Benghazi Scandal: Obama's operation to smear whistleblowers

[_Kevin Graham]

Case in point, subgenius' brainless repetition of a well refuted talking point:

those who do not want to accept responsibility always utter this kind of nonsense...or they exclaim "what difference does it make?!?"

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment

[_Kevin Graham]

Here is the video footage of Hicks being cross examined. His argument that F-16's could have made a difference was based on what the Libyans told him? What an idiot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/2143813/

[_Kevin Graham]

Benghazi Again

The Republicans, apparently with nothing better to do, are still chasing their tails over the tragic events in Benghazi on September 11.

Actually, no. That’s not true. They’re chasing their tails over what happened after the tragic events of September 11. They’re mostly concerned that the Obama Administration tried to cover up the fact that this was a terrorist attack by a local militia (translation: local street gang) which aspired toward bad-butt Al Qaeda status. This is a pretty hard sell since, the day after the attack, the President called it an “act of terror.”

It does seem that the Administration’s talking points were massaged a bit after the President’s candor. This may have been attributable to the presidential campaign and the Administration’s desire to low-ball the Al Qaeda threat. If so, this was a venial, not a mortal, sin. It affected not one life. More likely, though, the wording was scrubbed as a result of the nature of the investigation going on at the time–it may have been deemed premature to announce that it was a pre-meditated act of terror. Perhaps the local militia lucked into a situation where they showed up at the consulate and found very little security protection. Hard to say. There were protests all over the middle east that night, ginned up by jihadis using the excuse of a near-unseen anti-Muslim You Tube video.

But let’s say the street gang had been casing the joint in advance. Who’s to blame for the lax security? This is the real substance of the case. Could it have been the Secretary of State? Undoubtedly, no. This sort of question is well below her pay grade. Could it have been the person in charge of embassy security issues? More likely, and that person resigned after the subsequent investigations…and even that might have been unfair for two reasons. Security was up to the Ambassador and Chris Stevens was well known for erring on the side of greater public access to U.S. facilities. Or, more plausibly, reason number two…

Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)

In fact, the Republicans are now, according to the Washington Post, back in their standard dilatory mode when it comes to producing a budget agreement because–wait for it–things are going pretty well in the deficit department. With recovery, there are higher tax revenues (up 16%) and lower government payouts for services to the unemployed, and the deficits are melting away. So the Republicans believe that they’ve lost their leverage to reduce government spending.

Reducing government spending–rather than speeding a recovery–was always the Republican intent. The evidence was just too overwhelming that reducing spending in a recession retarded, rather than speeded, a recovery. What the current, intellectually limited GOP really care about is: government spending=wasting money on the poor. Everything else is flummery and encrustation.

The sad thing here is that the Republicans are right, in part, about government spending. It is wasteful. There are far more efficient ways to do Medicare that would produce a better health care system for the elderly. Social Security disability is slouching toward scamdom. The Veterans Administration is a 19th century bureaucratic disaster. Unemployment benefits and food stamps should require some sort of return service from recipients. The list goes on…But rather than address the substance of those problems–problems that Democrats don’t seem very interested in solving–they obsess on the stupid: fixing on more-or-less budget debates, federal dictatorship fantasies and meaningless political ploys like Benghazi.

I suspect they won’t be a viable political party until they begin to focus on substance rather than emptiness.

[_Kevin Graham]

Fox Ignores Benghazi Witness Testimony Proving Obama Did Not Order Troops To "Stand Down"

Fox News ignored congressional testimony that confirmed military leadership ordered a small team of troops to remain in Tripoli in order to protect embassy staff there from possible threats during the September 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, instead baselessly speculating that the president must have personally told the force to "stand down."

During the May 8 congressional hearings on the Benghazi attacks, witness Gregory Hicks -- who was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks -- explained that his team had proposed that a small group of four special forces troops leave Tripoli to provide aid in Benghazi, but that they were not authorized to do so by Special Operations Command Africa, a division of the U.S. military:

REP. ROBIN KELLY: You said that four military personnel were told not to the board that plane and that this call came from Special Operations Command Africa. Is that right?

HICKS: That's what I understand.

Fox News ignored this portion of Hicks' testimony. On Hannity the night of the hearings, host Sean Hannity disputed Fox News contributor Juan Williams' accurate explanation that "the military made this decision" to baselessly speculate the president, as Commander in Chief, must have been involved in the decision making process to ask the special forces to remain in Tripoli:

HANNITY: Wait a minute, we don't have a Commander in Chief or chain of command, and that somebody along the way, we don't know who eight months later, made a decision and told them to stand down while Americans were under fire and getting killed in Benghazi?

The next morning on Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy continued this smear against Obama, claiming it was still a "big question" who made the decision, and that "to a lot of people's understanding, the only people who could say stand down would be the President of United States or the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta."

As The Wall Street Journal reported, diplomats on the ground the night of the attacks had learned of new threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to U.S. News that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security.

[_Kevin Graham]

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't

Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities. Much of that narrative was driven by Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, who portrayed her own struggles with bureaucratic red tape as evidence of an administration cover-up. Fox News' Special Report cited Toensing on April 29 in reporting on allegations that "the Obama administration is trying to intimidate potential whistleblowers into silence."

But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion. Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya. And he had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation. That, combined with the fact that other Benghazi survivors and witnesses have spoken to the FBI, the State Department, and Congress, dismantles the idea that the administration worked to keep Hicks or his cohorts from being heard.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz when the Utah Republican led a Congressional delegation to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period. Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

That's a significant difference, particularly when allegations of a "cover-up" are being thrown around. Hicks did end up speaking to Chaffetz without a State attorney in the room because, as he explained, the attorney lacked the proper security clearance. Hicks described the requirement that an attorney be present as unusual. The New York Times reported that a "State Department official said Mr. Hicks had been free to talk to Mr. Chaffetz, but that department policy required a department lawyer to be present during interviews for any Congressional investigation."

The State Department's internal investigators -- the Accountability Review Board (ARB) led by Admiral Mike Mullen and Ambassador Charles Pickering -- also spoke to Hicks. In fact, after Hicks sat down for his interview, he asked for a follow-up interview to expand on issues that he felt needed amplification. And he was granted one.

This was revealed in a brief exchange with Rep. John Mica (R-FL), who asked Hicks to describe his interactions with the ARB: (2:09:30 in the C-SPAN video)

REP. MICA: OK, let me go to chargé Hicks. Were you interviewed by the board?

HICKS: I was interviewed by the board.

REP. MICA: Were you able to convey all the information that you felt was necessary regarding this incident to the board?

HICKS: The interview took about two hours, and it was in my mind incomplete. A few days later I had a separate meeting, briefly, with the executive secretary.

REP. MICA: So you did have a follow-up meeting and you impressed that--

HICKS: With the board's executive secretary to amplify on some issues that had been discussed at the meeting. At the initial interview.

That really doesn't sound like the State Department, or anyone, was trying to shut Hicks out of the process. Really, if you're going to shut someone up, letting them talk to Congressmen and independent investigators is a bad way to start.

[_Res Ipsa]

It's very frustrating that it has taken so long to expose this cover up. We should have gotten to the bottom of this before the election. Better late than never.

Bottom of exactly what? Were you this outraged at Bush over 911?

[_bcspace]

Liberal media in full spin to protect Team Obama

[_Res Ipsa]

Yet another example of reality having a "liberal" bias. Or, more accurately, liberals have a reality bias....