http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/11/New-Yorker-White-house-Credibility-Problem
NEW YORKER: TALKING POINT EDITS 'SERIOUSLY UNDERMINES WHITE HOUSE CREDIBILITY'
The New Yorker's Alex Koppelman had been a skeptic when it came to Republican claims that there was a there there with respect to the White House's involvement in spinning a terror attack into a spontaneous protest run amok on that fateful September day in Libya. Jonathan Karl's bombshell ABC News report Friday about the twelve Administration edits to the CIA talking points has changed all of that:
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:
The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.
This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games.
Read the whole thing.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/10/white-house-holds-benghazi-briefing-with-reporters-off-the-record/
White House holds Benghazi briefing with reporters — off the record; Update: More whistleblowers coming? Update: “Deep background”
POSTED AT 2:41 PM ON MAY 10, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
If there’s one thing you want to do when accusations are flying about an attempted cover up and a disinterested, collusive media, it’s holding an off-the-record briefing.
The White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing to 1:45 p.m. White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a request for confirmation of the meeting.The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.
Were they discussing troop movements or something? What reason could there be to go off the record, and why would the press agree to it? If there’s classified material involved, just redact the bits that can’t be publicized. Or maybe I have this wrong; maybe the reason Carney wanted to huddle is because Ron Fournier was onto something this morning in sensing that the White House is trying to point a finger at Hillary and the State Department for redacting the first draft of the CIA’s talking points. For obvious reasons, if Carney wants to steer them in that direction, he wouldn’t want to do it on the record. Then again, there’s no reason to task the White House press secretary with that; if Team O wants to push Hillary under the bus, they’ll do it the old-fashioned way, through anonymous leaks. So again, why is this briefing off the record?
While we’re on the subject of media collusion, what on earth does this mean?
“Scandal is a strong word,” Roberts replied, to which Scarborough asked, “What is a couple notches below a scandal? Kerfuffle? Four people are dead.”“The first ambassador killed since 1979 — it is serious,” he continued. “You talk about overplaying your hand. If a lot of people on the far right hadn’t overplayed their hand on Benghazi and were screaming — before they knew what they were screaming about — I think we would all be much harder on the administration right now.”
What?
Because the “far right” was screaming about Benghazi, you couldn’t judge for yourself whether it was a bona fide scandal? Or is he saying that he could judge, but chose not to because any scandal that might potentially vindicate the “far right” isn’t worth exploring unless/until there’s been six-to-eight months of revelations?
I’ll leave you with this from loyal Clintonite water-carrier Paul Begala, the same hack troll who defendedHarry Reid’s nasty conspiratorial smear about Mitt Romney’s tax returns last year: “I think the way [Hillary] has dealt with this has been admirable. And Republicans are treading awfully close to the tin foil hat.”
Update: Did this come up at the briefing? I guess we’ll never know.
The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.
CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.
“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”
Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.
“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.
But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.
That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.
ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Ben Rhodes, a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria, as well.
But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda.
“My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,” Rhodes said in March.
David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.
Neither the White House nor CBS News responded to requests for comment for this report.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/05/ot-obamas-press-secretarys-fine.html
SATURDAY, MAY 11, 2013
OT: Obama's Press Secretary's Fine Performance of Non-Answer on Benghazi
Obama White House spokesman Jay Carney answers questions from reporters with facts and details totally unrelated to the questions, and the reporters are left wondering what in the world they just heard and why, forgetting to press for real answers. Classic.
"Terms of reference". Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud.
From White House Dossier by Keith Koffler (5/9/2013):
Internal Benghazi Review Ignored Clinton, Obama
The internal State Department Accountability Review Board report being touted by the White House as an “unsparing” investigation into the Benghazi response actually completely spared the two individuals whose actions Republicans want to know about most: President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
There is no mention in the report of the what Clinton or Obama did related to Benghazi. In fact, Obama isn’t mentioned at all in the document, and Clinton only once – in the context of her appointing the Review Board. There is no suggestion that Clinton or Obama were interviewed or even examined by the investigation.
What’s more, Accountability Review Boards are part of statutory State Department process that is not legally permitted to investigate the president.
It’s not even clear that an Accountability Review Board is permitted to probe the Secretary of State. The purview of a Review Board covers “employees” of the State Department who could be subject to discipline by the Secretary of State, who presumably would not be tasked to discipline herself.
Despite all this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Wednesday suggested the Review Board report exculpates Clinton.
From the briefing:Q So the White House is confident that Hillary Clinton acted appropriately throughout this process?
MR. CARNEY: We are. And I think I would point you to the Accountability Review Board and what –
Q Which didn’t –
MR. CARNEY: I think I would point you to the report the put out. I would point you to what the two heads of that board, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen — each highly praised by both sides of the aisle for their long, distinguished careers — put out in a statement this week: “From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything, including all of the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that is what we did.”
Again, this is an unsparing report done by two career professionals, nonpartisan career professionals, that contain within it very serious recommendations, found shortcomings that needed to be corrected, and the State Department acted immediately on that.But there is no evidence Pickering and Mullin ever talked to Clinton, or that they even sought to.
Carney dodged a question about whether Obama was interviewed by the Review Board.Q On the question of the Accountability Review Board, you keep saying it was unsparing and you said they had unfettered access. Did Admiral Mullen and Mr. Pickering interview the President about what he did on the night of September 11th?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I will point you to what Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering said and what the report said, beginning with the fact that — this is useful here. The Accountability Review Board investigation, headed by, as I said, two of the most respected, non-partisan leaders in Washington, found that the interagency response was timely and appropriate and “helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans.”Here’s a video of the exchange, in which Carney appears a little flustered. [video at the link]
Note that this is a classic case of press secretary spin, in which the answer contains a litany of facts wholly unrelated to the question and designed to draw attention away from the fact that the press secretary is not addressing the issue that was raised.
In this case, Carney was successful. There was no follow up.
"Terms of reference" dialog between Minister Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby, from "Yes, Minister: Doing the Honours" (1981), from IMDb:
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, if you block honours pending economies, you might create a dangerous precedent.
James Hacker: You mean that if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing again next time. It seems on that philosophy, nothing would ever get done at all.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: On the contrary, many, many things must be done...
Sir Humphrey Appleby, James Hacker: [together] but nothing must be done for the first time.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, no, Minister. What I mean is that I am fully seized of your aims and of course I will do my utmost to see that they are put into practice.
James Hacker: If you would.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
James Hacker: You mean no.
Well, fictional Minister Hacker saw it through.
What did we learn from the Benghazi Hearing today ? I mean apart from the fact that 99.9 percent of what Rep Cummings said was idiotic political jibber jabber and a gross insult to the dead and wounded from the 9-11 attack in Benghazi......
http://freebeacon.com/cummings-i-would-say-99-99-percent-of-what-i-heard-id-heard-before/
Cummings: I Would Say 99.99 Percent of What I Heard, I’d Heard Before
Proceeds to admit there were several new revelations from today's Benghazi hearing
BY:
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) gave a strange interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball” Wednesday, initially saying he had heard “99.99 percent” of what was revealed at the Benghazi hearing already, but later admitting he had never heard several pieces of information from today.
“I would say 99.99 percent of what I heard, I’ve heard before,” he said. “I basically think that the Republicans are trying to keep this issue going and not dealing with reform, which is what we want.”
But two questions later, Chris Matthews, while discussing what he earlier called “this thing called Benghazi,” asked him about foreign service officer Gregory Hicks’ 2 a.m. phone conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and whether he had heard about their dialogue, in which Hicks briefed her about the search for Ambassador Chris Stevens and the need to evacuate.
Cummings had not, and he also said he had no idea what fellow witness Mark Thompson would say at the hearing, further refuting his earlier claim that he’d heard practically all of Wednesday’s testimony already.
“No,” Cummings said. “I had not heard with regard to him in specific, her talking to him. Keep in mind, Chris, that the Republicans on other issues have kept a lot from us. Keep in mind, Mr. Thompson, one of their witnesses today, we had never gotten a syllable from him. Not one word. We didn’t even know what he was going to talk about whatsoever, and he was deliberately held from us. That’s no way to run a hearing.”
Later, Politico reporter Ginger Gibson discussed Hicks’ testimony that Clinton was the reason Stevens was in Benghazi to begin with, telling him itneeded to be a permanent post and that Stevens said he would make it happen.
This, too, was new to Cummings, who said, “I have not heard that before. That is one thing I had not heard up until today.”
Gibson also told Matthews that Hicks delivered one of the most detailed outlines heard to date of what happened that night in Libya. Hicks’ testimony that troops could have arrived to the compound by 1:45 a.m. the night of the attack, and later his description of being stunned and embarrassed by Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show appearances blaming the terrorist attacks on a response to a YouTube video, were also new insights into Benghazi Wednesday.
Cummings did, however, deliver a line at the hearing that many have heard before, when he told one of the witnesses that “death is a part of life.”
and...
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/08/operation-smear-benghazi-whistleblowers/
Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers
 |
It’s on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama’s apologists are gearing up for battle. Put on your hip-waders. Grab those tar buckets. Get ready for Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers.
Capitol Hill hearings this Wednesday on the deadly 9/11 consulate attack by jihadists will feature three compelling witnesses, all State Department veterans: Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya and highest-ranking U.S. diplomat in the country at the time of the Benghazi jihad attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine who now serves as deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the top security officer in Libya.
Nordstrom first testified last fall about how State Department brass spurned his requests for increased security at the compound. Hicks and Thompson are coming forward publicly for the first time this week with more damning evidence contradicting Team Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claims about the administration’s response the night of the attack and in the ensuing months of cover-ups.
According to the House Oversight Committee, Hicks reportedly will refute Team Obama’s claims that nobody was told to stand down and that all military resources available were used in the rescue efforts. As Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to save lives during the attacks, Hicks says the team received a phone call from the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa telling them “you can’t go” and that the decision was “purely political.”
The State Department press office already has accused Victoria Toensing, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, of “lying” about administration pressure on her clients. Left-wing operatives funded by billionaire George Soros have taken to Twitter to mock reports of fear and intimidation among the new witnesses. White House press secretary Jay Carney continues to sing “Long, Long Ago” and deny all wrongdoing.
And one anonymous State Department official told Fox News reporter James Rosen that Hicks and Thompson have “axes to grind.”
Gee, who wouldn’t have an “axe to grind” if your bosses lied to you, blocked you from saving your co-workers and friends, and lied shamelessly and repeatedly to the American public about the reasons for their deaths?
It’s this corrupt and vengeful White House that wields the sharpest axes and biggest grindstones. The casualty count in Obama’s war on whistleblowers is double-digit.
ATF insiders who testified before Congress about Obama’s Fast and Furious gun-running nightmare faced systemic retaliation and harassment — both from government supervisors who openly declared witch hunts against them and from liberal media water-carriers.
Maverick journalist Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News faced White House retaliation of her own over her Fast and Furious investigations. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler “was just yelling at me,” and White House spokesman Eric Schultz “literally screamed at me and cussed at me,” she told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham in 2011.
Former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, who blew the whistle on Attorney General Eric Holder’s rule of law-perverting, race-baiting reign, was basely smeared as a “liar” and perjurer by DOJ proxy and Washington Post tool E.J. Dionne — who ignored Adams’ stellar career record at DOJ and unassailable sworn testimony.
Gerald Walpin, former AmeriCorps inspector general, was pushed out of his job by the Obamas after exposing fraud and corruption perpetrated by Democratic mayor of Sacramento and Obama friend Kevin Johnson. The White House baselessly questioned the veteran watchdog’s mental health and never apologized for slandering him.
The Pleasanton (CA) Weekly was bullied by the White House press shop over a benign article that irked the administration because it made Michelle Obama look snooty. The San Francisco Chronicle was punished by the White House because a print pool reporter used a cellphone to record video of protesters at an Obama Bay Area fundraiser.
And in case you needed reminding: Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threatened to crack down on health insurers for candidly tying Obamacare mandates to rising premiums — something that Sebelius herself now acknowledges. Team Obama lambasted other whistle-blowing companies such as Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and ATT for speaking out about the cost implications and financial burdens of Obamacare — and then cheered from the sidelines while Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman attempted to haul the firms up for a congressional inquisition.
If you thought Chicago-on-the-Potomac was dirty, you ain’t seen nothing yet. No stone will be left unturned in the effort to slime, sully and squelch the Benghazi truth-tellers. Mark my words: This is how Obama’s thugs roll.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/benghazi-makes-watergate-look-like-kindergarten/?cat_orig=politics
Revelations in Wednesday’s congressional hearings on the Benghazi terrorist attacks prove it is a massive scandal that will carry significant consequences for those involved in the cover-up, according to retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.
McInerney served at the highest levels in the Air Force, including time as assistant vice chief of staff and vice commander in chief of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe. He believes the Obama administration deliberately misled the American people on the motivation for the attack and is now covering its tracks on decisions to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi. He told WND that is more clear than ever following Wednesday’s testimony of former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and two others before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“This is going to be the biggest scandal. It is going to make Watergate look like kindergarten because Watergate was primarily limited to the Oval Office. This cuts across the whole national security apparatus, where people were lying and covering up,” McInerney said. “It is a dereliction of duty that this nation has never seen before.”
So what consequences could that mean for the highest levels of the administration?
“Well, just see what the consequences were in Watergate. If it’s far worse than Watergate, the consequences will go right into the Oval Office,” he said.
McInerney said the tell-tale sign of Obama’s dereliction of duty can be determined in the admitted White House narrative of the president’s actions as the terrorist attack played out the night of Sept. 11, 2012.
“When is the exact minute he knew? We don’t have the timeline, and it was well before the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went over there. He only talked to the secretary of defense one time, so it’s obvious he knew that he had given the stand-down order and did not need to talk to the secretary of defense or anybody else after that,” McInerney said. “Then he goes the next day out on a fundraising campaign to Las Vegas. That is a low for the commander in chief of this great nation.”
He also insists the stand-down order could only come from one source: the president himself.
“The only person who could have given it was the president, and he had to give it through the secretary of defense, secretary of state. The word came out so it came from the combatant commands and other unites below, but nobody could have given that except the president of the United States, and that is very clear,” said McInerney, who noted that the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board likely reached a similar conclusion in its report, which is why so few have seen it and the leaders of that study refuse to appear before Congress. McInerney believes they should be subpoenaed.
While he believes Obama has a lot to answer for, McInerney made it clear that many top-level subordinates deserve a lot of the blame too, and that’s what makes the scandal so troubling.
“It’s going to have significant consequences because it impacts two CIA directors, two secretaries of state, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two secretaries of defense that are all involved now with the cover-up,” he said.
The general also singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her comment at congressional hearings in January in which she bristled severely at accusations the administration concocted a plan to blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam YouTube video that got out of hand. Clinton slammed Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, saying, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
McInerney sees that as a low point in American history.
“That is one of the most despicable statements that any American has said about such a tragic incident when you lose people like that. It makes a huge difference that our troops know that they will always be protected as much as they can and we’ll do anything to protect them,” he said. “She says, what difference does it make? That will live with her til the day she dies. I can tell you, all the people I know, both active and retired, think that is one of the most despicable statements we have ever heard a civilian leader say in our country’s history.”
McInerney said the administration’s story is full of holes on a number of fronts, including the narrative about the supposed video protests. But the general said his own experience serving in that theater convinces him there was plenty of time and opportunity to deploy U.S. forces to protect Americans in Benghazi.
“We have never done that, that I know, in our military history, where we just abandoned and did not try to send in rescue forces. They could have gotten there from Aviano (Air Base in Italy) the F-16s. I used to fly F-16s out of Aviano when I was vice commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces in Europe. I know that scene very well. They could have made it. They said they didn’t have tankers. They could have dropped their tanks. They could have recovered at a nearby Italian air base on an island,” he said.
“So it is unacceptable to me that we didn’t send those forces from Tripoli that we had there. We didn’t send F-16s and the FEST team to go in and to try to rescue those people. That was unacceptable, but from the get-go they had a narrative that they wanted to stick with that was a political narrative that the war was over, they had defeated al-Qaida,” he said.
Let's start with the testimony of Hicks ....... And how the Benghazi attacks unfolded. And as we sift through this , there is a political element naturally - if the President last Fall was GOP rather than a Dem , today's critics would have been Dems and defenders GOP.........But what happened with the overall Benghazi situation is indefensible regardless of party affiliation......
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/eyewitness-hicks-how-benghazi-actually-unfolded-2641260.html?currentSplittedPage=0
Eyewitness Hicks: How Benghazi Actually Unfolded
Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:20
Here is a partial transcript of his testimony, provided by Federal News Service(www.fednews.com).
—-
REP. DARRELL ISSA, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hicks, as the principal officer and the — you know, once the ambassador had been murdered, THE highest ranking officer on September 11th from the moment that you unexpectedly became the charge, America has heard many accounts of what happened. We’ve never heard accounts from a single person who was in Libya that night. You will be the first person who observed it. In your own words — take as much time as you want — please take us through the day of Sept. 11th, from whatever time you want to begin, through when you first heard from Ambassador Stevens and through the hours and days immediately following that, if you would, so we could have an understanding for the first time from somebody who was there.
GREGORY HICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I remember Sept. 11th, 2012, it was a routine day at our embassy and — until we saw the news about Cairo. And I remember sending a text message to Ambassador Stevens saying, Chris, are you aware of what’s going on in Cairo? And he said, no. So I told him that the embassy in — in another text, that the embassy had been stormed and they were trying to tear down our flag. And he said, thanks very much. And, you know, then I went on with business.
Closed the day and I went back to my villa and was relaxing, watching a television show that I particularly like, and at 9:45 p.m. — and all times will be Libyan times, there’s a six-hour time difference — the RSO [Regional Security Officer], John Martinec, ran into my villa, yelling, Greg, Greg, the consulate’s under attack. And I stood up and reached for my phone because I had an inkling or a thought that perhaps the ambassador had tried to call me to relay the same message, and I found two missed calls on the phone, one from the ambassador’s phone, one from a phone number I didn’t recognize.
And I punched the phone number I didn’t recognize, and I got the ambassador on the other end, and he said, Greg, we’re under attack. And I was walking out of the villa on my way to the tactical operation center, because I knew we would all have to gather there to mobilize or try to mobilize a response. And it was also a bad cellphone night in Tripoli. Connections were weak. And I said OK, and the line cut. As I walked to the tactical operations center, I tried to reach back on both of the numbers, the unknown number and the ambassador’s personal number, and got no response.
When I got to the tactical operations center, I told people that the ambassador — that I’d just talked to the ambassador and what he said. At the time John Martinec was on the phone with Alec Henderson in Benghazi, the RSO there. And I asked one of our DS agents who — what number did I reach Ambassador Stevens on. And he said, oh, that’s Scott Wickland‘s telephone. Scott Wickland was Ambassador Stevens’ agent in charge, his personal escort for that night, and was with him in the villa during the attack.
So I asked — when John Martinec got off the telephone, I asked him what was going on, and he said that the consulate had been breached and there were at least 20 hostile individuals armed in the — in the compound at the time.
So I next called the annex chief to ask him if he was in touch with the Benghazi annex to activate our emergency response plan.
REP. ISSA: Please explain the annex chief, so that people that don’t know as much would understand that.
No, go ahead, please.
MR. HICKS: OK. Thank you.
And he said that he had been in touch with the annex in Benghazi, and they said they were mobilizing a response team there to go to the — to our facility and provide reinforcements and to repel the attack.
With that knowledge, I called the operations center at the State Department at approximately 10 p.m. to report the attack and what we were doing to respond to it. The next thing I did was to begin calling the senior officials in the government of Libya that I knew at the time. And so I dialed first President Megarif’s chief of staff and reported the attack and asked for immediate assistance from the government of Libya to assist our folks in Benghazi. I followed that up with a call to the prime minister’s chief of staff to make the same request and then to the MFA Americas director. “MFA” is “Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”
The defense attache was at the same time calling the leadership of Libya’s military with the same purpose, to ask them for assistance. Once that was done, I called again to Washington to report that these actions had been commenced.
Over the night we — over that night that is basically how our team operated. I was talking to the government of Libya, reporting to the State — the State Department through the operations center and also staying in touch with the annex chief about what was going on.
Let me step back one minute, if I could, and say that I also discussed with the annex chief about mobilizing a Tripoli response team, and we agreed that we would move forward with a — chartering a plane from Tripoli to fly a response team to Benghazi to provide additional reinforcements.
The defense attache was also reporting through his chain of command back to the AFRICOM and to the Joint Staff here in Washington about what was going on in the country.
David McFarland, our political section chief, had just returned from Benghazi, where he had been our principal officer for the previous 10 days. And so he jumped into this picture by reaching out to his contacts in Benghazi and trying to get them at the local level there to respond to the attack. And he also was in touch with our local employee there as well.
…..
The attack unfolded in four phases — or the night unfolded in four phases. The first phase was the attack on our consulate. The story is well known, I think. The Benghazi — the consulate was invaded. The Villa C where the ambassador and Sean Smith and Scott Wickland were hiding in the safe area was set on fire. The attackers also went into another — went into another building. They were unable to enter the tactical operations center in Benghazi because of improvements to that facility that had been made. They — Scott attempted to lead the ambassador and Sean Smith out of the burning building. He managed to make it out. He tried repeatedly to go back in to try to rescue Sean and the ambassador but had to stop due to exposure to smoke.
The response team from the annex in Benghazi, six individuals, drove the attackers out of our compound and secured it temporarily. There have been estimates as high as 60 attackers were in the compound at one particular time. There were repeated attempts by all of the RSOs and by the response team from the annex to go into the burning building and recover — or try to save Sean and the ambassador. They found Sean’s body and pulled it out, but he was no longer responsive. They did not find the ambassador.
I spoke with a medical officer, one of our medical officers, after the attack and the heroism of these individuals in repeatedly going into the petroleum-based fire cannot be understated. Petroleum — according to this — to our regional medical officer, petroleum- based fires emit enormous amounts of cyanide gas. And he told me that one full breath of that would incapacitate and kill a person if exposed to it.
The second — it was noticed that a second wave of attackers was coming to attack the facility and our teams evacuated, five RSOs and Sean Smith in one vehicle which suffered heavy fire, but they managed to break through and — into the annex, and then the annex team also withdrew from the facility and the second wave of attackers took it over.
After the second phase of the evening occurs — the timing is about 11:30 or so — the second phase commences after the teams have returned to the annex and they suffer, for about an hour and a half, probing attacks from terrorists. They are able to repulse them and then they desist at about 1:30 in the morning.
The Tripoli response team departs at about midnight and arrives at about 1:15 in Benghazi. If I may step back again to Tripoli and what’s going on there at this point. At about 10:45 or 11:00, we confer and I asked the defense attache who’d been talking with AFRICOM and with the Joint Staff: Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there? And he answered that the nearest help was in Aviano, and the nearest — where there were fighter planes. And he said that it would take two to three hours for them to get on site, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, thank you very much, and we went on with our work.
Phase three begins with news that the ambassador — ambassador’s body has been recovered. And David McFarland, if I recall correctly, is the individual who began to receive that news from his contacts in Benghazi. And we began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital. We don’t know initially which hospital it is, but we — through David’s reports we learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.
We’re getting this information as the Tripoli response team arrives in Benghazi at the airport. Both our annex chief and the annex chief in Benghazi, and our defense attache, are on the phone during this period, trying to get the Libyan government to send vehicles and military and/or security assets to the airport to assist our response team. At this point, this response team looks like it may be a hostage rescue team — that they are going to — we are going to need to send them to try to save the ambassador who is in a hospital that is, as far as we know, under enemy control.
Our contacts with the government in Tripoli are telling us that the ambassador is in a safe place, but they imply that he is with us in the annex in Benghazi. And we keep telling them, no, the — he is not with us. We do not have his — we do not have him. About 12:30, at the same time that we see the Twitter feeds that are asserting that Ansar Shariah is responsible for the attack, we also see a call for an attack on the embassy in Tripoli.
….
On that night, if I may go back, I would just like to point out that with Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith in Benghazi there are five diplomatic security agents — assistant regional security officers. With us in — at our residential compound in Tripoli, we have the RSO John Martinec, three assistant and regional security officers, protecting 28 diplomatic personnel. In addition we also have four special forces personnel who are part of the training mission.
During the night I’m in touch with Washington. We’re keeping them posted of what’s happening in Tripoli and, to the best of my knowledge, what I’m being told, in Benghazi. I think that about 2:00 p.m. the — 2:00 a.m., sorry — the secretary called — Secretary of State Clinton called me, along — and along with her senior staff, were all on the phone. And she asked me what was going on. And I briefed her on developments.
And a few minutes later came the word of the mortar attack.
If I could return to Benghazi a little bit — and I’ll talk to Tripoli — I’m sorry if I bounce back and forth — but the Tripoli team was basically — had to stay at the Benghazi airport because they had no transport and no escort from the Libyans. After the announcement of Chris’ passing, military escort and vehicles arrived at the airport. So the decision was made for them to go to the annex.
One of the — before I got the call from the prime minister, we had received several phone calls on the phone that had been with the ambassador saying that we know where the ambassador is; please, you can come get him. And our local staff engaged on those phone calls admirably, asking very, very good, outstanding, even, open-ended questions about where was he, trying to discern whether he was alive, would you let — whether they even had the ambassador or that person was with the ambassador; send a picture; could we talk to the ambassador.
Because we knew separately from David that the ambassador was in a hospital that we believe was under Ansar Sharia’s call, we suspected that we were being baited into a trap. And so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush. And we didn’t. We sent them to the annex.
Shortly after they arrived at the annex, the mortars came. First mortar round was long. It landed, actually, among the Libyans who escorted our people. They took casualties from us that night. And the next was short. The next three landed on the roof, killing Glen and Tyrone, severely wounding David. They didn’t know whether any more mortars were going to come in. The accuracy was terribly precise. The call was, the next one is coming through the roof, maybe, if it hit.
….
In Tripoli, we had — the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi. We wanted to airlift — we had — since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi. We determined that Lt. Colonel Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted. We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal.
As Colonel Gibson and his three personnel were getting in the cars, he stopped, and he called them off and said — told me that he had not been authorized to go.
The vehicles had to go because the flight needed to go to Tripoli — I mean, to Benghazi. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson was furious. I had told him to go bring our people home. That’s what he wanted to do. Paid me a very nice compliment; I won’t repeat it here. So the plane went. I think it landed in Benghazi around 7:30.
The other thing that we did was — and I — and I want to mention Jackie Levesque’s (sp) name in this hearing. She was our nurse. …
I knew David was severely wounded and I knew others were wounded as well. And Jackie had just made terrific contacts with a hospital in town, and so we sent her — I sent her to that hospital to start mobilizing their ER teams and their doctors to receive our wounded so that when the charter flight arrived in Tripoli we had ambulances at the — at the — at the airport waiting. Their doctors were ready and waiting for our wounded to come in, to be brought into the operating room. And they certainly saved David Ubben’s leg and they may very well have saved his life. And they treated our other wounded as well, as if they were their own.
Whistelblowers detail US Officials blocking rescue attempts and the follow on cover up.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing
US officials blocked rescue effort while Benghazi burned, Congress told
Diplomat Gregory Hicks accuses State Department of cover-up in evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's White House bid
Email
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 September 11, 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 which 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 Center.
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.
Mark 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 which 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 to 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.
Democrats 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 described how the embassy building in Tripoli 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 cell phone 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.
"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 ofLibya 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 destroying classified equipment including a female officer manager "smashing hard drives with an axe". They then tried to drive to the airport around dawn, but were hit by two mortar rounds.
"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."
Retaliation against Hicks......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-congressional-hearing-live-blog
Summary
We're going to wrap up our live blog coverage of today's House hearing on the Benghazi attack. Here's a summary of where things stand:
• Gregory Hicks, former top deputy to Ambassador Christopher Stevens, gave a harrowing, dramatic account of the Benghazi attack.Hicks was in Tripoli the night of the attack. He was the last person to speak with Stevens on the phone. He said Stevens said the Benghazi mission was under attack but never mentioned a protest.
• Hicks said that Stevens went to Benghazi to beat a 30 September deadline to get paperwork in process to convert the mission to a constituent post. There was additional time pressure because Secretary of State Clinton planned to visit Libya later in the year and to announce the opening of the post, Hicks said.
• Hicks testified that Obama administration statements that a protest had taken place damaged the diplomatic mission in Libya and hurt the Libyan president. One result, Hicks said, was that the FBI was shut out of Benghazi for 17-18 days, their investigation hampered. Hicks described his personal reaction to hearing UN Ambassador Susan Rice talk about a "protest" in Benghazi: "I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed."
• Hicks testified that Cheryl Mills, chief of staff to then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, called him and expressed her anger that he had met with a congressional fact-finding mission to Tripoli without a state department lawyer present. Hicks said he had never been allowed to read the classified state department report on the Benghazi attack.
• Hicks testified that he had been demoted "after I asked the question about Ambassador Rice's statement on the TV shows." "I've been effectively demoted from deputy chief of mission to desk officer," he said.
• Hicks testified that a group of four special forces troops was ready to travel on a Libyan plane from Tripoli to Benghazi after midnight, on the belief that the attack in Benghazi was ongoing. Hicks said it was his understanding that the regional defense command told the four men not to go. Hicks said he didn't know why the command was given.
And the WH and State department still playing fast and loose regarding allowing the truth to come out......
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/fourth-benghazi-witness-gagged-by-red-tape/
Fourth Benghazi witness gagged by red tape
10:08 AM 05/08/2013
Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistle-blower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.
The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.
- Fed Security ClearanceFederal employment lawyers for Security Clearance issues.Call now!www.melvillejohnson.com
- Getting Dental Implants?Read This Before You Get Dental Implants. Pros, Cons & More Here.symptomfind.com/CosmeticDentalCare
At least three officials will testify today at a House hearing about the scandal, and are expected to say top officials at the Department of State took actions to minimize political damage to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the days after the attack, officials claimed the attack had resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. That story was quickly refuted, although the filmmaker was arrested on a probation violation and remains in prison.
Toensing’s client will not be able to testify at public or closed-door hearings because he or she has not been able to prepare classified testimony with the aid of a lawyer, Toensing told The Daily Caller.
Toensing, who previously held top-level security clearances while working as a Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism unit, has asked government officials to update her past clearances to let her work with her client. But the officials initially refused to provide her with the needed forms, she said.
Officials have now provided a 42-page security clearance form, which Toensing filled out and returned, she told TheDC. But the form is only for a basic security clearance, not a “top secret” clearance, she said.
That’s “not sufficient,” she said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/fourth-benghazi-witness-gagged-by-red-tape/#ixzz2SkPZfX77
No comments:
Post a Comment