JFK/RfK/Benghazi - a bloodless coup?

[David S. Brownlee]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

Edited October 27, 2012 by David S. Brownlee

[Ray Mitcham]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

David, may I suggest, if you haven't already read it, "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins?

[Len Colby]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

I'll vote reluctantly for Obama but find this episode distressing, requests for additional security were denied by the State Dept and people with in the administration made misleading comments about what happen for about 2 weeks. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were part of the plot?

[Len Colby]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

David, may I suggest, if you haven't already read it, "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins?

Not bad if read as a work of fiction.

[Ray Mitcham]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

David, may I suggest, if you haven't already read it, "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins?

Not bad if read as a work of fiction.

Only in your opinion, Len

Edited October 27, 2012 by Ray Mitcham

[Guest Tom Scully]

The Obama administration official reaction and communications in response to the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya were permiited by the administration to be crafted and distributed by the CIA because the "intelligence community" made it a priority to release as little information about what had actually happened and why, as possible.

Romney finally understood this during the third debate and stopped pressing Obama about it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/us-usa-libya-annex-idUSBRE89A02D20121011

......

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:42pm EDT

(Reuters) - A public clash in Congress on Wednesday over photographs depicting the location of a second, semi-secret U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya put the spotlight on a compound said to be more secure than the public American mission where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens died last month.

When State Department officials, describing the chain of events on the night Stevens and three others died in a terrorist attack, displayed commercial satellite images of the two U.S. facilities, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, sharply accused them of divulging classified material.....

The existence of the second compound has been widely reported in accounts of the September 11 violence in Benghazi, often being referred to as a "safe house" or "annex" to the temporary U.S. consulate. State Department officials at Wednesday's hearing said the photographs were not secret.

While the U.S. officials gave a fleeting public glimpse into the compound, they divulged little of substance on its purpose prior to the Benghazi attack, which has became an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign and the subject of multiple State Department and congressional probes.

Reuters, however, has learned some new details about it from U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity and the ongoing official probes.

They described the second facility as a significant and largely secret complex, housing diplomatic and intelligence personnel. Among their assignments was a high-priority inter-agency program to locate shoulder-fired missiles and other weapons loosed by Libya's 2011 revolution. That program is coordinated by the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

The compound also housed a seven-man U.S. "quick-reaction security team" that went to the temporary consulate after Stevens and others came under attack there, according to testimony on Wednesday.

The two sites were about 1.2 miles (about two km) apart.

BETTER DEFENDED

Several U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the second compound, which contained several buildings, including residential quarters for U.S. personnel, was far better defended than the temporary consulate where Stevens and IT specialist Sean Smith died.

After the consulate was overrun in an attack that began at 9:40 pm local time, U.S. and Libyan personnel retreated by car to the second site, where they fought off not one, but two, more waves of assaults, officials said....

(I watched the portion of the sham, Darryl Issa hearing when Kucinich was obtaining these answers, I had to switch the TV channel to C-Span because CNN immediately cut to a commercial break when Kucinich began his questioning.....)

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=310711

Al Qaeda “Presence [in Libya] Grows Every Day… They are Certainly More Established Than We Are.”

10,000-20,000 Shoulder-Fired Missiles on the Loose

Washington, Oct 10 -

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today elicited testimony in a Congressional hearing that Al Qaeda is stronger subsequent to the U.S. intervention in Libya. Responding to questions from Kucinich, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood testified that Al Qaeda’s “presence grows every day” and that “they are certainly more established than we are.” Lt. Col. Wood was Commander of the Site Security Team in Libya from February 12 to August 14, 2012.

In response to Rep. Kucinich’s questions about

missing shoulder-to-air missiles that were left unsecured in the destruction of the Gaddafi regime, Department of State Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom testified that “between ten and twenty thousand” missiles are believed to be missing in Libya. Modern military aircraft possess anti-missile defenses which are able to counter the Libyan missiles, but civilian, passenger jets do not have those defenses, making the jets vulnerable to terrorists.

Congressman Kucinich elicited this testimony while addressing the Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on “The Security Failures of Benghazi.” In his remarks, Congressman Kucinich said, “[W]e owe it to the diplomatic corps which serves our nation, to start at the beginning. The security threats in Libya, including the unchecked extremist groups who are armed to the teeth, exist because our nation spurred on a civil war, destroying the security and stability of the nation.”

“Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, made that argument to try to stop the war…You would think that after 10 years in Iraq and 11 years in Afghanistan, the United States would have learned the consequences and the limits of interventionism. You would think that after trillions have been wasted on failed attempts at ‘democracy building’ abroad while our infrastructure crumbles at home, Congress and the Administration would reexamine priorities,” said Kucinich.

See Congressman Kucinich’s full statement here. See video from the hearing

.

Congressman Kucinich led Congressional opposition to the war in Libya.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during ...

Fox News-Oct 26, 2012

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the.....

Remember our Mr. Davis, in Pakistan?

Full coverage - USATODAY.com

www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/.../pakistan22_st.art.htm

Feb 22, 2011 – Davis was attached to the CIA's Global Response Staff, which provides security overseas for agency bases and stations, former and current .

Arrested US Official Is Actually CIA Contractor : NPR

‎

NPR - Feb 11, 2011

Davis was attached to the CIA's Global Response Staff, which provides security ... Working for the agency's GRS comes with risks — sometimes fatal ones.

(NPR has scrubbed the actual Davis article from its website, above is text of a search result.)

In this matter, the Obama administration had been covering for the CIA and other U.S. intelligence operatives It is not what you suspect, but it is an election year and the repub branch of the Obomney campaign includes many zealots indoctrinated in the belief that there are two rival American political parties with wide gulfs between their agendas and visions. Barak Obomney loves Israel and wants to drone attack terrorists 23-1/2/7, Mitt Obomney loves Israel even more and wants to drone attack terrorists 24/7. Barak wants 12 aircraft carriers on line and Mitt wants 13. Barak wants a tiny economic stimulus and health insurance industry controlled insurance coverage for all, and as yet undisclosed cuts to Social Security and medicare, with taxes on the wealthiest and their estates increased to a level 40 percent lower than when JFK was president, and Mitt wants less economic and more military industrial stimulus, and he is an equally good friend to the health insurance industry and opponent to the best interests of the ill, the elderly and the 80 percent of the U.S. population who own just 12 percent of the wealth. Both are sponsored by big oil and opponents of any serious national mass transit plan.

The choice between Obomney and Obomney is enough for most Americans to pick a side and cheer for a team. Americans love bread and circuses as much as the Romans did.

[Len Colby]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

David, may I suggest, if you haven't already read it, "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins?

Not bad if read as a work of fiction.

Only in your opinion, Len

His claims would have been more credible if he’d claimed to have been working for the CIA, but he said he was doing his dirty work for the NSA which deels exclusively with signals intelligence. I must admit I did some hallucinogens when I was younger but Perkins took enough to come to believe “Shapeshifting can occur on three levels: cellular--transforming from human to plant or animal; personal--becoming a new self or leaving an addiction behind; and institutional--creating a new business or cultural identity.” Aparently he’s been taking them “since 1968” before he supposedly started working as an “Economic Hitman”. I imagine he’s fried his brain, perhaps he really believes what he wrote

http://www.amazon.com/Shapeshifting-Shamanic-Techniques-Personal-Transformation/dp/0892816635/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351389573&sr=1-5&keywords=john+perkins

“Only in your opinion, Len”

‘You, you may say I'm a cynic, but I'm not the only one’

Some of the book's critics have questioned whether Perkins makes a significant contribution to the debate on global finance and the development of the Third World. For instance, columnist

Mark Engler

of

In These Times

, has written that "the actual content of Perkins' admissions proves distressingly thin."

^[4]

According to the

New York Times

, "the book's popularity seems driven more by the mix of cloak-and-dagger atmospherics and Mr. Perkins's Damascene conversion" than by insight into "the larger issue of America's role in emerging economies."

^[5]

Columnist

Sebastian Mallaby

of the

Washington Post

reacted sharply to Perkins' book

^[6]

: "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." Mallaby, who spent 13 years writing for the London

Economist

and wrote a critically well-received biography of

World Bank

chief

James Wolfensohn

,

^[7]

holds that Perkins' conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and that his "basic contentions are flat wrong."

^[6]

For instance he points out that

Indonesia

reduced its

infant mortality

and

illiteracy

rates by two-thirds after economists persuaded its leaders to borrow money in 1970. He also disputes Perkins' claim that 51 of the top 100 world economies belong to companies. A value-added comparison done by the UN, he says, shows the number to be 29. (The 51 of 100 data comes from an

Institute for Policy Studies

Dec 2000

Report on the Top 200 corporations

; using 2010 data from the

CIA

's

World Factbook

and

Fortune Global 500

^[8]

^[9]

the current ratio is 114 corporations in the top 200 global economies.)

Other sources, including articles in the

New York Times

and

Boston Magazine

as well as a press release issued by the

United States Department of State

, have referred to a lack of documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate the claim that the NSA was involved in his hiring to Chas T. Main. In addition, the author of the State Department release states that the NSA "is a

cryptological

(codemaking and codebreaking) organization, not an economic organization" and that its missions do not involve "anything remotely resembling placing economists at private companies in order to increase the debt of foreign countries."

^[10]

Economic historian

Niall Ferguson

writes in his book

The Ascent of Money

that Perkins's contention that the leaders of

Ecuador

(President

Jaime Roldós Aguilera

) and

Panama

(General

Omar Torrijos

) were assassinated by US agents for opposing the interests of the owners of their countries' foreign debt "seems a little odd" in light of the fact that in the 1970s the amount of money that the US had lent to Ecuador and Panama accounted for less than 0.4% of the total US grants and loans, while in 1990 the exports from the US to those countries accounted for approximately 0.4% of the total US exports (approximately $8 billion). According to Ferguson, those "do not seem like figures worth killing for."

^[11]

[Len Colby]

Panetta said he was the person who made the call not to send in reinforcements during the attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-did-not-deny-requests-help-benghazi-aide-182415488--election.html

But there are also the issues denying added security before the attack and the administrations less than honest descriptions of what happened after

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/121009/benghazi-security-requests-ignored-embassy-attack-memo

[Len Colby]

The Obama administration official reaction and communications in response to the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya were permiited by the administration to be crafted and distributed by the CIA because the "intelligence community" made it a priority to release as little information about what had actually happened and why, as possible.

Romney finally understood this during the third debate and stopped pressing Obama about it.

Perhaps Mr. Scully will be so kind as to provide documentation for his claim since there wasn't any in his post.

[Guest Tom Scully]

The Obama administration had the option for more than a week to simply make relevant State Department personnel and military personnel available to the press for comment. It appears they instead gave the CIA an exclusive opportunity to write and distribute the script and for Susan Rice and Jay Carney to read from it. Would not the motivation for this be to protect the CIA from embarassment to the slim extent that was possible, and to attempt to limit the disclosure of other sensitive inforrmation and to delay for as long as possible the release of any factual details?

Davis was employed by the same protective "service" as it has been reported that Doherty actually was employed by. Did you buy into this?:

Raymond Allen Davis incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident

Jump to Investigation‎: Police stated that the two men that were shot by Davis were carrying ... eyewitness testimony suggested that the men were trying to rob Davis. ... left the country after the U.S. refused Pakistani requests to interview them.

http://www.emptywhee...s-out-in-libya/

Poking Our Eyes Out in Libya

Posted on September 24, 2012by emptywheel

.....But the subtext of this NYT story seems to be that we had a bunch of CIA guys working in two undefended locations-purportedly “safe houses” that the attackers knew enough about to deploy mortars to attack them. And that leaving the spooks like sitting ducks rather unsurprisingly led to the attackers compromising all their intelligence-gathering going on in Benghazi.

http://www.thedailyb...libya-line.html

The Intel Behind Obama’s Libya Line

Oct 1, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

(Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. )

.....Now that officials have acknowledged they were a premeditated act of terrorism, the question some members Congress are trying to answer is why it took so long for the truth to come out....

.....Unclassified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency suggest the answer may have to do with so-called talking points written by the CIA and distributed to members of Congress and other government officials, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The documents, distributed three days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, said the events were spontaneous.

The talking points say, among other things, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

In addition, the briefing says this “assessment may change as additional information is collected” and that the “investigation is on-going.”

http://www.washingto...8b7c_story.html

David Ignatius, Published: October 19

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

http://www.whitehous...carney-10102012

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 10/10/2012

.....MR. CARNEY: Let’s be clear about what the State Department is saying. Pat Kennedy, the Under Secretary of State for Management, is testifying on the Hill today about this very matter. I will quote to you now from his prepared testimony:

“No one in the administration has claimed to know all the answers. We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has evolved. For example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said” -- which goes to your point -- “the information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point. As time went on, additional information became available. Clearly, we know more today than we did on the Sunday after the attack. But as the process moves forward and more information becomes available, we will be sure to continue consulting with you.”

That is Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, today.

The point we have made all along, Ben, as you know, is that initial assessments in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Benghazi were made, and it was a government-wide assessment that was the foundation of what Ambassador Rice said, what I said, and what others said. It is what we knew based on the limited facts we had available to us at that time. Ambassador Rice very clearly said on Sunday that these were preliminary conclusions based on the facts and the intelligence that we had available at the time. And they were conclusions of the intelligence community for the entire government....

Edited October 28, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Cliff Varnell]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

I'll vote reluctantly for Obama but find this episode distressing, requests for additional security were denied by the State Dept and people with in the administration made misleading comments about what happen for about 2 weeks. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were part of the plot?

Len,

If the death of four in Benghazi qualifies as a distressing episode certainly a case can be made that the episode(s) on 9/11/01 were at least as distressing. No?

Compare the coverage of the Benghazi attack with the attacks of 9/11 -- there was no serious effort to affix official blame for the security breakdowns which allowed the success of those attacks.

In fact, those who failed in their duties prospered the most.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Cheney/Rumsfeld got their "Pearl Harbor" without a fraction of the scrutiny Benghazi has received.

[Steven Gaal]

JUST GO TO GOOGLE AND PUT IN CENSORED AND YOUTUBE,YOU WILL SEE LOTS OF INFO ON CENSORED VIDEOS, SEEMS GOOGLE/NSA didnt TAKE DOWN OFFENDING VIDEO, WHEN THEY HAVE TAKEN DOWN THOUSANDS FOR LESS REASON >>>>>> WHY ??

GOP's Benghazi Smoking Gun Goes Up in Smoke

—By Adam Serwer

| Thu Oct. 25, 2012 8:12 AM PDT

US State Department/Flickr

When a set of State Department emails were released Wednesday, one reporting that a local Islamist militia had claimed responsibility for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, conservatives thought they had the smoking gun that the Obama administration had lied about what had occurred.

Reuters reported Wednesday that on September 11—the day of the attack—a State Department email with the subject header "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack" was sent to the White House. The message stated that "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." Case closed, conservatives said: The White House had engaged in a cover-up.

"[T]he president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault," wrote Jennifer Rubin, president of the Washington Post's Mitt Romney fan club. "Bottom line? Barack Obama was willfully and knowingly lying to the American people," wrote Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. (Of course, the idea that the video played a role is not inconsistent with the idea that the attack was an "act of terror," a phrase the president himself used to describe the attack in the days following the incident.)

There's only one problem—well, actually, there are many, but one big one: The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn't post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn't take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders." The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, "We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]."

"It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment," wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. "Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility." (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS's Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN. It's possible the posts could have been deleted, but there's no way to prove that.)

Even if the State Department email had been accurate, conservatives pounced on it eagerly without underlying corroboration, thereby providing a pretty good example of how complicated intelligence analysis can be and why it's a bad idea to simply jump on a piece of information that fits your preconceived biases. The email was just one piece of information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. While the White House's initial explanation that the attack had begun as a protest turned out to be wrong, the email itself doesn't bear on two of the major remaining questions: what role the video played and whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

You'd think that this would be obvious, but in the future it's a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn't mean it's true. Even if you really, really want it to be.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

...or an attempt at a bloodless coup (election pending)..same old same old.

The CIA (underlings) who asked for permission to save Stevens were stopped - by who? Senior CIA.

This was a rigged job from the getgo. Stevens was likely an enemy of the right wing CIA ( Stevens likely wanted to negotiate decent terms for the regular Libyian folks when it came to oil $$).

My guess is that it was initially a "shot across the bow" to try and intimidate U.S. President Obama...then they used the "lack of support" against him.

I seriously doubt that this will be the defining issue in the election as some right wingers may hope. If Barack Obama wins the election there will be hell-to-pay in the CIA.

(JMHO)

Sorry if this is O.T. - I thought it made sense when I posted it....it does have to do with the same folks who offed JFK and RFK.

I'll vote reluctantly for Obama but find this episode distressing, requests for additional security were denied by the State Dept and people with in the administration made misleading comments about what happen for about 2 weeks. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were part of the plot?

Len,

If the death of four in Benghazi qualifies as a distressing episode certainly a case can be made that the episode(s) on 9/11/01 were at least as distressing. No?

Compare the coverage of the Benghazi attack with the attacks of 9/11 -- there was no serious effort to affix official blame for the security breakdowns which allowed the success of those attacks.

In fact, those who failed in their duties prospered the most.

http://www.nytimes.c...nings.html?_r=0

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

Cheney/Rumsfeld got their "Pearl Harbor" without a fraction of the scrutiny Benghazi has received.

Hey Cliff,

Since I was not living in the US at the time of either 9/11attack it’s hard for me to judge the comparative scrutiny of either POTUSs failure to act. But the notion that the former escaped scrutiny is not accurate. There were headlines like the one below and truther sites are filled with MSM accounts of the warnings. The 1^st happened about 9 months after inauguration and the 2^nd less than 2 months before an extremely tight election, thus greater scrutiny is expected. Also the Dems, true to forum wimped out on pressing the issue. In 2012 there was actionable intelligence that was not acted on, requests for added security in 2001 it was less obvious what specifically what Bush & Co. could have done to prevent the attacks but of course the earlier disaster was far more catastrophic.

The information Tom posted about the CIA “talking points” was interesting, was that a ‘cockup’ or did the CIA do that intentionally to undermine Obama? The latter would be a risky option because as Tom suggested if Obama squeaks by on Nov. 6 some heads could roll.

PS - The notion that PNAC called for a “new Pearl Harbor” is a myth.

[Steven Gaal]

NOPE NO PUSH TO STOP CRITICISM OF BUSH.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

February 28, 2002: Some Republican Politicians Suggest Any Criticism of Bush’s ‘War on Terrorism’ Is Out of Line

When asked in a press conference if the success of the “war on terrorism” has been overstated, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) replies: “I don’t think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt.… I will say that at this point, given the information we’ve been provided, I don’t think it would do anybody any good to second-guess what has been done to date. I think it has been successful. I’ve said that on many, many occasions. But I think the jury’s still out about future success, as I’ve said.” He adds that it would be necessary for the US to find Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders for the “war on terrorism” to be considered a success. But despite the mild tone of these comments, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) responds by saying: “How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field. He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united.” Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) calls Daschle’s remarks “thoughtless and ill-timed.” And Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) uses language analogous to a charge of treason, saying that that Daschle’s “divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.” [salon, 3/1/2002] Secretary of State Colin Powell defends Daschle and other Democrats, saying: “They’re raising questions. And I think that’s what a loyal opposition does.” The Washington Post editorial board criticizes the Republican response, saying that the US “would be a weaker country if Sen. Lott succeed in choking off debate.” But Lott refuses to apologize, and says that “any sign that we are losing that unity, or crack in that support, will be, I think, used against us overseas.” [New York Times, 3/1/2002; Salon, 3/5/2002]

May 16, 2002: Vice President Cheney Publicly Warns Democrats Against Criticizing Handling of Pre-9/11 Warnings

In the wake of new information on what President Bush knew, Vice President Cheney states, “[M]y Democratic friends in Congress… need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.” He calls such criticism “thoroughly irresponsible… in time of war” and states that any serious probe of 9/11 foreknowledge would be tantamount to giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. [Washington Post, 5/17/2002] The days later, Cheney adds that he doesn’t “have any problem with a legitimate debate over the performance of our intelligence agencies,” but he has “a real problem with the suggestion that somehow my president had information and failed to act upon it to prevent the attack of Sept. 11.” He calls this “beyond the pale.” On May 21, the on-line newspaper Salon suggests that such pressure “appears to have worked. Democrats are largely chastened in their criticism of the [bush] administration, and few have criticized attempts to silence them.” [salon, 5/21/2002]

May 17, 2002: White House Official Suggests Criticism of President Bush Helps Terrorists

On May 16, 2002, CBS News broke the story that President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) one month before 9/11 entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see May 15, 2002). Some Democratic politicians immediately criticized Bush for not acting on this before 9/11. The next day, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett tells the Washington Post that such comments by Democrats “are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do.” The news website Salon comments, “This is the most direct statement by an administration official to date suggesting that dissent aids the enemy.” Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) similarly comments, “For us to be talking like our enemy is George W. Bush and not Osama bin Laden, that’s not right.” [salon, 5/21/2002]

June 4, 2002: Officer with Possible Unique 9/11 Knowledge Is Reprimanded for Criticizing Bush

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler is suspended from his post at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and is told he could face a court martial for writing a letter to a local newspaper calling President Bush a “joke” and accusing him of allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. The military prohibits public criticism of superiors. [bBC, 6/5/2002; Monterey County Herald, 6/5/2002] What is not reported is that he may have had unique knowledge about 9/11: A hijacker named Saeed Alghamdi trained at the Defense Language Institute and Butler was Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs there (note that this is not the same person as the Steven Butler who later testifies before the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry). [Gannett News Service, 9/17/2001] Later in the month the Air Force announces “the matter is resolved” and Butler will not face a court-martial, but it is unknown if he faced a lesser punishment. [Knight Ridder, 6/14/2002]

Edited October 29, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

NOPE NO PUSH TO STOP CRITICISM OF BUSH. part II

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Extra! November/December 2001

Patriotism & Censorship

Some journalists are silenced, while others seem happy to silence themselves

By Peter Hart and Seth Ackerman

War fever in the wake of the September 11 attacks has led to a wave of self-censorship as well as government pressure on the media. With American flags adorning networks' on-screen logos, journalists are feeling rising pressure to exercise "patriotic" news judgment, while even mild criticism of the military, George W. Bush and U.S. foreign policy are coming to seem taboo.

On September 17, Bill Maher, host of ABC’s Politically Incorrect, took issue with Bush's characterization of the hijackers as "cowards," saying that the label could more plausibly be applied to the U.S. military’s long-range cruise missile attacks than to the hijackers' suicide missions. Maher, a hawk on military issues, intended his comment as a criticism of Bill Clinton's emphasis on air power over ground troops, but major advertisers, including Federal Express and Sears, dropped their sponsorship, and several ABC affiliate stations dropped Maher’s show from their lineups (Washington Post, 9/28/01).

Commenting at an official news briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Maher's remark "a terrible thing to say," adding, "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." The White House's transcript of Fleischer's remarks mysteriously omitted the chilling phrase "watch what they say," in what White House officials later called a "transcription error" (New York Times, 9/28/01).

Maher might consider himself lucky to still have a job. A columnist for the Oregon Daily Courier, Dan Guthrie, said he was fired for writing a column (9/15/01) that criticized Bush for "hiding in a Nebraska hole" in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks (Associated Press, 9/26/01). After the column sparked angry letters to the editor, the paper's publisher printed an apology to readers (9/18/01): "Criticism of our chief executive and those around him needs to be responsible and appropriate. Labeling him and the nation's other top leaders as cowards as the United States tries to unite after its bloodiest terrorist attack ever isn't responsible or appropriate." The publisher denied Guthrie was fired for what he wrote, but declined to elaborate.

Similarly, the city editor of the Texas City Sun, Tom Gutting, was fired after writing a column (9/22/01) critical of Bush’s actions the day of the attacks. His column was also the subject of an apology from the paper's publisher (9/21/01), who wrote an accompanying op-ed headlined "Bush's Leadership Has Been Superb" (Editor & Publisher, 9/27/01).

Veteran progressive radio host Peter Werbe found that in the wake of the terrorist attacks, his syndicated show was no longer wanted at KSCO-KOMY-AM in Santa Cruz, Calif. On October 6, station co-owner Michael Zwerling came on the air to criticize Werbe’s program. Days later, Kay Zwerling, Michael’s mother, denounced the show’s political content and criticism of the Bush administration in an on-air editorial, saying "partisanship is out; we are all Americans now." She added that "we cannot afford the luxury of political divisiveness." Apparently accusations that peace marchers are committing "treason" and calls for "nuking Afghanistan" made by right-wing syndicated host Michael Savage, who is aired on the station for six hours daily, do not qualify as divisive (Metro Santa Cruz, 10/24/01).

"Just tell me where"

Other journalists loudly proclaimed their support for the government and military action. CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather was the most conspicuous, declaring on CBS’s Late Show With David Letterman (9/17/01): "George Bush is the president. He makes the decisions, and, you know, it's just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he'll make the call." Rather issued a similar call on the show Entertainment Tonight (10/2/01), according to a transcript from the Media Research Center: "If he needs me in uniform, tell me when and where--I'm there."

It should be remembered that Rather is not only a news reader but also the managing editor of CBS Evening News, and his attitude has the potential to influence the work of the reporters who work under him. Both ABC and NBC have dealt with the criticisms of the U.S. food aid program in Afghanistan, airing the views of aid workers in the region who dismissed the food program as an ineffective PR ploy. CBS Evening News did not address the issue.

ABC’s Cokie Roberts also appeared on the Letterman show (10/10/01) to proclaim her deep faith in military spokespeople: "Look, I am, I will just confess to you, a total sucker for the guys who stand up with all the ribbons on and stuff and they say it's true and I'm ready to believe it."

At the dozens of stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, pro-Bush editorial statements were read on the air by station managers. At Sinclair’s WBBF and WNUV in Baltimore, news anchors and other on-air journalists read the statements (Baltimore Sun, 10/4/01).

"Reining in" journalism

Attempts by the U.S. government to exert control over media have been broad. In early October, Secretary of State Colin Powell voiced his concerns about the Al Jazeera television station during a meeting with Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Thani, the emir of Qatar. Powell reportedly told Thani to "rein in" Al Jazeera, which operates out of Qatar and relies on the government for significant funding (Washington Post, 10/9/01). Though the channel is considered by many to be the most independent TV news outlet in the Arab world, Powell and other U.S. officials were reportedly upset by the channel re-airing old interviews with bin Laden and the inclusion of guests that are too critical of the United States on its programs. (In attempting to muzzle Al Jazeera, Powell was mirroring the complaints of Arab nationalists who contend that the channel too often airs the views of Israelis and Western officials.)

Once the air strikes began, Al Jazeera provided the only footage coming out of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, documenting the killing and maiming of civilians. The station also aired videotaped statements delivered to it by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda group--which were picked up and replayed by U.S. television networks. In an October 10 conference call with national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN reportedly acceded to her "suggestion" that any future taped statements from Al Qaeda be "abridged," and any potentially "inflammatory" language removed before broadcast.

Originally, the administration expressed concern about the possibility of Al Qaeda members sending "coded messages" to their followers in the segments--without offering any evidence that such a technique had ever been used, or that censoring U.S. news broadcasts would be an effective means of keeping any messages that did exist from terrorists.

But Rice's main argument to the networks seems to have been that bin Laden's statements should be restricted because of their overt content. NBC News chief Neal Shapiro told the New York Times (10/11/01) that Rice's main point "was that here was a charismatic speaker who could arouse anti-American sentiment getting 20 minutes of air time to spew hatred and urge his followers to kill Americans."

The following day, Fleischer took the administration's campaign further and contacted major newspapers to request that they consider not printing full transcripts of bin Laden's messages. "The request is to report the news to the American people," said Fleischer (New York Times, 10/12/01). "But if you report it in its entirety, that could raise concerns that he's getting his prepackaged, pretaped message out."

To its credit, the New York Times has apparently resisted such requests, even editorializing (10/11/01) that the "White House effort is ill advised." But some media executives seemed to actually appreciate the White House pressure. In an official statement, CNN declared: "In deciding what to air, CNN will consider guidance from appropriate authorities'' (Associated Press, 10/10/01). CNN chief Walter Isaacson added, "After hearing Dr. Rice, we're not going to step on the land mines she was talking about" (New York Times, 10/11/01). "We'll do whatever is our patriotic duty,'' said News Corp executive Rupert Murdoch (Reuters, 10/11/01), who took U.S. citizenship when his Australian passport interfered with his buying American TV stations.

Indeed, when a taped segment from bin Laden spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith aired on Al Jazeera on October 13, U.S. networks handled it much differently than previous statements. Fox News Channel and MSNBC did not air any of the footage, while the other networks opted to show only portions of the tape, or paraphrase the content (Associated Press, 10/31/01).

Dangerously unbiased

Powell was not the only government official who seemed to think that a national emergency gave them license to attempt to interfere with news outlets. On September 21, the federally funded Voice of America radio service temporarily held a news story that featured comments from Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar after the State Department complained to Voice of America‘s board of governors (Washington Post, 9/23/01). When the station played the segment anyway, State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher (press conference, 9/24/01) criticized Voice of America for "asking the U.S. taxpayer to pay for broadcasting this guy's voice back into Afghanistan." Some media heavyweights shared that view: The New York Times’ William Safire (10/1/01) was clearly upset that the "seat-warmer at the Voice of America could not restrain its news directors from broadcasting the incendiary diatribes of Taliban leaders."

At KOMU-TV in St. Louis, run by faculty and students at the University of Missouri, on-air news personnel were prohibited from wearing anything that might indicate support for a particular cause, including flags or patriotic ribbons. This prompted state Rep. Matt Bartle to send an email to the station’s news director that threatened the KOMU’s state funding: "If this is what you are teaching the next generation of journalists, I question whether the taxpayers of this state will support it" (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 9/30/01).

It appears that journalistic neutrality is a dangerous message to send these days. When Cablevision’s News 12 station in Long Island, N.Y. adopted a no-flag policy for its on-air personnel, it wasn’t government officials that were upset by the supposed lack of patriotism--it was the station’s advertisers. One station official told the New York Times (10/7/01) that "a number of clients are talking about running their ads somewhere else."

In such an environment, it shouldn’t be surprising that news that might portray the military in an unflattering light would also be censored. An Associated Press photo taken aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise showed a bomb with "high jack this fags" scrawled on it, apparently the work of an American soldier. The AP withdrew the photo, instructing news outlets not to run it in their papers (PlanetOut.com, 10/12/01). Mainstream media have shown little interest in reporting on the incident--suggesting that self-censorship is itself a phenomenon that might be too hot to cover.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Steven Gaal