http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/erin-burnett-hey-8-months-does-seem-like-a-long-time-to-release-photos-from-benghazi-huh/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/jay-carney-hey-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/
Wonder how long the WH would have sat on the photos but for the Whistle blowers coming out ?
and.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/30/special-ops-benghazi-whistleblower-tells-fox-news-government-could-have/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/the-benghazi-whistle-blowers.php
Erin Burnett: Hey, 8 months does seem like a long time to release photos from Benghazi, huh?
POSTED AT 9:22 PM ON MAY 1, 2013 BY MARY KATHARINE HAM
Perhaps bringing attention to how long it’s been since Benghazi was not the best strategy, given the administration seems to know little more now than it did eight months ago and has held no one responsible and brought no one to justice. Exactly how long does President Obama get to soberly fact-gather after the deaths of four Americans before a large part of the press stops giving him credit for his signature deliberation and gets insistent on hearing some answers?
BURNETT: New leads in the Benghazi attack after an avalanche of criticism for the fact that absolutely no one has been held accountable. Today, the FBI released photos of three men they want to question about the September 11th attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The men were on the ground of the consulate during the attack and may be able to provide information. The question is, why did it take about eight months to figure this out? To get these photos to the public? Would it ever had happened if there didn’t continue to be such incredible controversy about Benghazi? Barbara Starr is “Out Front” with the latest y is the FBI releasing the photos now?
The “avalanche of criticism,” of course, has been frequently criticized on the left as politically motivated, and even some alleged journalists seem to think pressing the administration on this issue is naught but a counterproductive stress on the president’s zen process of passive justice-seeking. But Burnett’s question is a good primer for those folks on what the press is supposed to do: “Would it ever had happened if there didn’t continue to be such incredible controversy about Benghazi?”
Barbara Starr wonders, along with the rest of us, where are these guys? And, if we’d known about them earlier perhaps we’d have a better chance of finding them, questioning them, and finding culprits?
STARR: It raises some very interesting questions what else does the FBI know? What kind of cooperation are they getting from the libyans? Why are they focusing in on these three men and these pictures of them there the night the attack happened in September?
Maybe we can keep pushing on this and we’ll find out more.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/jay-carney-hey-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/
Jay Carney: Hey, Benghazi happened a long time ago
POSTED AT 4:01 PM ON MAY 1, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Via the Free Beacon, here’s Carney doing his own version of Hillary’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?” wave-off of an attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three others. By “a long time,” he means seven and a half months. The Newtown murders happened four and a half months ago; the Aurora murders happened nine and a half months ago. Both were highly germane to goings-on on the Hill last month. Is there a different standard for foreign policy? The first alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria occurred in December, a week or two after Newtown, so maybe Carney’s inadvertently previewing O’s next big “red line” dodge. Sure, Assad might have gassed some people. But it was a long time ago.
What he really means here by saying it happened “a long time ago” is that hearings have already been held such that any whistleblower who wants to speak to Congress has had plenty of time to do so. Which is nice, but doesn’t answer the whispers in the press about diplomats being intimidated into silence; as Erika noted earlier, Darrell Issa is promising “new facts and details that the Obama administration has tried to suppress” at the next hearings, which may or may not relate to suspects in the attack. The book isn’t closed on this. Just ask the FBI:
Wonder how long the WH would have sat on the photos but for the Whistle blowers coming out ?
ATTORNEY: BENGHAZI WHISTLE-BLOWERS THREATENED BY WHITE HOUSE ISSA: PRESIDENT’S REMARKS ONLY HELP TO INTIMIDATE BENGHAZI WITNESSES
Victoria Toensing, Republican Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, says her client, a State Department official now considered a whistle-blower in the investigation of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, has been “threatened” by Obama administration officials.
According to Toensing, these threats weren’t related to ambiguous matters. Rather, they were “specifically about Benghazi.” She says the threats went beyond the four State Department officials who’ve currently retained counsel. “People have been threatened at the CIA” as well, she claimed.
Toensing will not confirm where her client was on September 11, 2012–whether stateside, in Benghazi, or in another location outside Benghazi. However, she did say her client has “pertinent information” on the months leading up the attack, the eight hour time frame in which the actual attacks took place, and the eight day period following the attacks when the White House would not publicly classify the attacks as acts of terror.
Toensing claimed the threats relate to ending the careers of those with information about the attacks who cooperate with investigators and testify.
PRESIDENT’S REMARKS ONLY HELP TO INTIMIDATE BENGHAZI WITNESSES
President Barack Obama appeared unaware of the legal obstructions witnesses to the Benghazi terrorist attacks are facing, telling reporters during a White House press conference on Tuesday, “I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying.”
He added, “So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to.”
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, shot backat President Obama on Tuesday for the President’s comments. In a statement, Issa said:
A lawyer for Benghazi whistleblowers has publicly stated that the State Department is blocking her client’s ability to talk freely with counsel. Over the past two weeks, I have sent four letters requesting that this Administration make information available about how lawyers – who already have security clearances and are representing Benghazi whistleblowers – can be cleared to fully hear their clients’ stories. I have yet to receive any response from the Obama Administration.
Washington D.C. attorney and former Justice Department official Victoria Toensing is representing a State Department employee who appears to have relevant information of the attack that took four American lives in Benghazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassdor Chris Stevens.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
Issa continued in his statement, “Even if the President really doesn’t know anything about someone wanting to come forward, his position should be that whistleblowers deserve protection and that anyone who has different information about Benghazi is free to come forward to Congress.” Issa blasted Obama’s comments, saying, ”The President’s unwillingness to commit himself to protecting whistleblowers only aids those in his Administration who are intimidating them.”
On April 16, Issa sent the Department of State, CIA, and Department of Defense letters “requesting that the Administration make information available for lawyers representing Benghazi whistleblowers.” Issa sent a letter dated April 26 to the State Department tellingSecretary of State John Kerry that Oversight Committee investigators were being impeded from doing their jobs and the State Department still had not responded to his April 16 letter regarding legal counsel clearance.
and.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/30/special-ops-benghazi-whistleblower-tells-fox-news-government-could-have/
Special forces could've responded to Benghazi attack, whistle-blower tells Fox News
Published April 30, 2013
FoxNews.com
A military special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded last September told Fox News the U.S. had highly trained forces just a few hours away, and said he and others feel the government betrayed the four men who died in the attack.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, and appearing in a Fox News Channel interview with his face and voice disguised, the special operator contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that said there wasn’t enough time for U.S. military forces to have intervened in the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, an embassy employee and two former Navy SEALs working as private security contractors were killed.
“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the operator told Fox News' Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”
“You know, it’s something that’s risky, especially in our line of profession, to say anything about, anything in the realm of politics, or that deals with policy.”
- Special Forces operator
The C-110 is a 40-man Special Ops force capable of rapid response and deployment specifically trained for incidents like last year’s attack in Benghazi. During the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya, the C-110 were training in Croatia, just 3 ½ hours away.
“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours…four to six hours.”
Being so close, C-110s would have been able to respond had there been a second attack, the source added.
“They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that can facilitate their exfil out of the, out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear people and a whole bunch of advisers say, 'We wouldn’t have sent them because the security was a unknown situation.'”
The source says the government could have at least sent the C-110s there as backup.
“If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum, you send forces there to facilitate the exfil, or, or, um medical injuries,” he said. “We could have sent a C-30 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.”
The source says many people connected to the Benghazi bombing feel threatened and are afraid to talk.
“The problem is, you got guys in my position, you got guys in special operations community who are still active and still involved,” the source said. “And they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that would affect high level commanders,” he said.
Despite the concern, the source who spoke to Fox News says there’s a feeling of betrayal in the community that the government left people on the ground in Benghazi to fend for themselves.
“You know, it’s something that’s risky, especially in our line of profession, to say anything about, anything in the realm of politics, or that deals with policy,” the source said.
In December, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen told lawmakers the U.S. did not have personnel close enough to have responded to the siege at the consulate, even though the State Department had been repeatedly warned by embassy staffers concerned about security in Libya.
“It is not reasonable, nor feasible, to tether U.S. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world,” Mullen said.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/the-benghazi-whistle-blowers.php
THE BENGHAZI WHISTLEBLOWERS
Fox News has two related stories regarding State Department and CIA employees who reportedly have information they wish to offer about the Obama administration’s conduct in relation to the Benghazi attack. According to a lawyer for one of these whistleblowers, the information pertains to (1) the State Department’s failure, prior to the attack, to provide proper security despite warnings that should have led to a security beef-up (2) the government’s response (or non-respone) during the attack, and (3) the Obama administration’s inaccurate and/or misleading statements about the attack after it had occurred.
The first Fox News story is that the adminstration may have threatened the whistleblowers with adverse career consequences. The second story is that a U.S. special operator says that, contrary to the Obama administration’s line, the U.S. military could have intervened during the attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi.
Frankly, I’ve been skeptical about attempts to fault the administration’s response to the Benghazi attack while it was in progress, and I remain skeptical. It’s easy, after the fact, to identify a scenario in which this or that action might have led to a different outcome. But such scenarios typically assume near-perfect information, near-perfect decisionmaking, and near-perfect execution, all in the context of “the fog of war.” It looks to me like the special operator turned whistleblower may be indulging is such assumptions.
But that’s just my impression. The whistleblower and any of his like-minded colleagues should be able to present their information and opinions without fear of reprisal.
The same considerations apply to those who think they have new, relevant information about the administration’s failure to provide proper security before the attack and its intentional misdirection after the fact. It seems to me that we have the full story, or close to it, about what happened (and didn’t happen) both before and after. That information is quite damning.
But those who wish to present additional information should not be discouraged from doing so by threats or intimidation. And if the administration is attempting to intimidate whistleblowers, that creates a whole new aspect to this scandal.
JOHN adds: As I wrote here, I think it is likely, based on publicly available information, that the Obama administration could have sent timely assistance to the CIA agents and others as they were fighting the terrorists. The administration apparently decided not to do so on the theory that the gun battle would be over, and our men would be dead, before help could arrive. But as it turned out, the battle continued for seven or eight hours, while help could have arrived from Italy or Spain in around two hours. So the administration is embarrassed by its failure to do anything, other than go to bed, while the attack was in progress.
That is, as I say, a reasonable interpretation of the information we have. Maybe it isn’t correct. But we can’t be sure, given the Obama administration’s stonewalling. At a minimum, those who were present and who know what happened should be allowed to tell their stories without fear of Democratic Party reprisals.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/04/30/Spokesman-Not-Aware-Of-Whistleblowers-On-Benghazi-In-State-Dept
SPOKESMAN 'NOT AWARE' OF WHISTLEBLOWERS ON BENGHAZI IN STATE DEPT
Acting Deputy Spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters on Monday that he was unaware of anyone in the State Department, including those that testified before Congress about security failures leading up to the Benghazi attack, of any "whistleblowers" within the Department. This is an important designation because employees who are considered whistleblowers have access to counsel and protections under the law. The Spokesman said that he was not aware of any announcements made to employees informing them of their rights to counsel and legal protections should they decide to become a "whistleblower" in this incident.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Your earlier answer to me specified that you were – you had not heard of any private counsel seeking security clearances.
MR. VENTRELL: Right.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any State Department employees who are – who would fall under the category of whistleblower in connection with Benghazi who have been denied access to papers?
MR. VENTRELL: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: And one last question: Has the Department issued to its employees any kind of notice that would ensure that anyone who considers himself or herself a whistleblower in this matter would not be subject to any kind of repercussion?
MR. VENTRELL: I’m not sure of a proactive notice saying one way or another, but we always say that to whistleblowers, that they have the Inspector General and other methods of whistleblowing on any range of issues. So that’s a longstanding process that stands for a number of different scenarios.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m trying to get my thoughts together.
MR. VENTRELL: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: See, I haven’t seen this letter from Representative Issa, so I don’t know what it is, but the term has been used over and over, “whistleblower.” Does the State Department believe that there is anything in the Benghazi incident to blow a whistle on? Is – in other words, the question before was – I believe the question before was something like: Does the State Department believe that there are people who have gone to the Hill or otherwise given information that would put them in the category of being a whistleblower, which generally refers to people who report corruption or some kind of malfeasance or incompetence? Does the State Department believe that there are people involved in the Benghazi case who could be – who are considered whistleblowers?
MR. VENTRELL: I’m not aware of whistleblowers one way or another.
QUESTION: So why do you continue to use – you’re accepting the premise of the question, which is that there are whistleblowers. And if you –
MR. VENTRELL: No, I’m not accepting the –
QUESTION: -- think there are, that’s fine.
MR. VENTRELL: No, I’m not accepting the premise of the question. That was Mr. Rosen’s characterization, not mine.
QUESTION: So the Department does not believe that there is anyone that falls – anyone connected to the Benghazi case, for example, the people who testified before the committee that Representative Issa chairs, back on the first hearing months ago, the Department does not consider those people to be whistleblowers under the definition that most of us would understand?
MR. VENTRELL: Right. Not that I’m aware of. I mean, I can’t rule out a negative. I can’t say for certain one way or another that there aren’t people out there. But not that I’m aware of and not that have been – the folks that you’re talking about. I think this comes in the context of some members of the Hill wanting to interview survivors or something of that nature, and the bottom line is those survivors have provided extensive testimony to the ARB and to the FBI, and those – that information was made available to the Hill through that channel. We don’t sort of have people at the operational level necessarily as witnesses or testifying. In fact, many of them are back and have done – and are completing their duties in the field.
QUESTION: No, this just has to do with the definition of the word “whistleblower.” I mean, if you don’t believe that there was any wrongdoing, any illegality involved, then you wouldn’t consider people involved in this case to be whistleblowers. Am I correct?
MR. VENTRELL: Right. That’s not the phrase we’ve used. In terms of they are –
QUESTION: No, but that’s the phrase that – if I understood correctly, that’s the phrase that’s used in the letter, yes?
QUESTION: Yes, it’s used in the letter, and with respect to the question I asked, I simply referred to individuals who may be placed under that category.
QUESTION: Oh, okay. Would you –
QUESTION: The State Department is so recognizing them.
QUESTION: Does the State Department recognize people involved in this incident – some people to be whistleblowers?
MR. VENTRELL: No, not that I’m aware of. I’m happy to look into it, but not that I’m aware of, and we’ll get back to the Hill and respond to their inquiry in written format as we always do.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Your earlier answer to me specified that you were – you had not heard of any private counsel seeking security clearances.
MR. VENTRELL: Right.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any State Department employees who are – who would fall under the category of whistleblower in connection with Benghazi who have been denied access to papers?
MR. VENTRELL: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: And one last question: Has the Department issued to its employees any kind of notice that would ensure that anyone who considers himself or herself a whistleblower in this matter would not be subject to any kind of repercussion?
MR. VENTRELL: I’m not sure of a proactive notice saying one way or another, but we always say that to whistleblowers, that they have the Inspector General and other methods of whistleblowing on any range of issues. So that’s a longstanding process that stands for a number of different scenarios.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m trying to get my thoughts together.
MR. VENTRELL: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: See, I haven’t seen this letter from Representative Issa, so I don’t know what it is, but the term has been used over and over, “whistleblower.” Does the State Department believe that there is anything in the Benghazi incident to blow a whistle on? Is – in other words, the question before was – I believe the question before was something like: Does the State Department believe that there are people who have gone to the Hill or otherwise given information that would put them in the category of being a whistleblower, which generally refers to people who report corruption or some kind of malfeasance or incompetence? Does the State Department believe that there are people involved in the Benghazi case who could be – who are considered whistleblowers?
MR. VENTRELL: I’m not aware of whistleblowers one way or another.
QUESTION: So why do you continue to use – you’re accepting the premise of the question, which is that there are whistleblowers. And if you –
MR. VENTRELL: No, I’m not accepting the –
QUESTION: -- think there are, that’s fine.
MR. VENTRELL: No, I’m not accepting the premise of the question. That was Mr. Rosen’s characterization, not mine.
QUESTION: So the Department does not believe that there is anyone that falls – anyone connected to the Benghazi case, for example, the people who testified before the committee that Representative Issa chairs, back on the first hearing months ago, the Department does not consider those people to be whistleblowers under the definition that most of us would understand?
MR. VENTRELL: Right. Not that I’m aware of. I mean, I can’t rule out a negative. I can’t say for certain one way or another that there aren’t people out there. But not that I’m aware of and not that have been – the folks that you’re talking about. I think this comes in the context of some members of the Hill wanting to interview survivors or something of that nature, and the bottom line is those survivors have provided extensive testimony to the ARB and to the FBI, and those – that information was made available to the Hill through that channel. We don’t sort of have people at the operational level necessarily as witnesses or testifying. In fact, many of them are back and have done – and are completing their duties in the field.
QUESTION: No, this just has to do with the definition of the word “whistleblower.” I mean, if you don’t believe that there was any wrongdoing, any illegality involved, then you wouldn’t consider people involved in this case to be whistleblowers. Am I correct?
MR. VENTRELL: Right. That’s not the phrase we’ve used. In terms of they are –
QUESTION: No, but that’s the phrase that – if I understood correctly, that’s the phrase that’s used in the letter, yes?
QUESTION: Yes, it’s used in the letter, and with respect to the question I asked, I simply referred to individuals who may be placed under that category.
QUESTION: Oh, okay. Would you –
QUESTION: The State Department is so recognizing them.
QUESTION: Does the State Department recognize people involved in this incident – some people to be whistleblowers?
MR. VENTRELL: No, not that I’m aware of. I’m happy to look into it, but not that I’m aware of, and we’ll get back to the Hill and respond to their inquiry in written format as we always do.
No comments:
Post a Comment