Posted on 05/09/2013 12:01:57 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Not much, if you listen to apologists for the White House and State Department, even after the testimony of two previously-excluded whistleblowers yesterday at a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans. Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact-checker, says that while some of what was said has already come out — somewhat reluctantly — there were in fact some new revelations. And even what we know think as established fact has new angles that carry some big implications.
For instance, let’s look at the demonstration run amok vs terrorist attack narrative issue. Kessler points out that we have known for months that there was no demonstration at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack. Earlier reports said that confusion may have come from a lack of information combined with demonstrations in other countries in the region. What’s new, Kessler points out, is Hicks’ testimony that he spoke directly with Hillary Clinton on the night of the attack and briefed her:
So it is not new that there was no protest. That’s been officially well established. It is also not new that many officials knew it was a terrorist attack.
What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.
The hearings also revealed an e-mail written by Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, in which she recounted a conversation with the Libyan ambassador on Sept. 12: “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks Ansar Al Sharia is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”
One generally presumes that top government officials have access to classified information and firsthand accounts not available to the media. But in this case either their judgments were colored by media accounts as well — or they took advantage of the media’s reporting to obscure some politically difficult news.
Kessler’s avoiding a conclusion here. If the State Department thinks CNN has better info in Atlanta than its own people on the ground in Libya, then why bother having people on the ground at all?
There’s also the matter of Susan Rice directly contradicting the Libyan president on the nature of the attacks on September 16th. By that time, everyone should have known it was a terrorist attack, but Rice went on five talk shows to blame it on a demonstration. Meanwhile, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf went on American television to correctly state that terrorists had conducted the attack, and he even knew who they were. That rebuke from an American diplomat had a direct impact on the US ability to investigate the issue, and on al-Magariaf’s ability to lead:
While the political fallout long has been clear from Rice’s appearance on the Sunday shows, what’s new is Hicks’ description of the diplomatic impact — that Libyan cooperation into the probe was greatly hindered because the president of Libya, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, who also appeared on Face the Nation, was so angry that Rice disagreed with his description of a “preplanned” attack.
Magariaf was “insulted in front of his own people,” Hicks said. “His credibility was reduced. His ability to lead his country was damaged.”
Hicks’ description of his reaction to Rice’s comments — “I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed” — is also rather telling, given that previously administration officials had asserted that Rice’s remarks reflected a consensus that no one would dispute at the time.
Another witness attacked the integrity of the Accountability Review Board, on which apologists relied yesterday, calling it an attempt to cover up for the top brass:
Nordstrom suggested the board’s report attempted to protect higher-ranking officials, and specifically faulted it for not looking at the key role played by Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy in failing to deliver the request for more security to Clinton.
He said a similar failure occurred in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, which killed 19 Americans.
“[The ARB] has decided to fix responsibility on the assistant secretary level and below,” said Nordstrom. “And the message to my colleagues is that if you’re above a certain level, no matter what your decision is no one’s going to question it.
“I look back and I see the last time we had a major attack was East Africa. Who was in that same position, when the unheeded messengers … were raising those concerns? It just so happens it was the same person. The under secretary for management was in that same role before.
“There’s something apparently wrong with the process of how those security recommendations are raised to the secretary.”
There was also the matter of the State Department’s counterterrorism chief, who got cut out of the Benghazi loop almost immediately after the attack began:
Thompson described how his request for a specialized emergency response team was rebuffed by officials at the White House. He said he got the idea the officials weren’t sure what was happening in Benghazi and therefore weren’t sure if the “FEST” team of special operations forces and intelligence personnel was a suitable option.
Thompson was told FEST wasn’t “on the menu“:
Mr. Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations, testified that he thought the U.S. needed to activate an interagency advisory group called the Foreign Emergency Support Team, but was told that top State Department officials had already determined that sending the team wasn’t “in the menu of options.”
The State Department has said that the team, based in the U.S., wouldn’t have arrived in Libya in time to make any difference. Daniel Benjamin, the head of counterterrorism at the time of the September attacks and Mr. Thompson’s former boss, has said that the question of whether to deploy the team was posed early, and the State Department made the correct decision against sending it.
But that presumed that State knew at the moment just how long the attack would last:
[Thompson] also said he considered the response inadequate because “one definition of a crisis is you do not know what’s going to happen in two hours.”
So yes, there was quite a bit new at the hearing — and all of it pointing to a political whitewash during and after the attack. What’s not new is the apologists’ refrain:
************************************************************
Video at the website.
And we need to find out what happenned.
She is Right of course and that started to dig into that yesterday.
See this thread:
Benghazi: A Coverup Laid Bare --( House hearing with Whistleblowers )
Multiple videos on the thread also.
It’s all new.
None of this has been investigated.
The lying allies of terrorists running our government have been given a complete pass on 4 deaths they are responsible for since day 1.
Thanks for adding the links.
As FEST is inter-agency it seems reasonible that they could have gotten an air support strike from Italy. We have many bases there for NATO, AF and Navy from Aviano in the north to Sicily in the south.
Sicily is within operational striking distance of a drag laden F-16 to Benghazi at about 550 miles or less which appears on the internet as within striking distance without a re-fueling tanker being launched.
Flight time of an hour and twenty at 420 MPH at cruise is what I read.
It is not that there was not “option” it is that there was no “desire.”
What we have learned is that there is panic among the Rats
The dike hasn’t broken but there are trickles in the face.
This column has been updated.*****************
We ought to have every fragment we can get in the FR Archives.
The democrips are treacherous, as proven by their continuous effort to divert the hearing from the truth onto what sounded like typical axelgreasy talking points for spin and misdirection. But no matter how treacherous they become, until the fifth column media stops aiding and abetting the abortion of turth these bastards will continue to walk away laughing at those trying to get the truth otu tot eh world. The media are scurrilous vermin working to destroy this We The People Republic.
Can we anticipate hildahag becoming president before the 2016 election cycle? Would little barry bastard vacation boy resign from office making deadhead Biden president, then he selects hildahag and then steps down for medical reasons, leaving the worst nightmare commie to have months of control before running for ‘re-election’/election? I thought it might happen before 2008, but the democrip ability to cheat the elections probably encouraged the democrips to keep little bastard boy on. But now he is becoming a laibility, so will these criminal democrips try the switch?
1) All doubt is now gone that 0bama, Hillary, Carney, et al lied about what they knew when they knew it and the "Youtube video."
2) Help was intentionally denied and obstructed during the attack.
3) Anyone who attempted to expose the truth was intimidated and threatened.
Now posted on FreeRepublic for comments and archiving.:
The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings ( Good Intro )
When is anybody, Chavitz, Issa, Gowdy, going to ask the million dollar question? Why was Obama briefed on the attack around 5pm by Panetta and then did NOTHING until he left for a fund-raiser the next morning?
We know the Hildebeast talked with Tripoli at 2am and State received information about the attack prior to the conversation with Hicks. You mean the President of the United States wasn’t in the loop or in the Situation Room during all this? When is somebody going to ask the obvious?
Why are we dancing around the issue? Where the hell was the President and if he wasn’t engaged..he should be impeached!
Call Boehner!
Don’t let them cover up the coverup.
202-225-3121
I have been posting stuff and haven't seen what that is about.
Cryin' Boehner decided to comment on Susan Rice - the LEAST of the charges levied. He chose to focus on one minor issue and broadcast it - so the Lame Stream Media can characterize it as a witch hunt versus a criminally negligent and avoidable tragedy.
This is "the smoking gun" (you need to hear all of the times Eric Nordstrom answered this question over the course of the hearing because it was answered a little differently each time - becoming more clear each time - that this is without question Hilberbeast's fault - not the budget, not a lower level appointee, not the RINOs - 100% Hilderbeast's!
Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare minimum global security standard for US diplomatic missions -- despite being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to previous attempted attacks. Only the Secretary of State has the authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.
There are only 15 "high" or "critical" facilities around the world - out of almost 300. This was a "critical" and needed Hilderbeast's authorization to operate as it was. And, she told Stevens that it was this admin's goal to make Benghazi a permanent consulate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.