#BENGHAZI: ‘At best a misinformation campaign, at worst a coverup’

**This story has been updated since posting**

Bombshells abound. Darrell Issa hit Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer this weekend with a look at some of the testimony to be given by three witnesses on Benghazi.

Video via NRO:


Some Key Articles and Reactions:

Sharyl Attkisson:

Hicks was number two to Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attacks. With Stevens in Benghazi on September 11, Hicks was the top Foreign Service official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. When the first U.S. compound in Benghazi fell under attack, Hicks reportedly took the frantic call.

“Greg, we are under attack,” Ambassador Stevens told Hicks on the phone. Those were the last words he heard from Stevens.

According to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who appeared Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Hicks recently testified privately to the House Oversight Committee: “I never reported a demonstration. I reported an attack on the consulate…I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everyone in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

There’s more, there were calls for help and for reinforcements from the ground and they were told ‘no‘:

Throughout the night, sources say Americans on the ground in Libya at times felt helpless and abandoned.

“We relied on Washington for dispassionate assessment,” one eyewitness told CBS News. “Instead, they [Washington officials] were asking us what help we needed. We answered: ‘Send reinforcements!’ ”

But they were told immediate help wasn’t available.

Embassy personnel say they repeatedly asked the Defense Attache on site in Tripoli for military assistance.

“Isn’t there anything available?” one Embassy official says he asked. “But the answer was ‘no.'”

“What about Aviano?” the official pressed, referencing the NATO air base with US assets in northeastern Italy. “No,” was the answer.

Two of the four Americans killed that night died hours after the first attack began.

Plus, assistance and input by the experts who should have been involved was blocked by senior officials of the Obama administration:

Another witness for Wednesday’s hearing, Mark Thompson, is a counterterrorism expert. He’s likely to address another sore spot surrounding the night of the attacks: the fact that the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource, the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). According to Rep. Issa, Thompson will testify that he was locked out of the process “even though he was the individual who was supposed to react to these kinds of things.”

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack. National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News the CSG was not needed.

“From the moment the president was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses,” said Vietor.

“The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. “The response process was isolated at the most senior level,” says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. “My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted.”

This administration left them there to die while they fought over talking points to keep up appearances that ‘Al Qaeda is dead‘. Read the whole thing.

Flashback: Obama has touted Al Qaeda is dead 32 times since Benghazi 

More reactions and details from FOX:

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.

“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials’ allegation “100 percent false.” A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.


“The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” he accused. Hicks added, “My jaw hit the floor as I watched this…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day.”

Michael Walsh, PJ Media:

No matter what happens with Darrell Issa’s congressional committee meetings this week, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Obama administration, and the cause is Benghazi. It’s impossible to overestimate the blowback that has been gathering steam for the past seven months, now about to erupt with full force. Few reputations will emerge unscathed, Obama’s presidency will be crippled, Hillary Clinton‘s 2016  candidacy will be destroyed — and perhaps some new heroes will be born.

One thing is for certain right now, it looks like Hillary lied to Congress and it does make a difference:


Recent Posts by LL1885 on Benghazi:

#BENGHAZI: Some Whistleblowers Revealed

#BENGHAZI: Whistlerblowers, emails and a coverup

Archived articles on Benghazi from LL1885 here.

Al Gore, Man of the People, Gets Paid Over $1 Million a Day to Sit on Apple's Board, $125,000 per hour
Newspaper Union Declares Koch Brothers Unfit to Own Newspapers
  • jim_m

    A news blackout on the outcome of Wednesday’s hearing will not be surprising.

    • 10-1 odds that the Obama admin will cook up a dandy “wag the dog” issue.

    • herddog505

      MiniTru has covered up Kermit Gosnell, who is arguably one of the worst serial killers in modern history. If they can cover that up, they can certainly cover up Benghazi.

      “What difference does it make?”

  • GarandFan

    You can be sure Barry will find something shiny to dangle in front of the Obamabots over the next couple of days.

  • Some seem to forget what Clinton said that day in the hanger:

    “Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by ‘an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.’


    • fustian24

      “With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?”

      Ooh. For a second there I felt like I had cankles!

  • Commander_Chico

    OK, we’ve been though this before. They asked for help, and there were forces mobilized but there was not enough time. Again. the US military is not available everywhere in the world like your local police department (if in fact your police department is available).

    The big complaint is that some committee in Washington, the CSG, was not convened? Seriously?

    • jim_m

      You don’t read very well do you?

      This complaint is that the admin knew it was a terrorist act from the start and failed to do anything to help the people in the consulate, failed to do anything to get these attackers after the fact, blame the attack on a video maker who they knew was not connected in any way, lied to the American public repeatedly and continue to hide what they knew and when they knew it.

    • The story has been updated, More help was being sent but were told not to go.

      Chico, you can continue to try and make something into nothing. You’re wrong on this one, just acknowledge it.

      Updates on my own blog.

      • jim_m

        It’s not Chico. It’s pvt Pyle

        • Chuckle.

        • I thought this was his candid portrait:

          • Boy, talk about rendering yourself incapable of conventional employment…

            How would it feel going around with a “NSFW” mask?

            And Rodney? Hate to complain, but this shit’s getting really juvenile. As a moderator, shouldn’t you be expected to be MODERATE?

          • But you’d be aghast if I deleted it…

          • I’ve deleted a number of my posts, when I realized that what I was putting up didn’t add to a conversation, or was actually making things worse.

            (And you should see some of my first replies on a lot of things, before I tone them down. Talk about adding gasoline to a fire…)

            I don’t have any problems with people deleting their OWN posts – it’s when you, as a moderator, start yanking others that it gets iffy.

            Come on, man. This pissing contest is getting pretty damn old. If you disagree with them, ignore their postings. As it is, what do you think you’re accomplishing?

          • Driving up the comment and page view counts?

          • Guess it’s easier to get into pissing contests in the comments than putting up actual comment-worthy content, eh?

            Well, whatever. Your blog (so to speak), your business model. Seems to me like you’d rather this site be known for content than snark, though.

          • herddog505


          • Commander_Chico

            That’s the Jolibee logo on the forehead.

      • When has our soi disant cognoscenti and veteran been right?

        • jim_m

          Self claimed veteran


          • soi disant modified both cognoscenti and veteran.

          • Brucehenry

            You and “moderator” Rodney may express doubt about Chico’s status as a veteran. However we all know there is absolutely no doubt that YOU never served. Ever. Active duty, reserve,or National Guard. You never served one minute in uniform. Instead, you went to an expensive private university on your parents’ dime.

          • fustian24

            Are you a politician?

            If not, I assume you will henceforth refrain from discussing political matters since you clearly have no standing.

          • Why looky, ‘tards of a feather flocking together.

          • jim_m

            And I don’t gloat about it either. You can go kiss face with Pvt Pyle as much as you like.

          • Brucehenry

            Neither does Chico, but he does sometimes mention that this commenter or that one has talked out of his ass about military matters, and he sets them straight about it.

            I only mention this because I find it unseemly that you would imply that the guy is lying about his service. Because there’s nothing lower, in my book, than a blowhard claiming to be a vet who isn’t one.

            The only reason you cast aspersions on this guy is because you can’t believe an honest-to-god veteran would have opinions about politics that you think he ought not to have. You have a funny idea of what it is to be an American, Jimbo.

            And so does your fedora-sportin’ snipsnipin’ sidekick, spouting, for the umptyleventeenth time, his oh so witty bon mot about Chico being a “soi disant cognoscenti” — which I had to teach the mighty intellect how to spell.

          • jim_m

            Because there’s nothing lower, in my book, than a blowhard claiming to be a vet who isn’t one.

            Agreed. And yes, I think that Chico is perfectly capable of being such a person. And contrary to your comment Pvt Pyle constantly carries on about his service and how entitled he is because of it. He has mentioned multiple times, without prompting, about his service, the benefits he feels entitled to regardless of what other Americans may be forced to perpetuate them, etc.

            Actually I do not find it that hard to believe that there could be a veteran that believes that only veterans should have the right to bear arms or opine on things military and national defense as Pvt Pyle has done multiple times.

            All kinds come out of the military, from John Kerry to Timothy McVeigh and as you can see not every veteran deserves respect. Their service deserves respect but not their person. Chico falls into that category. Unfortunately for him, he believes that his person is beyond criticism because he served.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever. Claiming that he is lying, or might be lying, about being a vet is below the belt, especially from two guys we all know never spent a minute in uniform, is all I’m sayin’.

          • jim_m

            When he presents the facts that show how Israel sponsored the Nakoula video or that GW Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and did nothing to stop it then I will stop. He makes lots of claims that he has no proof of.

          • Brucehenry

            Do whatever you want. Just further proof of the kind of man you are. For all here to see.

          • Jwb10001

            Calling people chickehawks in an attempt to disqualify their opinions is also below the belt. Especially the selective way Chico applies the smear.

          • Brucehenry

            The definition of “chickenhawk,” as I understand it, is someone who didn’t serve when it was their turn but just loves the idea of an aggressive use of military power now that someone else will be the one in harm’s way.

            Those who fit that description should be prepared to see that term applied to themselves. If they’re butthurt about it, screw ’em.

          • jim_m

            who didn’t serve when it was their turn

            Pvt Pyle applies it to all who did not serve. You and he forget that it is a volunteer, professional military that we have.

            I’ll have you know that even had I been inclined to serve when I was 18 I would have been under weight when I graduated High School and college (72 inches and under 140lbs). So if I would have been rejected, you and pvt pyle would have it that I cannot opine on any issues regarding national security and the military. Fuck both of you fascists.

          • I believe it’s time for the slug to show his DD-214.

          • …..


            Well, hell – got a spare rope? Maybe you can string me up while you’re at it.

          • Take as much rope as you want and do with it as you will.

          • Commander_Chico

            Rodney, I don’t doubt your service.

            I also don’t doubt, based on your demeanor here, you must have been a real popular guy in the wardroom. Real barrel of laughs.

            I bet they made sure they were ashore 15 minutes before you told them you were going on liberty, to get some distance.

          • I don’t believe a word that issues from your keyboard.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, anorexia is a good excu……er, um, I mean a terrible thing, LOL.

            No seriously, I have no problem with you expressing opinions on military matters, or legal matters, or astrofuckingphysics. And I don’t care that you never served in the military, neither did I.

            My only quibble is you calling this guy a liar because you don’t like what he says. Nobody here does that to you. You often tell us how many years you have worked in the healthcare field when Obamacare is being discussed. You often mention your business/accounting background when the subject is business/capitalism etc. Does anyone call you a liar when you do?

          • jim_m

            Elsewhere in the thread you state that Pvt Pyle never gloats, I find that to the contrary. He frequently rubs everyone’s noses in his claims of service.

            And I don’t mind him giving his opinion, however I take extreme exception to his BS, calling everyone who disagrees with him a chickenhawk, saying that people who have never served have no right to assert any opinions on military issues.

            And yeah, I was 6 ft 135# when I got out of college and I was the same height and weighed less in high school. I had to work hard to increase my weight (oh, for the return of those days!).

            And people have repeatedly questioned my health care background (note, that while I do have a health care background I also frequently supply links to data to back my statements up). Pvt Pyle has questioned my business experience. The difference between Pyle and the rest of us is not the claim to authority, but the claim that no one else has the right to an opinion.

            RM was a good example when he was here. He would cite from his experience without denigrating anyone else. Pyle does not do that.

          • Shut Up!
            They say by way of explanation.

          • Brucehenry

            What do you mean “when he was here”??!!?? Nothing’s happened to him, has it? I like that guy.

          • He’s given up commenting for a while, taking too much time from real life. I think he’s okay, overall…

          • jim_m

            RM announced that he was giving commenting up completely as it negatively impacted his personal life. He initially said that he would not be returning, many people implored him to not rule it out but I do not think it was effective.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, it’s true, I do gloat about my upcoming reserve pension. It makes me feel good that jim_m and Rodney will be paying for it.

            People who get wrapped up in whether some anonymous commenter on a blog is telling the truth about being a veteran are wrapped too tight. Neuroses galore on display. You can take or refute my factual statements about how the military actually works or is deployed. Usually I don’t see too much refutation about the facts I state.

            It’s true I despise chickenhawkery. I don’t usually apply the epithet individually, but to a general class of people who love wars as long as they or their kids don’t have to fight in them.

            Do you feel “silenced” by me saying “chickenhawk?” Aww, poor baby. Reminds me of feminists saying they are “silenced” by “white male privilege.” http://radtransfem.tumblr.com/post/24818439850/first-attempt-at-a-list-of-ways-for-men-to-use

            In other words, stop being pussies, step up and refute my facts. I will engage you point-to-point. Sometimes I’m slow because I am in SE Asia right now.

            There are a couple of bitter dudes on here getting their jollies off of little ad hominem attacks. Reeks of loserdom.

          • jim_m

            You want us to refute your fact? Please supply some. I have repeatedly asked for facts to back up your claim that Nakoula was paid by a foreign nation. All you have to back you up is your claim that the Joooos did it. Please, your anti-Semitism is not proof no matter what you think of the Jews.

            Anytime you want to know what loserdom looks like you can look in the mirror Leonard.

          • Commander_Chico

            I have only asked questions about who paid for the Nakoula video, why it was made and how this small time criminal became a filmmaker.

            If we can ask questions about Benghazi, why can’t we ask questions about that?

            The video reeks of black propaganda.

            I have also gone over the Order of Battle of US forces in the Mediterranean region many times in these discussions, and nobody has been able to show me how or where there were forces available and ready to respond to the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

          • jim_m

            BS. You made claims that he was a foreign agent or at the least being used by a foreign nation. Pony up the proof. I have asked for it before and this is the first time you have backed down by claiming this.

            The difference is that Banghazi actually happened. We can ask who and why. You have no evidence that any nation paid Nakoula. Show me the evidence.

          • The video reeks of a “Dammit, we’ve got to find an excuse for this attack, FAST!”

          • Jwb10001

            So many questions about the stupid video and yet none about the lying incompetent Obama Admin. Seems a bit one sided.

          • I see the soi dissant cognoscenti and veteran is also a wannabe Congressman who went back and revised and extended his remarks…

            Another classic case of projection as he accuses others of being too tightly wound.

          • At 6’2 and 155, I was skirting the lower limits in ’74.


          • Jwb10001

            And so some sort of selective use of the slur would be in order? I don’t think anyone here is butt hurt as you like to say. But your strong defense of Chico would indicate you think he is. Well if he’s butt hurt he should expect it after all he only slurs those he disagrees with so “screw him”

          • My two cents, if anyone cares – I take Chico at his word re service. He and I may disagree on things – but so what?

            It’s pretty much a given (as far as I’m concerned) that while your service may give you SOME insight on things, it doesn’t give you ALL insight… and the doctrine can change over the years so what is SOP in the ’90s may not be SOP now. I’ve been retired for a decade – there’s been a lot of change in the AF and AFR since then. All I can talk about is ancient history, so to speak. (lol.)

            I (for one) haven’t seen any real indication we could have launched a rescue. We MIGHT have been able to – and I think if we HAD simply started broadcasting on CNN there was an Embassy attack and we were sending a rescue, that might have caused the assholes attacking the Embassy to break off and run. Or a C-130 at 100 feet at 300 MPH might have gotten their attention and caused them to reconsider… at least for a time.

            And there are times that you tell the host country – “This is what we’re doing. Stay out of our way, please. We’ll file the paperwork during normal business hours.”

            But there’s also the question of WHY the Embassy security was de-emphasized over time… and who kept refusing to beef things up, given chatter that an attack was possible.

            So Chico disagrees? It’s his right, it’s his freedom. He doesn’t HAVE to agree.

            Was he in the military? WTF does that matter anyway? I’ll support him in that until I see some evidence otherwise, and disagreeing with his point of view isn’t proof.

            I don’t see anything unreasonable about what Chico posted – but the reaction’s kind of pissing me off.

          • Amusingly, your fellow ‘tard wrote:

            Rodney, I don’t doubt your service.

            Once again you demonstrate that what you know

            …two guys we all know never spent a minute in uniform…

            just ain’t so, Devon bruce.

          • Brucehenry


          • Brucehenry

            Thank you

          • Behold the slug doing what he claims to abhor.

            Project they very much indeed.

          • Sorry, Jim, I’m not seeing it that way. He’s stating an opinion. That’s his right. He’s obnoxious at times – that’s his right. It’s free speech.

            Saying you think he is someone who would claim to be a veteran when he isn’t – come on, man. I know you don’t like him, and don’t respect him. But that’s just off the wall, and insulting. (Which is your right also – but damn you look tacky doing it.)

          • A ‘tard opines:

            Neither does Chico [gloat about his claim of service]…

            Private Pyle, meanwhile, in his own words:

            Yes, it’s true, I do gloat about my upcoming reserve pension.

            Factual accuracy is a stranger to this ‘tard.

          • jim_m

            Alas for Bruce, his fellow traveler, Pvt Pyle, is not worth defending.

          • One can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.

          • Commander_Chico

            You’re putting a lot of energy into the trivial. WINNING!!

          • I’m taking a modicum of satisfaction in using the tard nation’s own words to choke them.

            Thanks for the ammunition, “Commander.”

          • Yeah. Winning on the internet and $3 will get you a cup of Starbucks. Woo-hoo.

            As I asked Rodney – what do you think you’re accomplishing with this pissing contest? If you’ve got a slow day and you’re bored, I can kind of understand the entertainment value – but I gave up trolling DU a long time back.

          • herddog505

            Late to this party, but I have to agree with Bruce. It may be that Commander_Chico was the sort of officer who gives that group of people a bad name, but we have no reason to doubt his word that he was one.

          • Downcheck for that. Sorry. I’m a self-claimed veteran – never ‘proved’ it here – want me to scan and send you a copy of my retired ID card?

            Or are you willing to accept my status because I agree pretty much with the sentiments here?

          • jim_m

            I’m willing to accept it based on your lack of self-righteousness about it.

            In fact I am pressed to think of when you have ever made a deal of your service (I did not recall an instance of your bringing it up). And that is the point.

            Even RM rarely made an issue of his service or of anyone else’s non-service. Chico makes it sound like not having served is some failing where you are forever excluded from being able to hold pinions on various subjects.

            As I said, one honors all service but only some service men are honorable. Chico believes the opposite, or so one infers from his behavior. Most people who have served in the military get the point that it was not about them but about serving the nation and its people. Chico clearly does not get that. He has said repeatedly that it was about his benefits.

            Now, it might just be me, but someone who serves solely for their own personal gain did not really care about his nation or its people and Chico pretty much demonstrates that daily.

          • I’ve mentioned it in passing a number of times, usually for background information in why I’m thinking something.

            And I’ll be honest, when I signed up, my own personal gain figured into the equation. Recession going on, the promise of GI Bill benefits down the line – a steady job looked pretty good for someone out of high school and no college prospects. That there was a tradition of some service in the family was a motivator too. And this was at the tail end of the VietNam unpleasantness, no more draft so I wasn’t obligated to serve lest I go to jail. I somewhat planned on going career – didn’t quite work that way, but 10 years Active and 13 years Reserve is sufficient for a pension… assuming the country remains solvent long enough for me to get it.

            (It likely will – but what looked like a nice sum each month when I retired might just be enough for a couple of meals at McD’s in a few years…)

            As far as Chico’s behavior goes – we’re all asses at one time, with some people. And from the love-fest I’ve observed between you two, I think you like to pick at him as much as he likes to aggravate you. It DOES take two to tango, so to speak.

            To question his service because he rubs us the wrong way doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about the community that’s grown up here.

            Add in deletion of Bruce Henry’s comments – and I’ve gotta admit I’m a bit concerned at the growing intolerance that seems evident. I’m not sure what’s going on with all that, but it doesn’t seem like a good trend. That’s the sort of shit you’d see over at HuffPo or DU.

    • fustian24

      Not enough time says who?


      Other sources suggest military sources were available and there was discussion at the time that the two special forces guys died when they left cover to laser illuminate the attackers. They’d only do that if they were promised air support.

      At the very least this is about stunningly bad judgement. Like rock stupidity from Hillary. Or complete incompetence. Take your pick. I like both personally.

      It’s clear that Hillary at least and maybe Obama’s people jumped into the middle of this, prevented the usual response teams from acting, and changed this from a terrorist attack to a protest that got crazy. Then they went out in public and lied to the American people.

      What bothers me is why?

      I think the notion that al Qaeda is still out there would be inconvenient to Obama, but not a game changer for his reelection plans.

      And for Hillary to evade responsibility for the lack of security there is child’s play for such an experienced liar.

      There has been quiet speculation that the administration was up to something illegal and very untoward in Benghazi that they really didn’t want to see the light of day. If true, this would explain many otherwise inexplicable facts:

      1. Why did they prevent military help when it was available?
      2. Why hasn’t anyone from that compound been interviewed? Where are these people and who are they?
      3. Why haven’t we lifted a single finger to bring to justice the murderers of our ambassador? As near as anyone can tell, we are doing absolutely nothing about this.

      The idea that they were up to something illegal explains a lot. Look for it this week.

      I would also remind Mr. Chico that Watergate was about a couple of clowns breaking into a campaign office. Nobody died. This is much bigger than that.

      If you’re fair minded, that is.

      • jim_m

        What bothers me is why?

        Why is because obama had already declared al qaeda to be dead.

        Why is because this was just weeks before the election and would be embarrassing for obama.

        Why is because they refuse to acknowledge terrorism ever happens, unless it is a white conservative. Just look at the lengths they have gone to construe the Ft Hood shooting by Major Hassan as “Workplace violence”. They have even had a hard time with the Boston bombing making sure that the terrorist in custody stopped talking, refusing to make any connection between the bombers’ radical islamic beliefs and their actions, etc.

        Why is because if this was terrorism it would lay the lie to 4 years of appeasing islamic fascists.

        • fustian24

          But that only matters if there is accountability. That would have been a two day story if the administration hadn’t gone out and so obviously lied to us.

          Since then we’ve had the Boston bombing and none of that has stuck to Obama, nor is the notion that we are at war mentioned almost anywhere.

          So, why did they panic this time?

          • Good question. Maybe because they…

            1. Ignored chatter there might be an attack?

            2. Didn’t want to be caught out in their ignorance?

            3. Manifestly DIDN’T want to have ‘Islamic Militants’ at the core of it?

            They should have remembered from Nixon – it ain’t the crime, it’s the coverup.

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t doubt there were warnings before the attack, requests for more security. That will come out. It is a State Department issue. Of course, budget and resources are limited.

            What “threat” out of the scores Diplomatic Security gets every day would be judged most severe? The one on Khartoum, the one in Sanaa, the one in Nairobi, the one in Ankara, the one in Basrah, the one in Benghazi? Hindsight is 20/20.

          • “Hindsight is 20/20.”

            Isn’t it always? And I agree with you that budget and resources are limited. But there almost seems a conscious decision to maintain a light security presence in Libya, whether as a ‘sign of trust’ or what I’m not sure.

            But yet – look at 9/11 and the persistent myth that Bush had ‘advanced warning’ yet let the attack go ahead anyway.

            I won’t go all truther here, but yeah, we DID have advanced warning – if a ‘It looks like Al Quaeda’s going to try an attack in the US’ with no further details could be ‘warning’ sufficient to stop what was going on.


            Well, we need to see what’s revealed. Bet there’s a good number of people in DC who are really hoping their individual asses aren’t caught in the spotlight on this.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, it might have been as a sign of trust. Many US embassies look like penitentiaries. Benghazi was where “our people” were supposed to be, right? Where the rebels against Ghadafi were strongest. Where they should have been our friends, right?

            To me, it just shows the futility of interfering in the first place.

            There will be scapegoats.

          • Yeah, I think Hillary’s going to be getting some bus-marks pretty soon. Lots of video with her in the hot seat, and people are going to remember it…

          • Jwb10001

            Sadly in this case it’s going to take some doing to get to 20/20 hindsight there are too many people working to save their asses. Right now I’d suggest were not even close but we’re making some progress. Chico’s favorite Chicken Hawk Cheney has come out and said that on GWBs watch the treat level went up every single 9/11 after 2001 and that assets were put on alert. But I guess we voted for change and it looks like we got it. Too bad for the 4 people in service in Bengazi.

          • Jwb10001

            Holy shit really? So do we spend money in England is the threat level there high? Do we have people in France? Any worries about attacks on our diplomats there? No way to shift funds to cover our people in Libya? If management of our State Dept is that bad the situation is worse than it appears. Everyone with anything to do with the allocation of funds should be fired on the spot. If the threat assessment was not taken seriously in a place as hot as Libya then the people that do that should also be fired post haste. This line of defense is even weaker than your other lines. Better go back to your sources for better talking points.

          • herddog505

            I seem to recall stories that the embassy in Vienna had more Marines than the one in Libya. It would be of interest to know what the average US ambassador’s protection detail is like. How many men were with Amb. Stevens again? After he EXPLICITLY warned that trouble was brewing?

            Commander_Chico has made much of the lack of available resources: “Oh, it would have taken hours – HOURS, I say – to scramble jets from Aviano! No point in even trying. Move along…”

            Left undiscussed is how long it would have taken BEFORE THE ATTACK to either get more Marines to Stevens, tell Stevens to hunker down in his embassy on (shall we say?) Red Alert until help COULD get to him, or get him and his people the hell out of the country.

            Instead, he was apparently left dangling. Now, he’s dead, and democrats don’t want to talk about it. “What difference does it make?”

            Here’s a conspiracy theory for you that came out at the time: Barry WANTED Stevens to be captured. That way, he could “negotiate” with the terrorists, perhaps through the mediation of our new pals in Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood. Oh, we might have to release the Blind Sheik, but that wouldn’t bother Barry, believing as he does that such figures really are victims of our WoT and not terrorist leaders out to get us. Win-win: he gets Stevens back and looks like a great negotiator, makes nice with the Muslim Brotherhood, and has one less terrorist in prison that makes us “look bad in the Muslim world”.

      • Jwb10001

        There was enough time and if Chico has anything like the military experience he continually tries to shove down our throats he knows it.

    • Jwb10001

      Are you kidding we can respond to a nuke missile launch in a matter of minutes but we couldn’t respond within a few hours to this? Are you sure you were in the military? One would think you’d be better informed on our capabilities. Hell I’ve been out for 40 years and even back then we could react damn fast if there was need. This line of defense is stupid at best.

      • jim_m

        Chico’sPvt Pyle’s tack has always been to characterize the military as slow, incompetent, incapable of prosecuting a war and that military lives lost in any conflict overseas are always wasted.

        He appears to think that the main purpose of the military is to generate government benefits for its members and nothing else

      • We can launch quickly, but unless you wanted to nuke the place, there may not have been better options ready… and usable.

        Emphasis on the ‘usable’.

        There’s a number of reasons why you can’t use a particular asset, ranging from it being down to no crew available to an inability to get the paperwork together (and the military RUNS on paperwork – even more so I understand) – to an inability to get clearance to fly.

        Personally, I think they should have said “Fuck it – we’ll file for clearance into their air space later” – but they were trying to be ‘sensitive’ to the Libyan government. Maybe they thought they all kept banker’s hours, and didn’t want to wake someone in the middle of the night…

    • fustian24

      CBS reports that fighter planes were an hour flight away.

      • Yes – but the problem there is clearance for military overflights. They’re really picky about shit like that. (There were, at least, methods used in the late ’70s for military medevac flights that might have been applicable – but hell, that was a long time back.)

        • Commander_Chico

          Plus it’s not like those crews had to be on alert. It’s not like SAC during the Cold War. If they are talking about Aviano, who knows what the crews were doing.

          • Yep. Gotta admit, though, I’m surprised on 9/11 there wasn’t SOME sort of higher alert posture, especially considering the locality and what was going on…

          • Commander_Chico

            Problem might be that squadrons have to deploy to SW Asia, and when they get back they are on a relaxed schedule.

            The only possible asset I see that could have possibly been used within the four-hour window was the USAF in Aviano or Incirlik if there are fighters there. And that would be a stretch – Aviano is still like 1000 miles away, Incirlik about 800. Fighter-bombers not have been appropriate given the environment – could not have just started dropping dumb bombs in the middle of Benghazi, for example. Would need some kind of forward air controller, laser designator, etc.

          • Private Pyle hasn’t been keeping up. Two of the DSS guys (former special operators) bought it while laser illuminating the mortar firing on the compound.

          • Commander_Chico

            They were not DSS.

          • jim_m

            Why should there have been any sort of posture? Our supine military posture is exactly what obama wants to project. Besides, he personally killed Bin Laden and al Qaeda is no more. Given those assurances from Dear Leader we should not have to have any higher alert.

          • Commander_Chico

            This is where military experience does play a role in understanding what was going on.

            It’s not a matter of a “supine” military posture. It’s just the human fact that you can’t keep all military personnel deployed or on alert all of the time, everywhere.

            Military people are generally stretched and tired enough by the wars, training, and inspections. It would have seemed excessive to have F-16 air crews on duty, on hot standby, away from their families in an airbase in northern Italy on a night in September 2012. Certainly bad for morale. Get it?

          • jim_m

            Actually, Pyle, I was referring to obama’s political posture with regard to the use of the military. Stick your supposed knowledge up your fat arse.

          • Considering the symbolic importance of 9/11, having folks on 30 or 15 minute standby and the jets ready might not have been a bad idea. As it is, you can get a cold C-130 into the air in about twenty minutes – if it was gassed and post-flighted properly. (At least the older H-models…)

            There’s a lot of shortcuts that can be taken – get power on the plane, re-pin the landing gear doors, pull the intake covers – and you’re about ready to go, you just need the pilots, then start the engines, check systems, and you go, checking things you can in-flight.

            It’s not something you’d make a practice of – but there’s a lot of redundancy in that plane…

          • LOL.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the way he thinks. “If we just bend over and spread ’em, yes, there’ll be some initial pain – but it’ll feel SOOOO good in the long run!”

          • Jwb10001

            If they are stationed in a zone as hot as the middle east why wouldn’t they be on alert? I suspect they are indeed on alert and if not they should have been after the situation in Cairo and all the turmoil caused by your favorite scape goat the video. Again not a very persuasive defense of your hero and his team of incompetents.

    • LiberalNightmare

      The big complaint is that some committee in Washington, the CSG, was not convened? Seriously?

      No, the big complaint is that Obama let 4 people die rather then risk his reelection by walking back his “I killed Al-Queda” talking point.

  • The Chicken Hawk Slur [yet again]

    The general form of the Chicken Hawk slur is that the opinions of those who have not served (or are not presently serving, or who are not serving in combat, or who are not serving in the infantry, or who have not been wounded…[it’s truly amazing how many conditions some of these ‘patriots’ can, and do, assemble.]) can and should be dismissed out of hand when it comes to matters of national defense and war.

    The first objection to this line of ‘reasoning’ is that we live in a Constitutional directly elected representative Republic which offers unlimited franchise to all of its adult citizens. Thus all adult citizens have a say in the election of representatives (directly in the case of Congressional Representatives and Senators, and indirectly [via the electoral college] in the case of the President) who determine national policy. Certainly some are better qualified in their opinions on certain matters than are others. Were it not so we’d all be seeking the legal advice of our barbers and the medical advice of our automobile mechanics. Yet neither barbers nor mechanics are denied the right to express opinions beyond their professional expertise. Do the proponents of the Chicken Hawk meme intend to carry it to it’s logical conclusion and exclude all the non-veterans from the electorate? Do they intend to allow only veterans to run for elective office? How do they plan on selling that Constitutional Amendment to the requisite 2/3rds of the states given that it will disenfranchise about 80% of our citizenry?

    The second objection is one of logical consistency. We find ourselves currently fighting wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. As a consequence it would logically follow under the Chicken Hawk theorem that only a veteran would be qualified to be President in such a time of war. Have the proponents of the Chicken Hawk meme all (mostly, at all) endorsed the only veteran remaining in the race? I, for one, haven’t heard any cries of “Ave, John, Imperator” from the sinistrosphere…

    It thus follows that the proponents of the Chicken Hawk meme are not really interested in a debate of the issues. Nor are they troubled by consistently applied logic. They in fact are seeking to shut down debate (which makes sense given how poorly they do in open debate).

    I find that despicable, and it’s proponents loathsome.

    • jim_m

      Bruce and Pvt Pyle are not interested in anything other than silencing dissent. They will use any tactic they can to do so.

      • So I’ve noticed.

        • jim_m

          There is no need to delete Bruce’s comments. It’s hard to have a conversation without them.

      • Brucehenry

        But it’s not an attempt to silence dissent to deny that a guy who claims, by virtue of past military service, to know something about military matters, actually has, you know, served?

        Do you know what “dissent” means, Jim? You and your buttbuddy are in the majority on these boards. It is Chico who “dissents” from the majority opinion here, genius, not you.

        Hey, whatever happened to that blog, anyway?

      • jim_m


        The dissent is from the government and the current administration genius.

        And I bussed tables in college but that doesn’t make me Gordon Ramsey. Pvt Pyle’s claims of knowledge are far beyond his pay grade unless he was a member of the joint chiefs.

        And finally, our democracy is based on the idea that the civilian is in control of the military not vice versa. You and Pvt Pyle would have us surrender that control.

        • Brucehenry

          You are replying to a comment of mine that has been censored, er, um, I mean “moderated,” by your fedora-sportin’ pal. See if you can use your influence to have it restored and we can continue.

        • Brucehenry

          You are replying to a comment that has been removed. Can’t converse if I’m not allowed to speak. Sorry.

          • jim_m

            Frustrates me too

          • Jwb10001

            Don’t get butt hurt about it, Jim asked to have your comments put back.

          • Brucehenry

            Butthurt is one word, not two.

          • Jwb10001

            Butt hurt is 2 words check your spell checker.

          • Brucehenry

            One word. Check your spell checker checker.

            Why does an old fo gey like me have to correct a young whipper snapper like you on these matters?

          • Shit. They’re deleting your comments now?

            Guys, I don’t like where that road leads.

          • Commander_Chico

            These guys are basically authoritarians who cannot tolerate dissent.

            And then they complain that our words of dissent are “silencing” them, like a bunch of post-modernist feminists. Classic authoritarianism.

          • jim_m

            Well, you would know about that.

          • Jwb10001

            Says the guy who resorts to the Chickhawk smear to shut people up. Sorry that doesn’t work for you any more.

          • And yet your spew remains here polluting the thread…

          • Brucehenry

            I’ll live

          • Yeah – but even though we’ve had plenty of disagreements, I don’t like seeing stuff ‘disappeared’. That’s the sort of shit you see regularly at LGF, HuffPo or DU – not usually on conservative sites.

          • jim_m

            Agreed. Unless the person really deserves to be banned there is no point unless it is completely over the top and/or offensive (for instance, wasn’t it Hugh who was making obscene comments about having sex with the wives and daughters of other commenters? That kind of stuff is clearly out of bounds.)

          • jim_m

            I’ll live

            No you won’t. Everyone dies.

            Now you have my happy thought for the day. 🙂

          • LiberalNightmare

            The trolls always whine

          • In this case, there may be justification.

          • Jwb10001

            I’ll go with my spell checker thank you professor.

          • Brucehenry

            “Humorless schmuck” is two words.

            “Butthurt” is one of these 21st Century interweb thingie words that teh kids use.

            Get it now?

          • Jwb10001

            Oh Bruce are you insinuating that I’m a humorless schmuck? Or are you just continuing to conduct grammar and spelling lessons? Every site has to have a grammar cop I guess.

          • Brucehenry

            No, see, some of these are, you know, jokes, see?

            Is this thing on?

          • Jwb10001

            Jokes are supposed to be funny, maybe the humorless part applies to ……

          • jim_m

            So you are saying that apart from your inability to spell you are also a humorless schmuck? (or should that be humourless?)

          • Brucehenry

            Tough room

          • A comedian died on Wizbang and no one cared.

          • jim_m

            Something happened to Paul Hoosen!?!?! Oh dear.

  • Now it’s getting a tad more interesting…

    “U.S. special operations forces in Libya could have saved Americans killed in the attack last Sept. 11 on the consulate in Benghazi but were told to stand down, a State Department whistle-blower has told congressional investigators.

    The testimony by Gregory Hicks, who will appear before a House panel on Wednesday, contradicts previous testimony by administration officials who have said all U.S. forces in Libya were deployed the night of the attack.

    Hicks was in Tripoli during the attack and became the top U.S. diplomat in Libya when Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/298093-whistle-blower-special-forces-could-have-saved-americans-in-benghazi#ixzz2SbhitxJa

    I’m making the possibly invalid assumption that he had staff that knew what was available and where.

    And that he’s contradicting the official line… wow.

    • jim_m

      Cue Pvt Pyle claiming that anyone who makes this claim simply does not know as much as he does about N Africa and military ops (including those who are active military or US officials in N Africa).

      It’s one thing for the government to screw up. Every admin since and including George Washington’s has. It is quite another to lie about it to the American people. That is the real problem. People who made the bad decisions ought to have repercussions and some may deserve to lose their jobs. Lying to the public is a means to avoid accountability. But then that is what the left wants, an obama admin that is free from any accountability.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yes, that is news. and it is new news.

      • New news only to those who haven’t been paying attention, oh soi disant cognoscenti.

      • jim_m

        What makes this new?

        It cannot be that a request for support was made and refused. That is very old news.

        It cannot be that there were troops available that could have come to the aid of the consulate, the attack went on for over 7 hours before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed, that travel radius alone suggests that someone somewhere was available.

        Or could it be that our very own former member of the Joint Chiefs, Pvt Pyle, doesn’t know everything about the deployment and status of troops overseas. Yeah, an admission of that fact would be news indeed.

        • Commander_Chico

          It’s news that there were SOF in Libya, do you have a previous report on that?

          • jim_m

            My statement was solely that with a 7 hour transit radius we had time to deliver assets to Benghazi. You have claimed repeatedly that we had nothing within that radius capable of doing anything.

          • Hope this guy’s got an eye out for buses. It seems likely to get him tossed under one…

      • Jwb10001

        No it really isn’t new news.

  • Starting to eat their own…

    (CNSNews.com) – When asked at a press briefing on
    Monday to say that two State Department officials set to testify in
    Congress on Wednesday about the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in
    Benghazi are “credible people,” State Department spokesman Patrick
    Ventrell would not do it.

    The two officials are Greg Hicks, who was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, and Mark Thompson, who was the deputy coordinator for operations in the department’s counter-terrorism division.


    Ventrell, by my reading of the transcript, danced around the question and wouldn’t come out with a straight “Yeah, they’re credible”, or “No, they’re not credible.”

    You’d THINK that the Deputy Chief and Deputy Coordinator would be ‘credible’, wouldn’t you? But if they are – then their testimony’s going to hurt like hell. If they aren’t – then it brings into question why they were holding their jobs in the first place.

    Rock, meet hard place. This is getting popcorn-worthy, sadly…

    • Pass out the live ammunition and let the circular firing squad commence.

  • Iduehe Udom

    This is never a tie to cover up… we don’t ask a woman to cover her kegs when she has put to bed in the market place…. Let the Obama administration be a thing of Joy to the populace and not a heart of grieve to the majority….. http://edu.unn.edu.ng

    • Thank you for sharing. Is there an English translation available?