The Real Story About Benghazi in Libya

[David Guyatt]

Oh, the irony. Or is it hypocrisy? Or, will this story, once and forever, be the textbook example of why a democracy needs a First Amendment INDEPENDENT press?

An independent press would be a wonderful thing for sure. I'm not sure how we could ever get there, the way things have developed, but I'd be all in favour of the idea.

[Drew Phipps]

from news 7/10/14

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/10/co...d%3D499543

Commanders suggest a 2nd group in Benghazi attacks

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Well-trained attackers executed the deadly dawn assault on a CIA complex in Benghazi, Libya, suggesting different perpetrators from those who penetrated the U.S. diplomatic mission the previous night, according to newly revealed testimony from top military commanders. The initial attack, on Sept. 11, 2012, killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and communications specialist Sean Smith and set the mission ablaze. Nearly eight hours later at the CIA complex nearby, two more Americans, contract security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in a mortar attack that showed clear military training, retired Gen. Carter Ham told Congress in closed-door testimony earlier this year. The House Armed Services Committee released the testimony Wednesday.

The second assault probably was the work of a new team of militants who had seized on reports of violence at the diplomatic mission the night before and hit the Americans while they were most vulnerable, according to testimony that could clarify the events. The testimony also reveals how little information the military had on which to base an urgent response. Bitter recriminations in the U.S. followed the 2012 attacks, including Republican-led congressional investigations and campaign-season denunciations of the Obama administration, which made inaccurate statements about the Libyan attacks. The testimony released Wednesday underscored a key detail that sometimes has been lost in the debate: that the attacks were two distinct events over two days on two different buildings, perhaps by unrelated groups. The U.S. government still has not fully characterized the first attack in which, according to Ham and eight other military officers, men who seemed familiar with the lightly protected diplomatic compound breached it and set it on fire, killing Stevens and Smith. A disorganized mob of looters then overran the facility.

In testimony to two House panels earlier this year, the officers said that commanders didn't have the information they needed to understand the nature of the attack, that they were unaware of the extent of the U.S. presence in Benghazi at the time and they were convinced erroneously for a time that they were facing a hostage crisis without the ability to move military assets into place that would be of any use. To this day, despite the investigations, it's not clear if the violence resulted from a well-planned, multiphase military-type assault or from a loosely connected, escalating chain of events. Two House panels - Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform - conducted interviews with the nine officers on separate days from January to April.

In their testimony, military officials expressed some uncertainty about the first attack, describing protests and looting in an assault that lasted about 45 minutes. The military attache to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli told Congress the first attack showed some advance planning. The Libyan police officer guarding the diplomatic compound fled as it began. The defense attache, whose name wasn't released, suggested the attackers "had something on the shelf" - an outline of a plan based on previously obtained information about the compound and its security measures, so they were ready to strike when the opportunity arose. "They came in, and they had a sense of purpose, and I think it sometimes gets confused because you had looters and everyone else coming in," he said. "It was less than kind of full, thought-out, methodical."

Ham testified that the second attack, which killed Woods and Doherty at the annex a mile from the diplomatic compound where the assault began the night before, showed clear military training. It was probably the work of a new team of militants, taking advantage after reports of violence at the first site and American vulnerability. "Given the precision of the attack, it was a well-trained mortar crew, and in my estimation they probably had a well-trained observer," said Ham, who headed the U.S. command in Africa. The second attack showed "a degree of sophistication and military training that is relatively unusual and certainly, I think, indicates that this was not a pickup team. This was not a couple of guys who just found a mortar someplace."

Ham said the nearly eight-hour time lapse between the two attacks also seemed significant. "If the team (that launched the second attack) was already there, then why didn't they shoot sooner?" he asked. "I think it's reasonable that a team came from outside of Benghazi," he said of the second attack in testimony on April 9. Violent extremists saw an opportunity "and said, `Let's get somebody there.'" He also acknowledged that the absence of American security personnel on the ground soon enough after the first attack "allowed sufficient time for the second attack to be organized and conducted," he said.

Stevens had gone to Benghazi from the embassy in Tripoli to open a cultural center, State Department officials said.

The attacks came as President Barack Obama was in a close re-election battle, campaigning in part on the contention that al-Qaida no longer posed a significant threat to the United States and that, blending the economy and the fight against terrorism, General Motors was alive but "Osama bin Laden is dead." A terror attack on American assets could have damaged that argument. Five days after the attack, after feverish email exchanges about her "talking points" among national security staff members and their spokesmen, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice linked the Benghazi attacks to protests in Tunisia and Cairo over an anti-Islam video. Weeks later, U.S. officials retracted that account but never fully articulated a new one. Republicans seized on the inaccuracies, contending that the Obama administration was covering up a terror attack for political gain.

Several congressional and independent investigations have faulted the State Department for inadequate security, but they have not provided a full reading of who was involved in the violence, what the motives were and how they could pull off such a seemingly complicated, multipronged assault. People on both sides of the debate tend to link the two incidents as one attack. The congressional testimony that distinguishes the attacks came from military officials in Tripoli or, like Ham, coordinating the response in Washington. Most have never given a public account. But they agreed that confusion reigned from the outset.

"We're under attack," was the first report the military received from Benghazi. That message came from Stevens' entourage to Tripoli in the late afternoon of Sept. 11. Word was relayed to the defense attache, who reported up the chain of command. That report gave no indication about the size or intensity of the attack. The defense attache testified that the assault on the diplomatic mission was followed by a mob that complicated and confused the situation. He said of the original attackers, "I don't think they were on the objective, so to speak, longer than 45 minutes. They kind of got on, did their business, and left." For hours after that, he said, there were looters and "people throwing stuff and you see the graffiti and things like that."

Once the first attack ended around 10 p.m., the military moved to evacuate Americans from Benghazi, while preparing for what it erroneously believed might have been an emerging hostage situation involving Stevens. In fact, Stevens died of smoke inhalation after the diplomatic post was set on fire in the first attack. Seven-and-a-half hours later, at dawn, mortars crashed on a CIA compound that had been unknown to top military commanders.

The military worked up a response on numerous fronts. At one point, fewer than 10 U.S. military personnel in Libya were grappling with the mortar and rocket-propelled grenade attack on Americans who had taken cover at the CIA facility and, some 600 miles away, the evacuation of about three dozen people from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli by a convoy of armored vehicles. An unarmed Predator drone conducting an operation nearby in eastern Libya had been repositioned over Benghazi, yet offered limited assistance during the nighttime and with no intelligence to guide it. A standby force training in Croatia was ordered to Sicily, while another farther afield was mobilized. Neither was nearly ready in time to intervene during the first 45-minute attack and couldn't predict the quick mortar attack the next morning. An anti-terrorism support team in Spain was deployed, though it, too, was hours away.

American reinforcements of a six-man security team, including two military personnel, were held up at the Benghazi airport for hours by Libyan authorities. Drone images and intelligence hadn't provided indications of a new attack, but word eventually came from two special forces troops who had made it to the annex and reported casualties from the dawn attack up the chain of command. In Tripoli, military and embassy officials were evacuating the embassy there and destroying computer hardware and sensitive information.

The administration last month apprehended its first suspect, Ahmed Abu Khattala, and brought him to the United States to stand trial on terrorism charges. The Justice Department maintains in court documents that Abu Khattala was involved in both attacks, and it describes the first breach on the diplomatic post as equally sophisticated. The government said a group of about 20 men, armed with AK-47- rifles, handguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, stormed the diplomatic facility in the first attack. Abu Khattala supervised the looting after Americans fled, the government says, and then returned to the camp of the Islamist militant group Ansar al-Sharia, where the Justice Department says a large force began assembling for the second attack. The Justice Department provided no supporting documentation for those conclusions.

They also reflect the divisions among current and former government officials about the two attacks. In her book "Hard Choices," former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote that there were scores of attackers with different motives. "It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well."

Abu Khattala's lawyer says the government has failed to show that he was connected to either attack. Ham, who happened to be in Washington that week, briefed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. They informed the president. Many of the military officials said they didn't even know about the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, let alone the CIA's clandestine installation nearby. Few knew of Stevens visiting the city that day. Given all of the confusion, Ham said there was one thing he clearly would have done differently: "Advise the ambassador to not go to Benghazi."

[Dawn Meredith]

Oh, the irony. Or is it hypocrisy? Or, will this story, once and forever, be the textbook example of why a democracy needs a First Amendment INDEPENDENT press?

From news 5/6/14:

"Media Matters chairman David Brock is urging top CBS News executives to reopen the network's internal investigation over its discredited "60 Minutes" report on the Benghazi attack."

(You might remember the story as the one where a guy pretended to have been there and then later it turned out that he told the FBI he wasn't there.)

"Re-opening the investigation is warranted as it now appears that CBS' internal investigation was not thorough, was wrong on critical points, and omitted key facts -- facts that would have revealed that Logan's report was tainted by partisanship and unprofessional conduct," Brock wrote.

Lara Logan, the network's chief foreign correspondent, and Max McClellan, her producer, went on leave following the network's internal review and have not returned. A New York magazine report, published Sunday night, has renewed interest in the network controversy and provided new details about how the erroneous Oct. 27 story -- which featured a discredited "eyewitness" and several unsourced claims about the September 2012 attack that killed four Americans -- ever made it on air.

Brock, a right-wing Clinton antagonist in the 1990s, turned left and went on to found Media Matters and super PAC American Bridge. He recently started Correct the Record, a new initiative to defend Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of State at the time of the Benghazi attack. In October, Brock wrote "The Benghazi Hoax," an e-book examining how Republicans and conservative media have promoted what he considers a "phony scandal."

I loved his book "Blinded By the Right". But I also find it hard to believe that a person can make such radical changes in his or her belief system. I loved especially what he wrote about that alien entity Ann Coulter. (That she lives on wine and cigs.).

Dawn

[Drew Phipps]

Oh, the irony. The US's illegal arming of Syrian rebels that probably (but not officially) sparked the Benghazi incident is now going to be posthumously legitimized.

From news 9/17/14

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/17/wa...d%3D530522

Wary lawmakers ready to OK arms for Syrian rebels


Sep 17th 2014 11:41AM

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wary House lawmakers prepared to give President Barack Obama authority to arm and train Syrian rebels in the fight against Islamic State militants Wednesday as Iraq's new prime minister dismissed the notion that the struggle could lead to U.S. forces again fighting on the ground in his country. "Not only is it not necessary, we don't want them. We won't allow them," Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Congress appears inclined to give Obama the authority he wants - the first vote was likely in the House on Wednesday - but lawmakers are sharply divided over whether the U.S. should be doing more or less. Some Republicans contend that Islamic State militants occupying large portions of Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated without U.S. ground troops backing up airstrikes in Iraq. Many Democrats oppose resuming a war in Iraq that the U.S. exited three years ago.

The White House was quick to reject a suggestion by the nation's top military officeer, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, that he might recommend U.S. ground troops if Obama's current strategy doesn't work. Top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi repeated Wednesday that she wouldn't support combat troops on the ground. Obama's more-limited approach seemed headed for approval.

"If we want to open a front against (Islamic State forces) in Syria, we have to open a front. And I don't see any other way to do it than try to build an alternative force," said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "No one's excited about it but, you know, it's the best from a series of bad options."

Republican leaders have swung behind Obama's request, though they're not pressuring the GOP rank and file to follow suit. "I think there's a lot more that we need to be doing, but there's no reason for us not to do what the president asked us to do," Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. Pelosi, D-Calif., also supports the limited mission, as does Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The measure would send U.S. military trainers to Saudi Arabia to arm and train Syrian opponents of Islamic State militants, who have routed U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces repeatedly and threaten the viability of the government in Baghdad.

Obama has also vowed to use air power to strike Islamic State militants but has maintained repeatedly that American forces will not have a renewed ground combat mission in Iraq in this new phase of a long battle against terrorists. However, in a Senate hearing Tuesday, Dempsey said U.S. ground troops may be needed to battle the Islamic State group. Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that if Obama's current approach isn't enough to prevail, he might "go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of ground forces."

That drew a polite but prompt rebuttal from the White House. Obama "will not deploy ground troops in a combat role into Iraq or Syria," spokesman Josh Earnest said. The White House position was endorsed on Wednesday by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi, who rejected the idea of any foreign combat troops on Iraqi soil, despite the presence of U.S. military advisers there now. At the same time, the Islamic State group released a video warning the United States that its fighters are waiting in Iraq if Obama sends troops there.

The short video shows images of militants blowing up tanks and wounded U.S. soldiers. It then shows a clip of Obama saying that combat troops will not be returning to Iraq, ending with a text overlay that reads "fighting has just begun." The new congressional authority for Obama's plan would be added to a spending bill that's needed to keep the government running into December and avoid a politically damaging repeat of last year's partial shutdown of government agencies.

The underlying spending bill would also:
-Renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank, which helps finance foreign purchases of U.S. exports, through next June. That postpones a battle between tea party forces opposing the bank and more establishment Republicans who support it.
-Provide $88 million for the government's response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. A much larger, $560 million request is pending that would send troops and detection teams, and build infrastructure such as a headquarters and new labs in Africa.
In committee hearings and the House floor debate on the Islamic State response, lawmakers in both parties spoke of concern that the United States would be unable to properly identify as many as 5,000 Syrian rebels who could be trusted to carry out Obama's mission in a region where religious and tribal loyalties frequently collide.

"We must ... ask ourselves if we can truly `vet' these rebel groups beyond their known affiliations," said Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., "and ensure we are not arming the next extremist threat to the region and the world."

(I'm moving to Indiana to vote for that guy.)

[Drew Phipps]

And the Senate follows suit. Isn't it amazing how a new enemy manages to convert illegal activity into legal activity?

From news 9/19/14:

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/18/st...d%3D532208

Strong Senate vote for Obama on Syria rebel aid

Sep 18th 2014 8:23PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the heat of an election campaign, Congress cleared the way for the U.S. military to train and equip Syrian rebels for a war against Islamic State militants Thursday night, reluctant ratification of a new strategy that President Barack Obama outlined scarcely a week ago.

The 78-22 Senate vote sent Obama legislation that also provides funding for the government after the end of the budget year on Sept. 30, eliminating any threat of a shutdown. The House approved the bill on Wednesday. In an appearance at the White House soon after the vote, Obama said he was pleased that a majority of both Republicans and Democrats had supported the legislation. "I believe we're strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together," he said. Noting the killing of two Americans by the Islamic State group, he said that "as Americans we do not give in to fear" and would not be put off by such brutal tactics.


In the Senate, 44 Democrats, 33 Republicans and one independent voted for the bill, while 9 Democrats, 12 Republicans and one independent opposed it. The issue created new fault lines for this fall's elections for control of the Senate as well as the 2016 race for the White House. "Intervention that destabilizes the Middle East is a mistake. And yet, here we are again, wading into a civil war," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. laying down a marker for Republican presidential primaries still more than a year distant.

Sen. Mark Begich, in a difficult re-election campaign, said, "I disagree with my president" on the wisdom of having the U.S. military become involved. "It is time for the Arab countries to step up and get over their regional differences" and be more aggressive in the fight against terrorists, the Alaska Democrat said, drawing a quick rebuttal from Republican rival Dan Sullivan. Combining approval for aid to the rebels with funds to prevent a government shutdown into a single vote made it difficult to measure support for Obama's new military mission.

For a second straight day, the administration dispatched top-ranking officials to reassure lawmakers - and the public - that no U.S. ground combat operation was in the offing. Obama made the same promise in an address to the nation eight days ago laying out his new policy - and repeated it Thursday night. His new strategy includes increased airstrikes in Iraq and the possibility of strikes in Syria. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told one House committee that Obama "is not going to order American combat ground forces into that area."

Appearing before a different panel, Secretary of State John Kerry said the administration understands the danger of a "slippery slope." The term was widely used a half-century ago as the United States slid ever deeper into a Vietnam war that eventually left more than 50,000 U.S. troops dead. Obama's general plan is to have U.S. troops train Syrian rebels at camps in Saudi Arabia, a process that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said could take a year.

The president already has said he will use existing authority to have the Pentagon deploy airstrikes against Islamic fighters in Syria as well as in Iraq. From halfway around the world came a chilling reminder from militants who already have overrun parts of Syria and Iraq and beheaded three Westerners. This time, the Islamic State group released a video showing a British journalist who said he was their prisoner. In Washington, leaders in both political parties supported the Senate legislation, draining the debate of all suspense.

Asked about approving Obama's plan in the wake of the war in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Iraq was a mistake. I was misled and I voted wrong. But this is not Iraq, this is a totally different thing." Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also favored the legislation, yet said it must be followed by a top-to-bottom review of the administration's global military strategy. Senate liberals split. Both lawmakers from Kerry's Massachusetts, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, opposed the bill.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Obama proposed a moderate, middle course between doing nothing in response to a terrorist threat and refighting the Iraq war. "Every civilized person has to stand up against this," she said. In Alaska, the Republican challenger, Sullivan, said Begich's approach "encourages our enemies. Saying no to everything is not foreign policy." While Democrats expressed fears that the legislation could lead the nation back into a war, some Republicans were skeptical that Obama's strategy was strong enough to prevail.

As a result, the legislation provided a narrow grant of authority that will expire on Dec. 11. It specifically stops short of approving the deployment of U.S. forces "into hostilities or into situations where hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances." The expiration date means Congress will return to the issue in a postelection session scheduled for mid-November. The vote in the House on Wednesday giving Obama authority to train rebels was 273-156. More Democrats, 85, voted to defy the president than Republicans, who cast 71 votes against the policy advanced by a commander in chief they distrust.

[Drew Phipps]

A new lead in this story. Hilary Clinton communicated by emails (which are currently being released under court order) with, or at least received email briefings from, Sydney Blumenthal about the Libya situation. It is said that Blumenthal represents a group of entrepreneurs interested in Libya business opportunities. Apparently, the group is called Osprey Global Solutions, LLC. Here is a link to that company's web site: http://ospreyglobalsolutions.com/

If you browse that website, it kinda looks like a private army, a private arms dealer, with a private intelligence service, as well as lobbyists and specialists in government contracting.

Osprey CEO: David L. Grange is a retired United States Army Major General. He served with the 101st Airborne during the Vietnam War. He was later assigned to Delta Force, commanding a squadron during the invasion of Grenada and was deputy commander during the Gulf War. His last command was of 1st Infantry Division before he retired in 1999.

Here is a list of Osprey's "business partners:" "Industry Partners

3PMT, Alvarez and Marcel, AWHERE Inc., Barron Designs Inc., Boone, C1 Finanical Ventures, Defense Logistics Support, DTN-Forensics, Elite (SIPS), EOD Technology, ETA, Granite, Hinds Community College, Honeywell, International Institute, Jacobs, Janus Research Group, Klox, Land Rover, Lovelace Respiratory Lab, Magis Group, MARBIONC, National Forensic Science Technology Center, Navstar Inc, NC Global Transpark, NTC of Libya, OceanSafe, Ohio Ordnance Works, Osprey Italia, Pinnacle Performance Group, PPD, ProSol, Proxy Aviation, Rapid Fabrication, Raptor Detection Technologies, Reliant Global Solutions, Ridgeback Ltd., Royal Oaks, SAIC, Salient Arms International, Silent Partner, Tactical Development Group, Tatilek, TigerSwan Unc., Titan Altlas, Trans America, Trusa, Typhon, UNC Biometrics, Warsport "


It is the BS explanation of the underlying defining event (a mob angered by a video), that emanated from Hillary's State Department in the aftermath of the attack, that has raised so many questions about the event. Who actually had something serious enough to hide that justify a flimsy false cover story? Was the defining event that set off the attack on the Benghazi Consulate, a reaction to something the US government did, or was it a reaction to some off-the-books operation by a private contractor?

[Tracy Riddle]

I think it was a CIA gun-running operation (or some other black op) that went bad - that's always been my gut reaction. The CIA thought they were controlling some Islamic rebel groups, but they turned against them.