the deaths of four Americans, gee, dontcha think maybe, just maybe, that was wrong? "
DeleteOf course I think it's wrong dontcha know. Just in case you aren't aware Jean, you are just as condescending and obnoxious with your syntax as anyone else here. Just sayin.
Republican gun running- does Iran-Contra ring a bell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
Taunting aside, I firmly believe this goes on with every single administration. It's a harsh reality that from time to time our Presidents, or the wise men around them, feel that our nation's interests are compromised by some government, one that is elected or otherwise. Once compromised, dark players within our government start to take measures to undermine or overthrow that government. It's not going to stop. What bothers me about this is the faux outrage over four dead Americans. It's not about them, nor is it about stopping our nation from playing Empire around the world. It's about bringing Obama down. If the use of the names of these four dead Americans can help bring that aim, great. If not, their memory will be tossed aside anyway. Ten years from now, there will not be a poster here who is still thinking of them, heck, they won't be thinking about them six months from now if this witch hunt fails.
It would be interesting here to drop the smarmy talk and have a real discussion on how we should conduct foreign policy. I have little doubt that if this was a nerve center for arming rebels, plenty more remain. IMO, Obama has adopted much of the Bush world view on how to carry out foreign policy and it will bite us in the ass just as surely as arming Osama Bin Laden did. I've never bought into the ideology that we can just sing Kumbaya and be friends with everybody. Jimmy Carter was the closest to being that kind of POTUS and invested enormous effort in peace processes.
To this day, Carter is still scorned. On the flip side, taking a cold warrior approach to the world hasn't gotten us much either. We armed OBL as a proxy against the Soviets, and we spread plenty of money and arms around the world that goes directly into war efforts. 9/11 happened in spite of this. So, if this Benghazi thing is truly about winding down this country's propensity to foment violence around the world, I support it. You tell me Jean, is this a real initiative to stop our decades old habit of arming rebels or is it about Obama?
Max,
DeleteI wasn't trying to be condescending.
I was curious about your gun-running reference. Iran-Contra? I read about that, but couldn't really understand it.
Re foreign policy, especially the arming up thing, I feel it's a really slippery slope, or can be. From what I've read, the '80s Afghanistan/USSR conflict was initially successful as far as the U. S. was concerned, but the follow-through seemed to have been really bungled. I thought what lit up UBL, though, was the presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia as part odf the first Gulf War?
The Benghazi thing? There are two parts, as far as I'm concerned. The first is whether or not the lack of response was due to a desire to cover up any amrs shipments, or whatever other nefarious or political activitiy. The second had to do with a more mundane matter, blaming a video as cover, to avoid embarrassment right after having completed a long, drawn-out crow about tremendous progress in the war on terror and Al Qaida being on the run.
I don't know that the U. S. so much has a history of fomenting violence as a goal, as much as sometimes wanting to help the at-the-time friendlier side win. Dangerous game. The stuff in Syria is soooo easily a good example, especially as it seems to be a no-win scenario for the U. S. in terms of taking a hand in it, or not. Iran? Another one.
I don't fully understand your last question. "is it about Obama"? If you're referring to the more mundane thing I mentioned, I think it is.
You mention the 'faux' outrage over four dead Americans. I'm not in agreement that it is so fake. I'll go no further, except to say I just could not believe that individual could go to Las Vegas the next day. My God, it wasn't as if it were four soldiers killed in the line of duty, as sad as thast it. Las bleeping Vegas! How can anyone be that cold? Forget stupid. Just cold, callous, and seemingly so hell-bent on doing whatever it takes to win a lousy election. I will never forgive that. Never.
Sure, I would have preferred Romney winning. But that's over with. Use this to bring Obama down? First, I don't think that will happen. If the investigation does lead to 'actionable' proceedings, then it does. I just want to hear this administration say "We're sorry. We really just could not accomplish anything with our military logistically, but we were so concerned this would reflect badly on us and our political campaign, that we just used a video as an excuse." No, of course I'm not that naive as to think that owuld ever happen, but I am convinced, based on what I've read, that it's true.
Sorry about the little bit of ranting.
Jean
"I don't know that the U. S. so much has a history of fomenting violence as a goal, as much as sometimes wanting to help the at-the-time friendlier side win. Dangerous game. The stuff in Syria is soooo easily a good example, especially as it seems to be a no-win scenario for the U. S. in terms of taking a hand in it, or not. Iran? Another one."
DeleteThis is truly at the heart of the matter and very well said. Fomenting violence simply for the sake of violence isn't what we do, but we nonetheless have frequently been very calculating about it with zero concern about what it meant for local people. As a nation, we have become callous about this. Rand Paul once made a comment about how it seems like we are arming both sides of some conflicts in the middle east and he was promptly chastised for his views and has never spoken about it since.
As for faux outrage, I should rephrase that. The outrage is real, but it's the same outrage that has existed since Obama became president and it's the same outrage that will continue to exist after he outlasts every attempt to have him impeached. Issa is a smarmy asshole and this is very much about him with little to do about the rest of the country. After Clinton, it's now been well established, looking for scandal and impeachment is what Republicans do when they lose. Be honest here Jean, it doesn't matter if Obama apologizes or not, it's not going to gain him a shred of respect in your eyes.
Why they went with that cover story, I'll never know. It seemed kinda ridiculous at the time. The attack on the embassy was not, IMO, a sign of strength of AQ. Rather, this was a soft target and quite likely, the decision to not defend it probably had something to do with the typical American hubris to assume that we are loved where ever we go. I did not support what Obama did in Libya with the missiles, but I find it kind of curious that Republicans only gave a mild scolding on that. The reason there wasn't more, IMO, is that the wise men of the Republican party don't really want to curtail the ability of a POTUS to make undeclared war. Seeking impeachment over incompetence in benghazi is a low risk event for them that won't have any implications (so they think) for themselves down the road when they are in the WH again.
ReplyDeleteThe Complete Benghazi Timeline in Spreadsheet Format
The evidence of a cover-up is becoming clear, thanks to information recently released about what happened at Benghazi. Doug Ross of Director Blue has pulled together information from Stephen Hayes and the House Oversight Committee that leads to, in his words, "four inescapable conclusions":
a) Hillary Clinton lied under oath to Congress.
b) Barack Obama went to sleep knowing that a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans were under terrorist attack.
c) Barack Obama awoke refreshed the next day to begin fundraising.
d) The entire Executive Branch lied repeatedly to the American people to save Obama's chances for reelection.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/the_complete_benghazi_timeline_in_spreadsheet_format.html
Benghazi Whistleblowers Revealed
ReplyDeleteLawyers on behalf of two witnesses to the Benghazi attack have claimed explicitly that their clients were threatened with retaliation on their professional careers by the Obama administration. As Fox News reported:
The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi — that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. … It’s frightening. …They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/50014-benghazi-whistleblowers/
Benghazi's Silenced Witnesses Hidden In Plain Sight?
ReplyDeletePosted 03/26/2013 06:31 PM ET
Benghazi Scandal: A Virginia congressman says the witnesses to an act of war on sovereign U.S. territory are being held incommunicado in a Washington, D.C., hospital by their own government. Free the American 30.
When 52 Americans were seized and held hostage by the foreign government of Iran and held for 444 days, it was a national embarrassment that helped bring down a presidency and spawned a late-night news program, "America Held Hostage," which would become ABC's Nightline.
The Sept. 11, 2012, organized and planned terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a similar national embarrassment, an event prompted by what in a court would be deemed criminal negligence as U.S. diplomats were denied the security they needed and requested as a callous administration, through its Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, would later say, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
It makes a difference how and why it happened, and that the survivors of that terrorist attack could tell us the how and why if they weren't being held hostage by their own government under the cover of an "ongoing" investigation that is seemingly going nowhere.
Worse yet, they may be held in plain sight, right under the eyes of a sleeping Washington press corps.
It matters to GOP representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, who have written to new Secretary of State John Kerry asking him for the names and contact information for each of the individuals who survived Benghazi.
According to Rep. Wolf, citing two confidential sources, "as many as seven Americans have been or are currently being treated," at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C., less than 11 miles from the U.S. Capitol.
As we've noted, in a March 1 letter to Kerry, the two Republicans said they'd been informed that "as many as 30" Americans — including State Department and CIA officers and government contractors — were injured in the attack, including seven reportedly treated at Walter Reed Hospital.
They demanded the names and contact information for each survivor "so that we can make appropriate arrangements" to talk to them and get their unfiltered story.
So far, the FBI has had a single three-hour interview with a single "person of interest" in Libya, and that's after the New York Times got to him first. No one has been arrested, detained or even targeted by administration drones.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032613-649433-are-30-benghazi-survivors-being-held-to-keep-them-quiet-.htm#ixzz2SdHEcEOk
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Graham to Obama: Let Benghazi Survivors Talk
ReplyDeleteImage: Graham to Obama: Let Benghazi Survivors Talk
Thursday, 02 May 2013 09:44 AM
By Kenneth Hanner
Sen. Lindsey Graham challenged President Barack Obama to allow survivors of the deadly attack last year on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, to talk with congressional investigators without fear of being fired.
“Benghazi is eight months old, nobody has been arrested, and the survivors have never been allowed to be talked to by the Congress. This administration is investigating itself,” Graham said Wednesday in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
“I’m urging the president, I’m challenging this administration, allow the survivors to come forward without the fear of being fired,” said the South Carolina Republican.
Earlier this week, attorney Victoria Toensing said she had a client who wanted to share classified information with congressional investigators, but is being blocked by the State Department.
“In order to tell the whole story, my client has to provide classified information,” Toensing told Newsmax earlier this week. The State Department “hasn’t acknowledged a process for doing that.”
At least four career State Department and CIA officials are seeking legal representation and are complaining that administration officials are trying to intimidate them as they prepare to cooperate with congressional investigators, according to a Fox News report.
Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, recently informed Benghazi whistleblowers — some of whom have been cooperating — that they should lawyer-up in preparation for being called to testify in the probe.
The California Republican last week sent a scathing letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, charging the department was employing “a range of tactics to interfere with the committee’s investigation.”
“The investigation has proceeded despite efforts by department staff to limit the committee’s access to documents and witnesses,” Issa said.
The president, during his Tuesday news conference, that he was unaware of the issue, and White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday called it was a non-issue.
“Let’s be clear,” Carney said. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”
Graham told Hannity that both the Benghazi attacks and the Boston terror bombings exposed flaws in the nation’s security apparatus and need to be looked at by Congress.
“We’ve got eight dead Americans killed in the last seven months — four in Benghazi, four in Boston,” Graham said. “When you look at Boston and Benghazi, things are not working.”
Graham said Congress needs to review actions by the CIA and Department of Homeland Security, “not separately, but jointly, to learn from our mistakes.”
When Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said “there is no connection here to a broader plot, she had absolutely, no way she could have known that that soon,” Graham added, referring to the Boston bombings.
“The more you know about these two guys, they certainly didn’t learn all this in the bottom of their basement,” Graham said of suspected bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. “Bin Laden is dead, but radical Islam is on the rise. We need to up our game.”
US officials blocked rescue effort while Benghazi burned, Congress told
ReplyDeleteDiplomat Gregory Hicks accuses State Department of cover-up in evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's White House bid
Share 144
inShare
0
Email
Dan Roberts in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 May 2013 22.00 EDT
Jump to comments (54)
Gregory Hicks claimed he was scolded for giving critical evidence to investigators without the presence of a 'minder' from State. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
While US diplomats were pulling bodies from a burning Libyan consulate and frantically smashing up hard drives last 11 September, their superiors blocked rescue efforts and later attempted to cover up security failings, according to damaging new evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes.
In vivid testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, deputy to murdered US ambassador Christopher Stevens, revealed for the first time in public a detailed account of the desperate few hours after the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.
But Hicks and two other state department witnesses also singled out the government response for criticism – criticism that until now has been largely dismissed as a partisan effort by Republican congressman to smear former secretary of state Clinton.
Hicks claimed Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a "minder" from the state department. "A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news," said Hicks, who said he had since been demoted. "She was upset. She was very upset."
The career diplomat also alleged he was actively discouraged by officials from asking awkward questions about why other top Clinton aides were wrongly blaming the attack on a spontaneous protest that got out of control: a briefing he described as "jaw-dropping, embarrassing and stunning". It is now thought the attacks, involving up to 60 heavily armed militia, were co-ordinated by Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated to al-Qaida, and timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
The allegations of a state department cover-up follow equally embarrassing claims that military leaders blocked efforts to dispatch special forces troops to the Benghazi consulate.
In testimony that first emerged on Monday, Hicks claims that four special forces soldiers with him in Tripoli were "furious" when they were told by superiors in Washington that they could not join a relief flight to Benghazi organised by the Libyan government in the hours after the initial attack.
ReplyDeleteMark Thompson, a former marine who heads the foreign emergency support team, also alleged that the White House blocked his efforts to dispatch a specialist group from the US that is designed to respond to incidents such as the Benghazi attaack.
Hicks said he was told that US air force jets based in Italy could have reached the consulate in "two to three hours" but were blocked, out of fear of offending the Libyan government, and because a refuelling tanker could not be found.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly argued that none of the available military assets could have reached Benghazi in time to prevent the death of ambassador Stevens and three other consular staff. But Hicks insisted even if they had been too late, better attempts should have been made. "People in peril in future need to know that we will go to get them," he said. "That night we needed to demonstrate that resolve even if we still had the same outcome."
Hicks also rejected the defence given by Hillary Clinton when pressed on the initial delay in attributing the attack to terrorists, arguing the US undermined its Libyan allies who were rightly pointing to Ansar al-Sharia.
"President Magarief was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced. His ability to govern was [damaged]. He was angry … He was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later. I definitely believe it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi."
ReplyDeleteDemocrats on the committee attempted to play down the significance of the new evidence. "There is no smoking gun today," said Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. "There is not even a lukewarm slingshot." Deputy chair Elijah Cummings said the hearing would not be able to get to a full picture without recalling other military witnesses.
But the powerful and at times emotional testimony of the state department witnesses is likely to rekindle questions over the government's handling of the incident. The Obama administration had hoped that an earlier independent review panel had drawn a line under the issue.
Republicans characterise their refusal to let the Benghazi issue go as a determination to find out what went wrong. But some Democrats have suggested that the real intention is to taint both the White House and Clinton in a bid to dent her chances in 2016 should she decide to run.
Hicks described receiving the final telephone call from ambassador Stephens revealing he was under attack. He said an attaché ran into his villa "yelling Greg, Greg, the consulate's under attack". Hicks looked at his phone and had two missed calls. He called back and got ambassador Stevens. "He said, 'Greg, we're under attack.'"
"I said 'OK' and the line cut."
Hicks then described how he had taken refuge in a secure villa that was set alight with petrol by the attackers. He also told how the embassy building in Benghazi was hit by mortar fire and how a tiny group of soldiers at both sites fought through the night to prevent both facilities from being overrun.
"September 11 was a routine day until we heard the news that our embassy in Cairo had been stormed and they were trying to tear down the flag," recalled Hicks.
"I had bad cellphone reception but walked to the tactical operations centre and heard that our consulate in Benghazi had been breached and at least 20 armed individuals were in the compound."
After twice not recognising the number, he said he received a short call from ambassador Stevens, thought to be his last, who said they "were under attack". He and an assistant, Sean Smith, were led to a safe area inside a villa next to the consulate by security agent Scott Strickland. It was set on fire with jerry cans of fuel shortly after 9pm.
ReplyDelete"Scott attempted to lead them out but they didn't follow. He tried to get back in but was beaten back by the smoke," said Hicks. "Petroleum-based fires emit cyanide gas and one full breath can kill you. They managed to pull Sean out, but he was dead. They couldn't find Chris."
A second wave was coming to attack and the remaining consulate staff fell back to a nearby CIA annex. "After about an hour and a half of probing attacks from terrorists that they were able to repulse they decided to evacuate," said Hicks. They met with a response team flown from Tripoli on a Libyan C130 transporter and retreated back to the capital.
Hicks says at this point he still thought that ambassador Stevens might be alive and he received word from the Libyan government that he was being held in a hospital run by the same group responsible for the attack. "I thought we might need a hostage response team to get the ambassador out of a hospital under enemy control," explained Hicks.
At the same time the group was claiming responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Twitter, embassy staff began noticing threats against their facility in Tripoli too.
"We began planning to evacuate, and took 55 people to the annexe," said Hicks. "At 2am Hillary Clinton calls and she asks me what is going on. I brief her mostly about ambassador Stevens and told her we would need to evacuate. At 3am I received a call from from the prime minister of Libya who told me that ambassador Stevens had passed away. It was the hardest call I have ever had to take."
Hicks says he has vivid memories of communications staff in Tripoli destroying classified equipment including a female officer manager "smashing hard drives with an axe". The contingent in Benghazi then tried to drive to the airport around dawn but were hit by two mortar rounds.
ReplyDelete"The first mortar was long and landed among the Libyans who were escorting us – they took casualties. The next was short and landed on the annex roof, killing one of our people and seriously wounding another, David. Mark charged onto the roof and strapped David, who was a large man, to his back and carried him down the ladder."
Hicks says he wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi where they had been fighting through the night but was unable.
Eric Nordstrom, a security officer who also gave evidence to Congress said the lessons state department employees have taken from Benghazi were scathing: "Whether you're at a mission, preparing for a hearing or you're standing on top of a building "surrounded by a mob," he says, "The message is the same: You're on your own."
• This article was amended on 8 May 2013 to make clear that mortar attacks took place in Benghazi, not Tripoli.
Appalling. I have found this whole thing appalling from the start. I refer to the administration's behavior. The deaths and injuries are heartbreaking tragedies in and of the themselves.
ReplyDeleteJean
Jean did you notice how few comments this is generating? Except for Max's ruminations about Reagan and Carter and his paranoid rantings about everyone out to get the POTUS it is noticeably silent from the likes of Kingston and Mick.
DeleteReuters "most popular" headings is quiet. Yahoo has all but written it off. Pretty much all of the main street media is into the Cleveland abductions, the Arias conviction, and the remains of the Boston bombing. All understandable, but in the sweep of history tiny stories when compared to this alleged cover up.
We know what we are facing of course Jean. As John Edwards said we are "two America's." His context was wrong, but his heading was correct.
1773-2009 Benghazi will be a long slog of an investigation.
William,
DeleteMax can certainly speak for himself, but I don't get the impression he's all enamoured of our Dear Leader. (Max, don't you dare accuse me of being condescending again.)
Generally, whether I agree with other or views or not, I rather like reading what he, Kingston, Mick and anyone else, as that goes, have on their mind. Regarding Benghazi, I hope the lack of response was not to cover up questionable activities; my God, that would be horrible beyond belief. Criminal and contemptible, yes, but horrible.
Jean
I'll give you this William, there are very few journalistic mediums in this country who truly question power. Fox has an agenda. MSNBC has an agenda. Most networks have an agenda. For what it's worth, Rachel Maddow did an expose some time back on the lies that lead up to invading Iraq. I didn't watch it. I tend to believe that if we really drilled down, there would be people in very serious trouble over that fiasco. But we've moved on. Looking at all that Wall Street did in the financial meltdown has plenty of evidence of very shady dealings. We've moved on from that as well.
DeleteThere has been a cementing of power in Washington, and that cementing of power has been growing unchecked. What the minority party DOESN'T challenge is as telling as what it does challenge. Conservatives go after only what will give them political gain. When it comes to really curtailing power, they stop well short of putting something in place that would handcuff them later.
A report by ABC News provided additional momentum to the highly partisan flap over whether the administration tried to avoid casting the attack as terrorism at a time when the presidential election was less than two months away.
DeleteABC released 12 versions of the administration's "talking points" on Benghazi that appeared to show how various agencies - particularly the State Department and the CIA - shaped what became the Obama administration's initial playbook for explaining how four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the attack.
The report showed the final talking points went through a series of revisions that scrubbed references to previous terror warnings, including one regarding the potential threat from al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/12/us-usa-behghazi-idUSBRE94B0B120130512
Interesting that at the bottom of that same article, Robert Gates said that sending in some troops or a fighter jet would not have been a good idea and would not have been a mission he would have approved.
DeleteWhat really seems to bother many of you here is that if there was a lie, it was done at a time when a terrorist attack could have been spun to help Romney. I've read all that you have posted here, and what keeps rising as a theme is that Obama lied right before an election. Which, again, goes back to the main point, which is that none of you really give a shit about the dead people, it's just about what politicizing their deaths can do for you.
From the get go, I have considered this a matter of incompetence and/or a matter of doing something secret there. We committed arguably, acts of war in Libya and then set up a lowly secured embassy, that was probably lowly secured because we didn't want to have to troops on the ground and encourage AQ to attack it and wage a military battle. If this is the case, then these American's died because of hubris. Not that that's anything new.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
ReplyDelete"The Minder" Shades of the USSR
Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration. When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.
“So this goes right to the person next to Secretary of State Clinton. Is that accurate?” asked Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Hicks responded, “Yes, sir.”
A State Department official said Mr. Hicks had been free to talk to Mr. Chaffetz, but that department policy required a department lawyer to be present during interviews for any Congressional investigation.
But within days, Mr. Hicks said, after raising questions about the account of what had happened in Benghazi offered in television interviews by Susan E. Rice, the United Nations ambassador, he felt a distinct chill from State Department superiors. “The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning,” said Mr. Hicks, who has been a Foreign Service officer for 22 years.
He was soon given a scathing review of his management style, he said, and was later “effectively demoted” to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up.