Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I don't think it's AT ALL unreasonable to expect, as an American citizen, a full accounting of the U.S. governments screw up. I don’t care who is in office, it's irrelevant. The government of the United States is in service to the state aka the people of the united states. The American people employ these politicians and by extention the bureaucrats they appoint, if they screw up they should get fired. What political party they belong to means nothing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/16 22:59:45
"Power armour for your power armour so you can power in your armour"
5K points Blood Angels
1.5K Dark eldar
1K Dark Angels
A CIA employee who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement barring him from discussing the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, has been suspended as a result and forced to hire legal counsel, according to a top House lawmaker.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) revealed at an event on Monday that his office was anonymously informed about the CIA employee, who is purportedly facing an internal backlash after refusing to sign a legal document barring him from publicly or privately discussing events surrounding the Benghazi attack.
The revelation comes about a month after several media outlets reported that CIA employees with knowledge of the terror attack had been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) and submit to regular polygraph tests.
“The reports on the NDA are accurate. We’re getting people who call,” Wolf said Monday during an event marking the launch of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, a panel of former military and intelligence officials who are investigating unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi incident.
Wolf’s office first received the anonymous call earlier in the summer, soon after CNN and Fox News reported on the NDAs and polygraph tests.
The caller told Wolf’s staff that an unnamed CIA employee has been suspended after refusing to sign a Benghazi-related NDA.
“My office received a call from a man saying that he knew a CIA employee who has retained legal counsel because he has refused to sign an additional NDA regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, events in Benghazi,” Wolf said in Sept. 9 remarks at a panel discussion hosted by Judicial Watch.
“I called the law firm and spoke with CIA employee’s attorney who confirmed that her client is having an issue with the agency and the firm is trying to address it,” Wolf said. “Based on my past experiences with the CIA, which is headquartered in my congressional district, I am not at all confident that these efforts will be successful.”
The NDA agreements are meant to instill fear in employees and stop them from speaking “to the media or Congress,” Wolf said on Monday.
The CIA declined to comment directly on Wolf’s charges, but forwarded the Washington Free Beacon a letter sent to Congress from CIA Director John Brennan in which he denies charges that the agency has forced employees to sign NDAs and submit to polygraph tests.
“I want to assure you that I will not tolerate any effort to prevent our intelligence oversight committee from doing their jobs,” Brennan hand wrote at the bottom of the letter.
The CIA reiterated its denial in a Tuesday call to a Free Beacon reporter, calling Wolf’s allegations “categorically false.”
Monday’s Benghazi discussion came on the same day that House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) released a report detailing multiple shortcomings in the State Department’s internal investigation into failures related to the Benghazi attack.
Issa says that the State Department “obstructed” congressional investigators, was “not comprehensive” in nature, “did not conduct thorough interviews,” and that more senior officials were not held to account.
“The ARB was not fully independent,” Issa said in a statement. “The panel did not exhaustively examine failures and it has led to an unacceptable lack of accountability.”
“While Ambassador [Thomas] Pickering and Admiral [Michael] Mullen have honorably served their country, the families of victims and the American people continue to wait for more conclusive answers about how our government left our own personnel so vulnerable and alone the night of the attack,” Issa said.
The newly formed Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has similar goals as congressional investigators but is not confined by rules governing the legislative body, speakers at the event said.
Retired Air Force Col. Richard Brauer, cofounder of the group Special Operations Speaks, said the committee would aim to find out why U.S. military assets were ordered to “stand down” during the Benghazi attack.
“We’re tired of the lies and the cover-up that continues to this day,” Brauer said. “Who gave the order” to stand down, “to remain in place in Tripoli and the other locations and do nothing. When was this order given and why?”
“Forces were available on that very night, likely champing at the bit, but they were told to stand down,” he said. “These are words that will live in infamy.”
Welcome to our world people European leaders have been doing this for hundreds of years. Us Brits and old Frenchie are right at the top of the charts when it comes to shafting and back stabbing
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
During the second portion of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing about Benghazi Thursday on Capitol Hill, the majority of Democrats on the Committee left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods. Ms. Smith is the mother of Sean Smith, an information management officer killed in the 9/11 Benghazi attack. Charles Woods is the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was also killed.
PHOTO: @OversightDems excuse themselves from testimony of #Benghazi heroes' family members #PJNet pic.twitter.com/NP9u2I2noC
— Darrell Issa (@DarrellIssa) September 19, 2013
The far side of the room, shown empty in the photo, belongs to the Democrats. The only Democrats who stayed were Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Rep. Jackie Speier.
I hope those committee members have valid conficts... like needing to attend other meetings. o.O
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/19 21:09:12
I don't get what testimony people who weren't there can give, apart from 'I miss my son because he's dead'. Anything they know would be known by everyone else who watches the news. It's not like someone came home to tell them what went down.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they are testifying about.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
motyak wrote: I don't get what testimony people who weren't there can give, apart from 'I miss my son because he's dead'. Anything they know would be known by everyone else who watches the news. It's not like someone came home to tell them what went down.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they are testifying about.
It's an attempt to give this whole ordeal a higher profile... usually that means getting such an emotional appeal on record.
And also more troubling, Admiral Mike Mullen also took some time out to advise Clinton on her testimony to Congress, WHILE he was pursuing this reveiw...
No conflict of interests here... eh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/20 18:31:27
motyak wrote: I don't get what testimony people who weren't there can give, apart from 'I miss my son because he's dead'. Anything they know would be known by everyone else who watches the news. It's not like someone came home to tell them what went down.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they are testifying about.
It's an attempt to give this whole ordeal a higher profile... usually that means getting such an emotional appeal on record.
So it was just to get emotional stuff on the record so that the Rs can go 'see, this is important'? Why on earth would a) the Democrats stay for that and b) you expect them to if it serves no actual purpose in finding out what happens?
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
motyak wrote: I don't get what testimony people who weren't there can give, apart from 'I miss my son because he's dead'. Anything they know would be known by everyone else who watches the news. It's not like someone came home to tell them what went down.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they are testifying about.
It's an attempt to give this whole ordeal a higher profile... usually that means getting such an emotional appeal on record.
So it was just to get emotional stuff on the record so that the Rs can go 'see, this is important'? Why on earth would a) the Democrats stay for that and b) you expect them to if it serves no actual purpose in finding out what happens?
Because... something fugly happened... the administration, more specifically the states dept was caught with their pants down.
motyak wrote: I don't get what testimony people who weren't there can give, apart from 'I miss my son because he's dead'. Anything they know would be known by everyone else who watches the news. It's not like someone came home to tell them what went down.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they are testifying about.
It's an attempt to give this whole ordeal a higher profile... usually that means getting such an emotional appeal on record.
So it was just to get emotional stuff on the record so that the Rs can go 'see, this is important'? Why on earth would a) the Democrats stay for that and b) you expect them to if it serves no actual purpose in finding out what happens?
Because... something fugly happened... the administration, more specifically the states dept was caught with their pants down.
Someone fethed up.
I'm not getting into a debate on whether that happened or not, but how on earth is someone's mother crying and making accusations (or whatever 'emotional stuff' is, because its certainly nothing that will reveal anything not yet known) something worth sticking around for when you could be anywhere else? I mean if they even signed one thing, had one meeting, even if it was with the most useless committee/senator/whatever, if they ticked a box/signed something saying 'we'll change my desk around in my office so I can get more work done because at the moment its too cluttered for me to work', then leaving was more productive than staying and listening to 'emotional stuff'.
If it had been 'CIA member presents new information to committee' then I'd agree, but as it is, the emotional stuff benefits no one but the people who want to make this a big deal, and they would be better off getting testimony from people who actually have things to reveal/inform them about, rather than people who know nothing beyond the news and are just making an emotional case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/21 00:09:54
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
motyak wrote: I don't get what testimony people who weren't there can give, apart from 'I miss my son because he's dead'. Anything they know would be known by everyone else who watches the news. It's not like someone came home to tell them what went down.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what they are testifying about.
It's an attempt to give this whole ordeal a higher profile... usually that means getting such an emotional appeal on record.
So it was just to get emotional stuff on the record so that the Rs can go 'see, this is important'? Why on earth would a) the Democrats stay for that and b) you expect them to if it serves no actual purpose in finding out what happens?
Because... something fugly happened... the administration, more specifically the states dept was caught with their pants down.
Someone fethed up.
I'm not getting into a debate on whether that happened or not, but how on earth is someone's mother crying and making accusations (or whatever 'emotional stuff' is, because its certainly nothing that will reveal anything not yet known) something worth sticking around for when you could be anywhere else? I mean if they even signed one thing, had one meeting, even if it was with the most useless committee/senator/whatever, if they ticked a box/signed something saying 'we'll change my desk around in my office so I can get more work done because at the moment its too cluttered for me to work', then leaving was more productive than staying and listening to 'emotional stuff'.
If it had been 'CIA member presents new information to committee' then I'd agree, but as it is, the emotional stuff benefits no one but the people who want to make this a big deal, and they would be better off getting testimony from people who actually have things to reveal/inform them about, rather than people who know nothing beyond the news and are just making an emotional case.
Right... understand that the investigation is still ongoing.
Also understand, that these Representatives WORK FOR US. If we wanted to bitch about the Colt's giving up a 1st rounder for Cleveland's Trent Richardson IN FRONT of some sort of committee, we can. (we had one about steroid for cripe sake).
Consider that the Senate and President are all Democrats... it's not hard to understand why they want to whitewash this as much as they can.
My point is... MAKE. THEM. OWN. IT.
Someone fethed up royally that put these folks in danger...
So... if it takes some crying mother crying publically in front of this committee to keep the pressure on... go for it. Because, the really strange thing here is that the administration could've nipped this in the bud in numerous ways a looooong time ago... but, instead, we're getting nothing but stonewalling efforts from the administrations.
Their actions is shouting loudly... it's saying "we have something to hide".
Just wanted to chime in - Sean Smith, one of the people who died in that attack, was a player I really looked up to in EVE Online. I've always thought it sad that even I knew things were going south before our government even had briefings on it, merely through the grapevine that is Jita Local.
Regardless of whose fault it is, and I would really like for there to be some sort of accountability in our government, we should as a default be overly cautious in defending our diplomats - these are the guys who will in the long run save us lives and money by improving relations with nations/regions. If we can't protect them, why bother even having diplomats?
Their actions is shouting loudly... it's saying "we have something to hide".
I think its saying "emotional testimony is a waste of time when the committee should be hearing from people with actual facts'.
But then I really don't care about this case, so I'm out.
I agree with you dude...
"Facts" has been really difficult to acquire... but Sen. Issa is hell bent to get 'em.
He's not interested in facts, he's interested in producing the most politically embarrassing narrative regarding Obama, personally, just as the Democrats are interested in avoiding that narrative to the greatest extent possible. I would say both sides are as bad as each other, but they really aren't, because as usual instead of trying to prevent similar problems from happening in the future, the Republicans are interested almost exclusively in their bitter policy-stalling agenda. Look at the reaction to this recent Syria situation; weeks of certain R pundits blubbing away on the news about how Obama needs to be stronger on foreign policy, then as soon as he threatens military action, you get R pundits blubbing that Obama is dragging America into another pointless middle eastern war, and as soon as the diplomatic option is floated(in a really daft way, admittedly) and moves forward, those exact same people are back on the screen with their Vitriol Holes gaping open to claim that Obama has somehow surrendered the Cold War retroactively to Putin.
Feck knows, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to get on Obama's case(he's a bigger betrayer of his core electoral base than Nick Clegg, and you have to work pretty damn hard to take that crown from ol' Cleggers) without constantly using the 24-hour news cycle to build this Daemon Obama narrative where he's personally responsible for every ill in the world.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Their actions is shouting loudly... it's saying "we have something to hide".
I think its saying "emotional testimony is a waste of time when the committee should be hearing from people with actual facts'.
But then I really don't care about this case, so I'm out.
I agree with you dude...
"Facts" has been really difficult to acquire... but Sen. Issa is hell bent to get 'em.
He's not interested in facts, he's interested in producing the most politically embarrassing narrative regarding Obama, personally, just as the Democrats are interested in avoiding that narrative to the greatest extent possible. I would say both sides are as bad as each other, but they really aren't, because as usual instead of trying to prevent similar problems from happening in the future, the Republicans are interested almost exclusively in their bitter policy-stalling agenda. Look at the reaction to this recent Syria situation; weeks of certain R pundits blubbing away on the news about how Obama needs to be stronger on foreign policy, then as soon as he threatens military action, you get R pundits blubbing that Obama is dragging America into another pointless middle eastern war, and as soon as the diplomatic option is floated(in a really daft way, admittedly) and moves forward, those exact same people are back on the screen with their Vitriol Holes gaping open to claim that Obama has somehow surrendered the Cold War retroactively to Putin.
Feck knows, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to get on Obama's case(he's a bigger betrayer of his core electoral base than Nick Clegg, and you have to work pretty damn hard to take that crown from ol' Cleggers) without constantly using the 24-hour news cycle to build this Daemon Obama narrative where he's personally responsible for every ill in the world.
Uh... then you really haven't been paying attention...
Issa requested very simple, very basic "questions" on this whole ordeal. He's being stonewalled...
What's he supposed to do? Take every answer he receives up the arse?
You're right about the political nature that's in Washington. I'd argue that Issa's actions is the right thing to do in Washington, as it attempts to treat everyone like an adult and HOPEFULLY makes it so uncomfortable for the administration such that, the next administration doesn't pull this sort of gak again.
When Chris Stevens was killed in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of September 11th last year, it was only the sixth time that the United States had lost an ambassador to its enemies. The events of that night have been overshadowed by misinformation, confusion and intense partisanship. But for those who lived through it, there's nothing confusing about what happened, and they share a sense of profound frustration because they say they saw it coming.
Tonight, you will hear for the first time from a security officer who witnessed the attack. He calls himself, Morgan Jones, a pseudonym he's using for his own safety. A former British soldier, he's been helping to keep U.S. diplomats and military leaders safe for the last decade. On a night he describes as sheer hell, Morgan Jones snuck into a Benghazi hospital that was under the control of al Qaeda terrorists, desperate to find out if one of his close friends from the U.S. Special Mission was the American he'd been told was there.
Morgan Jones: I was dreading seeing who it was, you know? It didn't take long to get to the room. And I could see in through the glass. And I didn't even have to go into the room to see who it was. I knew who it was immediately.
Lara Logan: Who was it?
Morgan Jones: It was the ambassador, dead. Yeah, shocking.
Morgan Jones said he'd never felt so angry in his life. Only hours earlier, Amb. Chris Stevens had sought him out, concerned about the security at the U.S. Special Mission Compound where Morgan was in charge of the Libyan guard force.
Now, the ambassador was dead and the U.S. compound was engulfed in flames and overrun by dozens of heavily armed fighters.
Although the attack began here, the more organized assault unfolded about a mile across the city at a top secret CIA facility known as the Annex. It lasted more than seven hours and took four American lives.
Contrary to the White House's public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it's now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaeda in a well-planned assault.
Five months before that night, Morgan Jones first arrived in Benghazi, in eastern Libya about 400 miles from the capital, Tripoli.
He thought this would be an easy assignment compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. But on his first drive through Benghazi, he noticed the black flags of al Qaeda flying openly in the streets and he grew concerned about the guard forces as soon as he pulled up to the U.S. compound.
Morgan Jones: There was nobody there that we could see. And then we realized they were all inside drinking tea, laughing and joking.
Lara Logan: What did you think?
Morgan Jones: Instantly I thought we're going to have to get rid of all these guys.
Morgan Jones' job was training the unarmed guards who manned the compound's gates. A second Libyan force -- an armed militia hired by the State Department -- was supposed to defend the compound in the event of an attack. Morgan had nothing to do with the militia, but they worried him so much, he could not keep quiet.
Morgan Jones: I was saying, "These guys are no good. You need to-- you need to get 'em out of here."
Lara Logan: You also kept saying, "If this place is attacked these guys are not going to stand and fight?"
Morgan Jones: Yeah. I used to say it all the time. Yeah, in the end I got quite bored of hearing my own voice saying it.
Andy Wood: We had one option: "Leave Benghazi or you will be killed."
Green Beret Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, was one of the top American security officials in Libya. Based in Tripoli, he met with Amb. Stevens every day.
The last time he went to Benghazi was in June, just three months before the attack. While he was there, al Qaeda tried to assassinate the British ambassador. Wood says, to him, it came as no surprise because al Qaeda -- using a familiar tactic -- had stated their intent in an online posting, saying they would attack the Red Cross, the British and then the Americans in Benghazi.
Lara Logan: And you watched as they--
Andy Wood: As they did each one of those.
Lara Logan: --attacked the Red Cross and the British mission. And the only ones left--
Andy Wood: Were us. They made good on two out of the three promises. It was a matter of time till they captured the third one.
Lara Logan: And Washington was aware of that?
Andy Wood: They knew we monitored it. We included that in our reports to both State Department and DOD.
Andy Wood told us he raised his concerns directly with Amb. Stevens three months before the U.S. compound was overrun.
Andy Wood: I made it known in a country team meeting, "You are gonna get attacked. You are gonna get attacked in Benghazi. It's gonna happen. You need to change your security profile."
Lara Logan: Shut down--
Andy Wood: Shut down--
Lara Logan: --the special mission--
Andy Wood: --"Shut down operations. Move out temporarily. Ch-- or change locations within the city. Do something to break up the profile because you are being targeted. They are-- they are-- they are watching you. The attack cycle is such that they're in the final planning stages."
Lara Logan: Wait a minute, you said, "They're in the final planning stages of an attack on the American mission in Benghazi"?
Andy Wood: It was apparent to me that that was the case. Reading, reading all these other, ah, attacks that were occurring, I could see what they were staging up to, it was, it was obvious.
We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Greg Hicks: It was a frightening piece of information.
Lara Logan: Because it meant what?
Greg Hicks: It raised the stakes, changed the game.
Greg Hicks, who testified before Congress earlier this year, was Amb. Stevens' deputy based in Tripoli - a 22-year veteran of the Foreign Service with an impeccable reputation.
Lara Logan: And in that environment you were asking for more security assets and you were not getting them?
Greg Hicks: That's right.
Lara Logan: Did you fight that?
Greg Hicks: I was in the process of trying to frame a third request but it was not allowed to go forward.
Lara Logan: So why didn't you get the help that you needed and that you asked for?
Greg Hicks: I really, really don't know. I in fact would like to know that, the answer to that question.
In the months prior to the attack, Amb. Stevens approved a series of detailed cables to Washington, specifically mentioning, among other things, "the al Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings".
When the attack began on the evening of September 11, Amb. Stevens immediately called Greg Hicks, who was back in Tripoli.
Greg Hicks: Ambassador said that the consulate's under attack. And then the line cut.
Lara Logan: Do you remember the sound of his voice?
Greg Hicks: Oh yeah, it's indelibly imprinted on my mind.
Lara Logan: How did he sound?
Greg Hicks: He sounded frightened.
In Benghazi, Morgan Jones, who was at his apartment about 15 minutes away, got a frantic call from one of his Libyan guards.
Morgan Jones: I could hear gunshots. And I-- and he said, "There's-- there's men coming into the mission." His voice, he was, he was scared, you could tell he was really scared and he was running, I could tell he was running.
His first thought was for his American friends, the State Department agents who were pinned down inside the compound, and he couldn't believe it when one of them answered his phone.
Morgan Jones: I said, "What's going on?" He said, "We're getting attacked." And I said, "How many?" And he said, "They're all over the compound." And I felt shocked, I didn't know what to say. And-- I said, "Well, just keep fighting. I'm on my way."
Morgan's guards told him the armed Libyan militia that was supposed to defend the compound had fled, just as Morgan had predicted. His guards -- unarmed and terrified -- sounded the alarm, but they were instantly overwhelmed by the attackers.
Morgan Jones: They said, "We're here to kill Americans, not Libyans," so they'd give them a good beating, pistol whip them, beat them with their rifles and let them go.
Lara Logan: We're here to kill Americans.
Morgan Jones: That's what they said, yeah.
Lara Logan: Not Libyans.
Morgan Jones: Yeah.
About 30 minutes into the attack, a quick reaction force from the CIA Annex ignored orders to wait and raced to the compound, at times running and shooting their way through the streets just to get there. Inside the compound, they repelled a force of as many as 60 armed terrorists and managed to save five American lives and recover the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. They were forced to fight their way out before they could find the ambassador.
Not long afterwards, Morgan Jones scaled the 12-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al Qaeda fighters.
Morgan Jones: One guy saw me. He just shouted. I couldn't believe that he'd seen me 'cause it was so dark. He started walking towards me.
Lara Logan: And as he was coming closer?
Morgan Jones: As I got closer, I just hit him with the butt of the rifle in the face.
Lara Logan: And?
Morgan Jones: Oh, he went down, yeah.
Lara Logan: He dropped?
Morgan Jones: Yeah, like-- like a stone.
Lara Logan: With his face smashed in?
Morgan Jones: Yeah.
Lara Logan: And no one saw you do it?
Morgan Jones: No.
Lara Logan: Or heard it?
Morgan Jones: No, there was too much noise.
The same force that had gone to the compound was now defending the CIA Annex. Hours later, they were joined by a small team of Americans from Tripoli. From defensive positions on these rooftops, the Americans fought back a professional enemy. In a final wave of intense fighting just after 5 a.m., the attackers unleashed a barrage of mortars. Three of them slammed into this roof, killing former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Lara Logan: They hit that roof three times.
Andy Wood: They, they hit those roofs three times.
Lara Logan: In the dark.
Andy Wood: Yea, that's getting the basketball through the hoop over your shoulder.
Lara Logan: What does it take to pull off an attack like that?
Andy Wood: Coordination, planning, training, experienced personnel. They practice those things. They knew what they were doing. That was a-- that was a well-executed attack.
We have learned there were two Delta Force operators who fought at the Annex and they've since been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross -- two of the military's highest honors. The Americans who rushed to help that night went without asking for permission and the lingering question is why no larger military response ever crossed the border into Libya -- something Greg Hicks realized wasn't going to happen just an hour into the attack.
Lara Logan: You have this conversation with the defense attache. You ask him what military assets are on their way. And he says--
Greg Hicks: Effectively, they're not. And I-- for a moment, I just felt lost. I just couldn't believe the answer. And then I made the call to the Annex chief, and I told him, "Listen, you've gotta tell those guys there may not be any help coming."
Lara Logan: That's a tough thing to understand. Why?
Greg Hicks: It just is. We--, for us, for the people that go out onto the edge, to represent our country, we believe that if we get in trouble, they're coming to get us. That our back is covered. To hear that it's not, it's a terrible, terrible experience.
The U.S. government today acknowledges the Americans at the U.S. compound in Benghazi were not adequately protected. And says those who carried out the attack are still being hunted down.
Just a few weeks ago, Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi. We've learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and long-time al Qaeda operative, was one of the lead planners along with Faraj al-Chalabi, whose ties to Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan.
The morning after the attack, Morgan Jones went back to the compound one last time to document the scene. He took these photos which he gave to the FBI and has published in a book he has written. After all this time, he told us he's still haunted by a conversation he had with Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, a week before the attack.
Morgan Jones: Yeah, he was worried. He wasn't happy with the security.
Lara Logan: And you didn't tell him all your worries?
Morgan Jones: No. No, didn't want to--
Lara Logan: Why not?
Morgan Jones: I didn't want to worry him anymore, you know? He's a nice guy. I sort of promised him he'd be OK.
Lara Logan: You think about that?
Morgan Jones: Every day, yeah.
The U.S. pulled out of Benghazi and al Qaeda has grown in power across Libya. When a member of our team went to the U.S. compound earlier this month, he found remnants of the Americans' final frantic moments still scattered on the ground. Among them Amb. Stevens' official schedule for Sept.12, 2012, a day he didn't live to see.
So...watch these videos, and tell me how could they keep blaming on a video when they simply knew it wasn't true:
It was all for political purpose... which makes it disgusting.
On the right, there's bitter celebration over a 60 Minutes report on Benghazi that includes more than a year of reporting. The report "confirms Benghazi is a real scandal, and you've been lied to," according to William Jacobson, for example.
The report tells us more about what we've known for a year, and known in detail since the spring of 2013. Lara Logan's big coup is an interview with a British security officer who uses a psuedonym; her other on-camera sources, Andy Wood and Gregory Hicks, had testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. What we learn from the report:
- The new source reports that "on his first drive through Benghazi, he noticed the black flags of al Qaeda flying openly in the streets and he grew concerned about the guard forces as soon as he pulled up to the U.S. compound." This was echoed in a later cable from Chris Stevens: "the al Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings."
- Online chatter provided clues as to what was coming. "Al Qaeda -- using a familiar tactic -- had stated their intent in an online posting, saying they would attack the Red Cross, the British and then the Americans in Benghazi."
- Wood, a chief security officer in Libya, told the country team that "the attack cycle is such that they're in the final planning stages."
This colors in some of the story, but it doesn't advance the scandal. The Stevens cables that warned State about what might happen were revealed almost a year ago, sparking off some minor head-rolling at State but not much else. What conservatives want to know—and when I go to conferences or political rallies, I hear this—is what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were doing on the night of the attack, and whether they heard earlier warnings but ignored them.
Conservatives are apoplectic about Clinton's public statements after the attack, which continued to mention the "Innocence of Muslims" video, and did not lead with how terrorists had actually planned an executed an attack. "They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved," wrote Mark Steyn after the Issa hearings. The new report doesn't provide much ballast for any of this, but it does assure conservatives that the media hasn't stopped caring about the story.
What's the next scheduled turn in Benghazigate? I'd say it's the forthcoming release of Hillary Clinton's second memoir.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
So just to recap from watching the 60 Minute clip;
- State Department hired a local militia as security, in spite of warnings to the contrary. During the attack the militia fled rather than engage the attackers
- The security team (lead by former Special Forces) passed warnings to State and DoD that an attack was planned, and was imminent and "obvious" as AQ were making good on their threats
- Al-Libi was in country and charged with setting up an AQ cell, and who had a history of attacking US targets
- two requests for more security assets from a 22 year veteran were denied. A third request was prevented "from going forward". The reasons for these denials are still not publicly known
- the Ambassador sent warnings to Washington via cables that AQ were openly operating in Libya
- no relief forces were to be dispatched to assist the besieged annex. American personnel were being abandoned
So if you aren't going to protect your people in a hostile country why send them into harm's way?
So if you aren't going to protect your people in a hostile country why send them into harm's way?
Libya's not a hostile country, the US spent considerable energy into regime change to effect a more stable nation. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to saying that American foreign policy was incompetent and that the government had helped raise up anti-western, anti-american forces in Libya.
As the closing of various no-cost elements of the national park service during the recent stand off should show, the current regime are very petty and put politics before anything else.
So if you aren't going to protect your people in a hostile country why send them into harm's way?
Libya's not a hostile country,
Amb. Stevens would like a word with you...
the US spent considerable energy into regime change to effect a more stable nation.
We have? Relative to what exactly?
To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to saying that American foreign policy was incompetent and that the government had helped raise up anti-western, anti-american forces in Libya.
That's what I'm suggesting.
As the closing of various no-cost elements of the national park service during the recent stand off should show, the current regime are very petty and put politics before anything else.
And that's is what's wrong with their response to Benghazi.
European leaders have been doing this for hundreds of years. Us Brits and old Frenchie are right at the top of the charts when it comes to shafting and back stabbing 
