Best Early Morning News Links
The Latest from The Lady
- #MoralMonday: @WRAL In Full CYA Mode For NAACP, Lefties
- #MoralMonday: Transparency Fail by Wake Sheriff, Courts
- #MoralMonday : June 10 Arrests Edition
- #StopCommonCore Raleigh Event A Big Success!
- Ricin Letters Update: Dutschke Trial Date Set
- @WRAL Beclowns Itself In Debunk Attempt of #MoralMonday Attendance
- #MoralMondays: June 10 Edition
- Jay Carney 2011 vs 2013: All Our Work Done In Email (video)
- #MoralMondays: The SEIU Factor
- #MoralMondays: Those who want to be arrested attend a ‘meeting’.
Past Musings from The Lady
Tag Archives: State Department
FOX news is reporting that some of the whistleblower witness names have been revealed:
Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
Liberty Speaks put together a list of potential names last month after Darrell Issa fired his warning shot for various agencies to ‘lawyer up’. Our list is based on the staff list in Tripoli from 9/12/12 and from the various cables made public.
Hicks is on the list of staff for Tripoli, Thompson and Nordstrom are not. Also, neither Nordstrom nor Hicks appears in either the alphabetical bio listing or ‘other bio’ listings at the State Department site. Not surprising on Nordstrom, but isn’t Hicks supposed to be a diplomat? I can’t find Hicks by title either. More on Hicks low visibility at the State Department below.
Here is what we have so far: Continue reading
In an advance issue of The Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, Stephen Hayes lays out new evidence that members of the Obama administration actively lied about who was responsible for the death of four Americans. The Weekly Standard has obtained emails detailing how high level officials made changes to the CIA talking points, effectively erasing Al Qaeda from the picture.
“The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.”
This is a very detailed and long article with a lot of unwritten questions in it. Questions I will pose here, so I urge you to read it all before proceeding with the remained of this post.
In the first page of the article, Hayes says that there were emails turned over that had ‘stipulations’. The section, with emphasis added:
“The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”
Why an emphasis on Brennan? This administration has stonewalled, lied and spun Benghazi for over seven months. Suddenly now they turn these emails over, making Brennan part of the deal? Of all the things the White House could ask for, they ask for Brennan to be confirmed for CIA? Why? Was it to ensure that someone would be in place to protect this administration’s narrative on Benghazi and the President’s alleged non-role in decision making that night?
Bear in mind that the active head of the CIA at the time of the attacks was Petraeus. The scandal surrounding Petraeus’ affair was kept on the backburner until after the election, but put into public view last year on November 7th when Petraeus resigned. It it plausible the timing was coincidence, however more likely the administration wished to keep him from testifying, as well as keep Benghazi out of the limelight until after the election – although he did testify at a later date. By then the media had everyone focused on the scandal and not Petraeus’ role at the CIA and Benghazi.
In fact, it was Mike Morrell who would end up testifying for Petraeus in closed door sessions first – the same one that The Weekly Standard article cites as being the one who changed the talking points: Continue reading
I recently reported Panetta’s incredible statement that the President was not around during the night of the Benghazi attack. Now, it’s confirmed. The night four Americans were murdered at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, President Obama was not involved. No calls were made by him nor did any instructions come from him as an over 8 hour engagement raged at our consulate. Was he just too busy getting some shut-eye so he could jet off to Vegas the next day?
Utter dereliction of duty:
President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.
“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.
“We still don’t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn’t talking to,” Mr. McCain said.
(Source: Washington Times)
More deck chair shuffling.
So now we are to believe that the Commander-in-Chief was briefed and then just went missing while Americans fought for their lives abroad? Remember, this past Fall this administration made the claim that the President not participating in the ongoing Benghazi investigation. This disinterest and lack of participation easily can be viewed as the first step in protecting the President from future fallout. That begs the question: Is this recent declaration a move to further insulate the President from coming revelations by removing him from the equation completely? It would certainly seem so. If this was a Republican President who just admitted this, we’d already be gearing up for impeachment.
Gross negligence or willfully dismissing the events – to borrow from Mrs. Clinton, “What difference does it make?” No matter how you try to put this one in context, the President was AWOL from his primary job: defending Americans and their interests.
We are pretty sure at this point that Ambassador Stevens was involved in the running of guns and weapons to Syria; some with the assistance of the Turkey. This scenario is a likely tie in with the White House now standing firm that the President had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 in Benghazi.
More from NiceDeb: Senator Graham: “Benghazi Was About Breakdown of Security, Failure of Leadership, and a Prez Who Was Virtually Disengaged” (Video)
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) held a press conference, today, to make a statement in response to Obama’s letter acknowledging he did not call anyone in Libya on September 11, 2012 during the 8 hours the U.S. mission was under attack. He didn’t pick up the phone to call any government officials in Libya until Sept. 12, after everyone was dead.
If it were not for the three of us and other colleagues, you would still believe – the American people would still believe that this was a spontaneous event caused by a hateful video, Graham told reporters. “That’s what was being told by Susan Rice five days after the attack, that’s what was being said by the POTUS for weeks. The reason we know that’s not true, is because we dug, and we pushed, and we prodded. And now we know, that during the entire attack, POTUS never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office into the mix, and there’s no stronger voice in the world than the President of the United States.”
Video via NiceDeb:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hYA9MJ2MpUc]
“The record needs to be clear”, Graham continued, “this was not about a hateful video, it was about a breakdown of national security, it was about an ambassador who was begging the State Dept. to send reinforcements for months, this was about a deteriorating security situation, this is about a attack you could see coming, this is about a complete failure of leadership Sec of Defense never talked to the Sec of State, and a President who as far as we know was virtually disengaged.”
He concluded, “America needs to learn what happened, and we need to learn from our mistakes.”
Yes, we do need to know what happened — with the White House confirming this President,in essence, blew off his job, the time to request an independent counsel has come.
Still more from Politico:
President Barack Obama did not speak with Libyan leaders as the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under way last September, the White House acknowleged Thursday in a letter to lawmakers.
White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did reach out to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf at Obama’s request on the same day the attack began, but Obama didn’t personally call the Libyan leader until the following night.
“Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the president on the evening of September 11, 2012 to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory. At that time, President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation,” Ruemmler wrote. “The President spoke to President Magariaf on the evening of September 12.”
The big story here is that our President was absent as an act of war was committed but the other big story here is that, according to this letter, Hillary Clinton was the only one on record having communicated with Libyan officials. Now that she’s gone, the narrative is being steered her way. Convenient.
Flashback to Obama on Responsibility:
Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: “When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.” (Source: FOX)
The buck stops here…or in my bed or Vegas. Whatever.
In an interview that aired today, President Obama said that “if we find out that there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job” regarding the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, “then they’ll be held responsible.” (Source: ABC)
Well, funny he should say that since HE was the one not doing his job.
Small wonder we have no photos from the situation room that night. According to the White House, he wasn’t even there. This confirmation of his absence makes his junkyard dog act at the press conference where he defended Susan Rice all the more insulting. The President stood in the room and defended a woman he sent out to lie to the American people, but the lie about the YouTube video wasn’t the only lie. She was out there distracting from the fact he was nowhere to be found during the attack.
Flashback: Obama the next day… (Transcript here.)[youtube=http://youtu.be/rKC_dzl3ksA]
…and then he jetted off to Vegas.
More from LL1885 on Benghazi here and here. Continue reading
As I stated last week via the NY Times article, it looked to me like these folks were being paid off by being put on administrative leave. Emphasis added:
Oh hey, look…Some resignations! With the Accountability report also came four resignations. Four is a nice round number to take the blame for what was ultimately the role, responsibility and fault of the President and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the number if more symbolic – four resignations for four murdered Americans. NY Times:
Eric J. Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, resigned. Charlene R. Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security, and another official in the diplomatic security office whom officials would not identify were relieved of their duties. So was Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who had responsibility for North Africa. The four officials, a State Department spokeswoman said, “have been placed on administrative leave pending further action.”
I want to know who the other official they would not name is. The article says they resigned or were relieved of duty, yet they are placed on administrative leave as well? Does that mean they’re being paid for their trouble of playing the part of scapegoats?
The NY Post confirms my suspicion:
The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned.
The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.
The four were made out to be sacrificial lambs in the wake of a scathing report issued last week that found that the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, was left vulnerable to attack because of “grossly inadequate” security.
Someone in the three-ring circus of Congressional Committees better fire up the Subpoena machine and get Hillary before she can plead the 5th. By the way, where are all the survivors of Benghazi? Continue reading