April 26, 2024, 05:21:55 AM

Author Topic: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O  (Read 1794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« on: May 09, 2013, 10:23:11 AM »
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

While US diplomats were pulling bodies from a burning Libyan consulate and frantically smashing up hard drives last 11 September, their superiors blocked rescue efforts and later attempted to cover up security failings, according to damaging new evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes.

In vivid testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, deputy to murdered US ambassador Christopher Stevens, revealed for the first time in public a detailed account of the desperate few hours after the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.

He also said that Stevens went to Benghazi to beat a 30 September deadline to convert the mission to a permanent posting. There was additional time pressure because Clinton planned to visit Libya later in the year and to announce the opening of the post, Hicks said.

But Hicks and two other state department witnesses also singled out the government response for criticism. Until now that criticism had been largely dismissed as a partisan effort by Republican congressman to smear former Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time.

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, including the UN ambassador Susan Rice, initially blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest that got out of control. He described that 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 in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

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 that is designed to respond to incidents such as the Benghazi attaack.

Hicks said he was told that US air force jets based in Italy could have reached the consulate in "two to three hours" but were blocked, out of fear of offending the Libyan government, and because a refuelling tanker could not be found.

Pentagon officials have repeatedly argued that none of the available military assets could have reached Benghazi in time to prevent the death of ambassador Stevens and three other consular staff. But Hicks insisted even if they had been too late, better attempts should have been made. "People in peril in future need to know that we will go to get them," he said. "That night we needed to demonstrate that resolve even if we still had the same outcome."

Hicks also rejected the defence given by Hillary Clinton when pressed on the initial delay in attributing the attack to terrorists, arguing the US undermined its Libyan allies who were rightly pointing to Ansar al-Sharia.

"President Magarief was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced. His ability to govern was [damaged]. He was angry … He was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later. I definitely believe it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi."

Hicks also testified that part of the reason that Stevens was in Benghazi was to make preparations to convert the mission to a permanent post, and to lay the groundwork for a visit by Clinton. "At least one of the reasons the ambassador was in Benghazi was to further the secretary's wish that that post become a permanent constituent post" and because Clinton "intended to visit later that year" to announce the conversion.

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 told how the embassy building in Benghazi was hit by mortar fire and how a tiny group of soldiers at both sites fought through the night to prevent both facilities from being overrun.

"September 11 was a routine day until we heard the news that our embassy in Cairo had been stormed and they were trying to tear down the flag," recalled Hicks.

"I had bad cellphone reception but walked to the tactical operations centre and heard that our consulate in Benghazi had been breached and at least 20 armed individuals were in the compound."

After twice not recognising the number, he said he received a short call from ambassador Stevens, thought to be his last, who said they "were under attack". He and an assistant, Sean Smith, were led to a safe area inside a villa next to the consulate by security agent Scott Strickland. It was set on fire with jerry cans of fuel shortly after 9pm.

"Scott attempted to lead them out but they didn't follow. He tried to get back in but was beaten back by the smoke," said Hicks. "Petroleum-based fires emit cyanide gas and one full breath can kill you. They managed to pull Sean out, but he was dead. They couldn't find Chris."

A second wave was coming to attack and the remaining consulate staff fell back to a nearby CIA annex. "After about an hour and a half of probing attacks from terrorists that they were able to repulse they decided to evacuate," said Hicks. They met with a response team flown from Tripoli on a Libyan C130 transporter and retreated back to the capital.

Hicks says at this point he still thought that ambassador Stevens might be alive and he received word from the Libyan government that he was being held in a hospital run by the same group responsible for the attack. "I thought we might need a hostage response team to get the ambassador out of a hospital under enemy control," explained Hicks.

At the same time the group was claiming responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Twitter, embassy staff began noticing threats against their facility in Tripoli too.

"We began planning to evacuate, and took 55 people to the annexe," said Hicks. "At 2am Hillary Clinton calls and she asks me what is going on. I brief her mostly about ambassador Stevens and told her we would need to evacuate. At 3am I received a call from from the prime minister of Libya who told me that ambassador Stevens had passed away. It was the hardest call I have ever had to take."

Hicks says he has vivid memories of communications staff in Tripoli destroying classified equipment including a female officer manager "smashing hard drives with an axe". The contingent in Benghazi then tried to drive to the airport around dawn but were hit by two mortar rounds.

"The first mortar was long and landed among the Libyans who were escorting us – they took casualties. The next was short and landed on the annex roof, killing one of our people and seriously wounding another, David. Mark charged onto the roof and strapped David, who was a large man, to his back and carried him down the ladder."

Hicks says he wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi where they had been fighting through the night but was unable.

Eric Nordstrom, a security officer who also gave evidence to Congress said the lessons state department employees have taken from Benghazi were scathing: "Whether you're at a mission, preparing for a hearing or you're standing on top of a building "surrounded by a mob," he says, "The message is the same: You're on your own."

• This article was amended on 8 May 2013 to make clear that mortar attacks took place in Benghazi, not Tripoli.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position3
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2013, 10:56:22 PM »
Interestingly how differently the NY Times is interpreting the recent hearings, compared to The Guardian above...



May 9, 2013


The Republicans’ Benghazi Obsession
(New York Times Editorial Board)


Before Wednesday’s hearing on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Republicans in Congress promised explosive new details about the administration’s mishandling of the episode. Instead, the hearing showed, yet again, that sober fact-finding is not their mission. Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The attack on the lightly protected consulate in Benghazi in September that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was a tragic event, and Americans should know the full story. The most authoritative account, completed in December, came from an independent inquiry, led by two respected and now retired officials — Thomas Pickering, a former deputy secretary of state, and Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Their report was unsparing in concluding that “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” in the State Department’s bureaus of diplomatic security and near eastern affairs resulted in a “security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” Mrs. Clinton took responsibility for the security failures when she testified at a Congressional hearing in January.

Wednesday’s hearing, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican of California who is chairman of the House oversight committee, featured three witnesses who testified about those failures. One of them, Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official at the American Embassy in Tripoli, was at the embassy the night of the Benghazi attack. He said he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled, a charge the State Department denied.

The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.

The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.

The Senate should move quickly to confirm the ambassador, Deborah Jones, whose hearing was Tuesday.

Congress and the Obama administration also need to pay more attention to what’s happening in Libya in general. After helping opposition forces oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the United States seems to have lost interest. That is a huge mistake as militias threaten the country’s democratic transition and stability. That surely is not an outcome that Ambassador Stevens would have wanted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/opinion/the-republicans-benghazi-obsession.html

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2013, 08:12:11 AM »
I don't know, are the New York Times likely to say anything different? The Guardian gave an account of the testimony of that guy Gregory Hicks. They are also notoriously liberal so have no reason to go out of their way to paint the Obama administration in a negative light. Also being in a different country, they don't have that much at stake in US domestic politics, as compared to US news outlets.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2013, 10:28:47 AM »
I don't know, are the New York Times likely to say anything different? The Guardian gave an account of the testimony of that guy Gregory Hicks. They are also notoriously liberal so have no reason to go out of their way to paint the Obama administration in a negative light. Also being in a different country, they don't have that much at stake in US domestic politics, as compared to US news outlets.

You tell me... are they?  As for the Guardian being "notoriously liberal"... that may be true on social issues, but they are also notoriously anti-American foreign policy, and decidely critical of US action in the Middle East.  There a running theme of harping on each perceived American military misstep... this is no different.  Your assertion that somehow US news outlets are not impartial because of their "stake in US domestic politics" is fanciful, at best.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2013, 11:13:30 AM »
NYT is known for carrying water. In the old days it was for the Republicans, now is for the Democrats.

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2013, 11:31:08 AM »
I don't know, are the New York Times likely to say anything different? The Guardian gave an account of the testimony of that guy Gregory Hicks. They are also notoriously liberal so have no reason to go out of their way to paint the Obama administration in a negative light. Also being in a different country, they don't have that much at stake in US domestic politics, as compared to US news outlets.

You tell me... are they?  As for the Guardian being "notoriously liberal"... that may be true on social issues, but they are also notoriously anti-American foreign policy, and decidely critical of US action in the Middle East.  There a running theme of harping on each perceived American military misstep... this is no different.  Your assertion that somehow US news outlets are not impartial because of their "stake in US domestic politics" is fanciful, at best.

From the NYT article: "The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged."

All they said was the "cover-up" was not equal to Watergate as Republicans have tried to assert. Does the article even try to address the testimony of Gregory Hicks?

Also, I do recall that the official line was that the attacks were a result of a protest, when it appears all along they were being told that it was carried out by a terrorist group. Hicks testimony also raised questions about whether more could and should have been done to effect a rescue or at least attempt one.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2013, 03:23:29 PM »
From the NYT article: "The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged."

All they said was the "cover-up" was not equal to Watergate as Republicans have tried to assert. Does the article even try to address the testimony of Gregory Hicks?

Also, I do recall that the official line was that the attacks were a result of a protest, when it appears all along they were being told that it was carried out by a terrorist group. Hicks testimony also raised questions about whether more could and should have been done to effect a rescue or at least attempt one.

LOL... so it was a cover up, not a bad one?  Lol...


As for the "they knew it was terrorism all along" has long been refuted, both by testimony on the Hill as well as the independent report.  Come nah man... dem Republicans and dem put something in allyuh water out dey or what?  ;)

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2013, 03:35:12 PM »
From the NYT article: "The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged."

All they said was the "cover-up" was not equal to Watergate as Republicans have tried to assert. Does the article even try to address the testimony of Gregory Hicks?

Also, I do recall that the official line was that the attacks were a result of a protest, when it appears all along they were being told that it was carried out by a terrorist group. Hicks testimony also raised questions about whether more could and should have been done to effect a rescue or at least attempt one.

LOL... so it was a cover up, not a bad one?  Lol...


As for the "they knew it was terrorism all along" has long been refuted, both by testimony on the Hill as well as the independent report.  Come nah man... dem Republicans and dem put something in allyuh water out dey or what?  ;)

No, I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat - I just posted an article which gave an account of the testimony of Gregory Hicks. I found it interesting because I did recall that at first they said it was a spontaneous protest that resulted in the attach on the Consulate and the Ambassador's death. But now it appears they knew all along it was not of that nature - seems deliberately deceptive to me.

Anyway, I don't think people should act like one party is more 'pristine' than the other. No one is saying the Republicans aren't milking this as much as they can, but that does not mean nothing of note took place.

Benghazi: State Department 'pressed to change' Susan Rice talking points
New details emerge of political concerns in aftermath of consulate attack that killed ambassador Chris Stevens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/benghazi-state-susan-rice-talking-points?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position4
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18649
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2013, 03:50:43 PM »
Also, I do recall that the official line was that the attacks were a result of a protest, when it appears all along they were being told that it was carried out by a terrorist group

Whether it was a protest or a planned attack, to me is of little consequence. The US State dept, military, CIA, etc should have been on full alert. Planned attack. spontaneous protest attack they should have been ready for anything. On the other hand the Ambassador( may he rest in peace) put himself in harms way by not carry a full contingent on security with him. It is said that he felt that he knew the place and people well, and could trust them(anti-Ghadaffi Libyans) to provide the security. I am to believe that the White, State dept, CIA took his word for it, and backed off with him having a heavy security detail. This could not have happened in Tripoli.  So when the protests/attack to place they were all in pins and needles ...."wtf... thought the Libyans providing security... how long to get the planes from Italy .... mass chaos...". By that time people dead. if there is a lesson to learn in this debacle. Don't trust no one. Carry a full security detail with Air Force, Marines as back up.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2013, 09:05:44 AM »
Toppa, ah find yuh making real boundaries this innings. Respect.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2013, 11:13:47 AM »

No, I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat - I just posted an article which gave an account of the testimony of Gregory Hicks. I found it interesting because I did recall that at first they said it was a spontaneous protest that resulted in the attach on the Consulate and the Ambassador's death. But now it appears they knew all along it was not of that nature - seems deliberately deceptive to me.

Anyway, I don't think people should act like one party is more 'pristine' than the other. No one is saying the Republicans aren't milking this as much as they can, but that does not mean nothing of note took place.

Benghazi: State Department 'pressed to change' Susan Rice talking points
New details emerge of political concerns in aftermath of consulate attack that killed ambassador Chris Stevens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/benghazi-state-susan-rice-talking-points?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position4

Uhm... I never accused you of being either Republican or Democrat.  I was alluding to the fact that the Republican canard has somehow infiltrated your thinking to the point that you're finding credence in this conspiracy talk when it has already been debunked by prior investigations... and independent ones at that.  The rest of talk about one party being more pristine is a red herring.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2013, 11:22:02 AM »
Toppa... from the link you provided

Quote
A congressional official who reviewed 100 pages of emails and the 12 pages of talking points said former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about the talking points, writing that they "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill". The reference to al-Sharia was deleted, but Nuland wrote later that night, "these don't resolve all my issues and those of my building leadership, they are consulting with NSS" – a reference to the National Security staff within the White House.

A meeting of senior officials was convened on the Saturday morning after the attack, to work on the talking points. The meeting included officials from the White House, State Department and CIA.

Deleted from the final talking points were mention of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya and Islamic extremists, according to the congressional official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the emails that have not been released.

It is important to pay attention to the details.  At first blush the allegations seem damning... then you look at the source.  The Guardian or some other independent agency did not review the documentation and arrive at their own findings.  Insteand they're just reporting the subjective analysis of "a congressional official".  Read a little further up in the article and you'll find that it was House Republicans who commissioned the report.  So this was likely a Republican "congressional official". 

It could be that what s/he reports is objective and factual, but given the nature of Republican acrimony to the Obama administration, that is unlikely.  It is highly irresponsible either way for the Guardian to suggest that the allegations are factual with a by-line like "New details emerge of political concerns in aftermath of consulate attack that killed ambassador Chris Stevens."  These aren't 'new details'... just old charges from a familiar source.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 11:23:37 AM by Bakes »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: White House in Benghazi Cover-up :O
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2013, 09:12:13 PM »
Toppa yuh see de same thing ah talking about?  Re-read what I posted last week above, and check out this link

Quote
No mention at all of State, no mention of “agency equities,” and no mention of “working through the talking points” at the Deputies meeting. Karl’s source made all of that up. As Jake Tapper pointed out, Karl and/or his source “seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.

The long email chain was not about State Dept. concerns, it was about concerns from almost everyone concerned, mainly about prejudicing the investigation. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s objection finally appears, it turns out that Jonathan Karl and his source took her words out of context, even cutting her off in mid-sentence.

Turns out somebody doctored some emails and cook up some story about "political concerns", then this fella from ABC News take it and rush off wile wile with it, and the Guardian take up de talk and broadcasting it as factual when it was anything but.  I tell allyuh since last week that upon paying closer inspection to the article there was shaky attribution, giving rise to questions about accuracy/authenticity.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 09:17:16 PM by Bakes »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile

 

1]; } ?>