RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Obama’s Lying Spin About Libya

It was an intelligence failure. No, wait! It was the fault of Paul Ryan’s Congress, which cut State Department’s budget. No, wait! It is under investigation, so we can’t make any judgments. No, wait! The RSO only requested increased security for Tripoli, not Benghazi.

JESUS, JOSEPH and MARY! I am in primal scream mode. These excuses are so lame and so stupid that I have trouble trying to remain calm. But here goes.

Intelligence failure? No, and hell no. Did the intelligence community provide warnings that Benghazi was a dangerous place or that bad guys, specifically Ansar Al-Sharia, were plotting to attack U.S. targets in Benghazi? The answer is “YES!” We also know that RSO Nordstrom provided a detailed list of attacks in Libya, both Tripoli and Benghazi, which in turn inspired STATE to release on 27 August 2012 the following Travel Warning:

The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Libya. The incidence of violent crime, especially carjacking and robbery, has become a serious problem. In addition, political violence in the form of assassinations and vehicle bombs has increased in both Benghazi and Tripoli. This Travel Warning replaces the Travel Warning dated September 22, 2011, and notes the resumption of full consular services to U.S. citizens on August 27, 2012.

Please note. A “Travel Warning” is not a routine thing. It represents serious concern on the part of State Department about security risks in the mentioned country. Please click here to read the litany of attacks and threats that a worried RSO was reporting back to Washington. This is what is known as “raw intelligence.” It is a firsthand report from the frontline.

The RSO specifically warned:

The risk of U.S. Mission personnel, private U.S. citizens and businesspersons encountering an isolating event as a result of militia or political violence is HIGH.

You do not have to be a crack intel analyst to understand that. Basic english fluency should suffice.

As the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi unfolded, the intelligence community did not start trumpeting that this was inspired by an anti-Muslim video. Having worked “breaking news crises” like this as both an analyst at CIA and as a Counter Terrorism official at State, the so-called “intel” community is really not consulted or at the forefront of the information flow. That is handled, instead, through action officers and watch centers. In this case, for example, once the attack started on the Benghazi Consulate, someone at that site literally got on the phone and alerted the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Command Post back in DC that an incident was underway. The DS Command Center in turn alerted the State Department OPs Center.

This led to a NOIWON alert. NOIWON is an acronym for the National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer’s Network. The “news” of the attack on the consulate was immediately shared via a secure telephone conference call with reps from the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, DIA, NSA and NCTC. Within an hour of the NOIWON alert, the intel bureaucracy was alerted and preparing briefs for principals.

I know for a fact that the briefs prepared that night, as the attack unfolded, for senior US military commanders, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, specifically identified the group believed to be responsible for the attack and identified prior intelligence pointing to planning by that group. None of those briefs claimed or insisted that this attack was the result of “spontaneous mob violence” in response to some stupid movie. The decision to seize on the riot in Cairo as a pretext to explain the attack in Benghazi was a political decision by the White House. It was not a consequence of “intelligence analysis.”

In fact, when an event like Benghazi is unfolding, the intel community rarely would take a definitive position. It would identify a variety of possible causes or perpetrators. What is stunning about the briefings presented on 9-11 and 9-12 to senior U.S. military officials is that there was a high degree of confidence that the attack in Benghazi was carried out by a group with ties to Al Qaeda.

WHAT ABOUT THE BUDGET CUTS?

That’s irrelevant to putting appropriate, requested security assets in place on the ground. A cut in State’s budget does not mean that high threat posts are forced to go without adequate security. The audacity and shamelessness of Obama and his team appears to know no boundary. They try to pin their failure to respond to specific security requests from the Diplomatic Security officers on the ground in Libya by a reduction in State Department’s “security” budget. What the average American does not know is that most of those cuts will fall on programs like the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Training Program. As the former Deputy in charge of the policy of that program I can assure you that it can be cut without jeopardizing US security. That program has nothing to do directly with protecting the Ambassador.

WAIT, THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION:

What a crock of crap that is. You do not need an “investigation” to know or understand that Ambassador Stevens was not accorded the type of security normally assigned to any US Ambassador in a high threat post. You do not need an investigation to understand that a complex, organized attack was carried out against US diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi. The fact that the group who carried out the attack knew where the CIA facility was is especially troubling and points directly to inside knowledge and assistance. You do not just run out into the street with a mortar and start firing. The persons who attacked the CIA facility hit it with mortars, which means they knew the location and were able to place precise fire on that facility. Mortars are what killed the two NAVY Seals.

Moreover, there is not substantive investigation underway in Libya. Neither the FBI nor intelligence assets have access to and control of the site. This stands in sharp contrast to the investigations of the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Those investigations produced immediate, substantive results and led to the capture and arrest of Al Qaeda members. That ain’t happening in Libya. The only investigation of any substance underway is the Accountability Review Board, led by Ambassador Pickering, who will attempt to explain why State was so inept and incompetent.

BUT WAIT–THE RSO ONLY ASKED FOR HELP IN TRIPOLI

Another damn, ridiculous lie. As cited above (please follow the link yourself to read the RSO’s warning), both Tripoli and Benghazi were identified as high risk areas. Missing from this discussion is the fact that Ambassador Stevens should have had a Mobile Security Detachment/Team aka MSD or MST. Normally, an MSD/MST is comprised of US military personnel from the Special Operations community. One friend of mine, who served in a high threat post, was accompanied for over a year by an alternating six man team of Black SOF from the Army and the Navy. White SOF, e.g. Green Beret, also are used to provide manpower for these teams.

What is truly shocking is that Stevens did not have a basic six man unit guarding his ass. We still do not know who made that decision, but this much is certain–that decision was made at Main State. It was not because Ambassador Stevens did not want such a team. Ambassadors do not get to make the decisions on what is and is not appropriate security.

And what about the claim that Republicans exposed a CIA cite in Benghazi?

More lies and spin from the Democrats. It was Obama Administration officials who brought the photo identifying the site of the CIA base in Benghazi to the hearing the other day. That was not done by Republicans. In fact, it was brought at the direction of Pat Kennedy. Moreover, it was the NY Times who identified the site in Benghazi as a CIA facility, not the Republicans. Take a look for yourself at the NY Times piece published on 24 September 2012:

Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city.

“It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss,” said one American official who has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. “We got our eyes poked out.”

The C.I.A.’s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

One final comment. Republicans need to stop the idiotic comment of claiming that this is worse than Watergate. Watergate involved criminal activity and a deliberate obstruction of justice. This incident is not an example of illegal conduct, but of policy stupidity and political ass covering. Let’s leave Watergate out of it. The actions of Richard Nixon and cronies were indefensible. Let’s focus instead that President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to ensure that American officials in a high threat area were not adequately protected and that they have tried to deceive the American public about the truth of what actually happened because they were afraid of the political backlash.

  • Dissentispatriotic

    Any thoughts from the professionals as to how the release of Harvey Weinstein’s film on Obama and Bin Laden is going to fit the narrative of the campaign? Right in the middle (I hope) of the Libya debacle a movie will debut showing how Obama is Mighty Mouse to the rescue. Following the Sesame Street focus, one of these things just doesn’t belong here.

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      The distribution choice, i.e., one showing over the National Geographic Channel on the Sunday night before election Tuesday, will make the effect negligible compared to Ben Affleck’s “Argo,” which is in general release in theaters now running three times a day every day. Argo could have a measurable effect on the election if audiences start drawing an analogy between Tehran 1979 and Benghazi 2012. The images of the Embassy takeover in the movie and what has been seen on TV of the consulate attack are strikingly similar. Argo paints Carter as a cowardly fool worrying more about his re-election than the six Americans trapped in Tehran. It’s a great film, I recommend it to all.

    • Theymustbemorons

      “No Easy Day” remains at the top of the NY Times bestseller lists, both print and ebook versions.

  • HELENK2
  • HELENK2

    http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/10/15/243937.html

    prison break in Libya.

    not too long ago there was a prison break in Iraq and al qeada promised more

    • foxyladi14

      see if they had of just shot them in the first place. lol

  • akaPatience

    The post below by retire05 is quite provocative, in which he speculates that contrary to what’s known to the public, it could be that there was an effort by the US to retrieve weapons in Libya because some of the weapons supplied to Libyan rebels may have COME from the US, and not just from Egypt and France, AND that some of those US weapons fell into the hands of Al Qaeda. Could this explain why such a concerted effort was made by the administration to promote the lame excuse that the Youtube trailer caused the attack? And again, I have to speculate that if this theory is true, could it be even worse — that some of those US weapons were used in the Benghazi attack?

  • HARP2

    I smell a promise made to either Hillary or Bill, of a Supreme Court nomination.

  • HELENK2
    • HELENK2

      where are the weapons going???

  • Retired_from_SPOnaj

    “Larryjohnson” (this is all one word, right?), it looks like Fox News is reading your blog!

  • HELENK2

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html?hp=r2_b3

    2.2 billion dollars budgeted to upgrade embassies and backtrack and bunch sit on it and refuse to use it.
    so who is endangering our diplomats?????

  • Bill O’Reilly

    So Larry Johnson let me ask you a very simple question:

    Who was directly responsible for the death of Stevens and the other Americans in Bengazi?

    Those that killed him, Stevens himself or someone else who was negligent? Who was negligent and why precisely?

    Seems like you are just playing politics with this entire event, but go ahead and continue to beat your head with this entire event.

    • Hokma

      The ONLY person playing politics in all of this is Barack Obama and his band of Chicago based low rent political hacks.

      This is not about the death of those four people the way Obama wants to make it out to be. They died as a direct result of inompetence and policies to paint a false facade of the actual situation.

      For re-election Obama wanted the public to believe that HE had defeated Al Qaeda and that the war on terror was over. That is a lie. Lara Logan of 60 Minutes called it a lie. And what took place in Benghazi and elsewhere also expose it as a lie.

      As part of this facade it was Obama policy to give the publi impression that relations with Libya were normal and the situation on the ground was normal. That is why all prior events were ignored as well as actionable intelligence were ignored and why added security was not authorized.

      The audacious cover up and blame game by Obama just makes this worse and will not end well for him in the election or the history books. This guy is without question the most cowardly President in history.

      • Bill O’Reilly

        “The audacious cover up…”

        What is being covered up? Please explain.

        • Hokma

          You’re kidding? Right?

          For two friggin seeks team Obama proactively went out and lied to the public that this was a result of a video and was not a pre-planned terror attack when, in fact, they knew it was. That is a cover up. You even had Obama stand in front of the world at the U.N. and lie through his pearly whites that it was a video. Then you had the Obama brown shirts take it to the point of publicly arresting the person who made the youtube video which to carry this cover up further.

          Why did they do it? Because Obama is campaigning on the false narrative that he killed Bin Laden, Al Qaeda has been decimated, the Taliban is under control, and the war on terror is no more.

          And it was working because of his Pravda press.

          The 9-11 attack in Benghazi was “a bump in the road” that he had to find a way around.

          There is one liar on that stage and his name is Obama. His entire life story was a lie and his tenure as President has been built on a stack of lies.

          But there is more to reveal that they are hiding like why Stevens went there – why were there intel documents there – and the policy that led to lower security. Stay tuned.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      The people who killed the Ambassador are directly responsible. However, Obama and Hillary are responsible for the failure to provide adequate security. Obama had no trouble taking credit for the actions of the Navy SEALS. He ought to be held to the same standard here.

      • foxyladi14

        Indeed

      • Theymustbemorons

        Mr. J — straight shooter!

      • Bill O’Reilly

        “Obama and Hillary are responsible for the failure to provide adequate security.”
        What would have been adequate security? Not clear a few more marines or security officiers would have made a difference. The real answer is that Stevens should have never been there.

    • DianaLC

      Are you really THE Bill?

  • Eyes Wide Open

    The current regime and their corrupt enablers in the media are doing whatever they can to hide and spin these events.

    Readers of this site are very lucky to have the opportunity to be educated and more important enlightened on current events.

    • foxyladi14

      Thanks to LJ and the posters here

      • Eyes Wide Open

        Absolutely

  • getfitnow

    Would one of the “intelligence analysts” on Batchelor’s show be our Larry?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330397/october-surprise-may-be-libya-john-fund

  • HELENK2

    off topic

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/pakistani-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-taliban-after-teen-girl-is-shot-in-head/

    could this be a turning point against the sicko taliban finally??

    Pakistani clerics issue fatwa against taliban after teen girl is shot

  • seattlegonz

    Has someone already posted this?

    http://www.examiner.com/article/administration-plays-confusing-blame-game-with-libyan-attacks

    Hillary is distancing herself from the swirl of lies…(if this story is credible.)

  • Deapster

    Your one line saying this was a political decision, says it all. So since it was a political decision, who were the players and what was the process that created the political spin.

    The process that forgot to fact check for internal integrity and consistency. Who would have put the President in such a precarious position. Names please and when do they gather to concoct such a spin.

  • http://lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com/ Canaan

    The Benghazi ‘coverup’ scares me more than Watergate. Nixon sneaked and lied covertly–because he knew he’d fry if he got caught.

    It’s scarier when the WH lies so brazenly. It’s not really a coverup, it’s an insult. You can translate everything the WH says into: “Yes I’m lying–Duh! So what? Fuck you, American people.” This White House thinks they can get away with anything. I never had that fear in Watergate.

    The Saturday Night Massacre was scary, we thought the President had gone mad. But by the end of the night, Nixon was a dead cockroach because the Republican Attorney General stood up to him. On Benghazi, where is the Elliot Richardson on the Democrats?

    After seeing Biden, I don’t think any Democrat would stand up even in if al Qaida had bribed someone in the State Dept to pull out the Ambassador’s security so they could kill him.

    Even Daniel Ellsberg said the system worked in Watergate. Nixon didn’t get away with it. Obama lies in our face and laughs at us. He thinks he can get away with anything.

    • KenoshaMarge

      The system also worked because the press did their job.

      The treasonous lap dogs who shill for Obama haven’t done theirs in a very long time.

      The few, the very few that do are voices crying in the wilderness and generally quicked attacked as racists.

  • JohnnyTwoDog

    “These excuses are so lame and so stupid that I have trouble trying to remain calm.”
    Also describes some people I work with. Exceling in tortured logic and bizarre explanations must be a required KSA for Federal administrative work.

    Twodogs Law: The longer it takes to explain, the more it reeks of bullshit. The short explanation is always the honest one. Always.

  • TexMexSoup

    The death of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 embassy staffers was a political sacrifice.( On the 11th anniversary of 9/11 seems like a weird numerology number.) How can the white house and the secretary of state DENY additional security and then “not know” the where abouts of these men for a few hours further allowing their murders. Something is most certainly not right here. where these men’s lives given up for an exchange of something? I’m sorry but I know there is NO freaking way the intelligence community FUBAR’d this bad. One has to wonder. I don’t buy that the white house/Clinton are just that pathetically stupid. They are smart like a fox. The muslim film is just a front that the filmmaker participated in. There are stories out there confirming the links. Can’t post using my playbook.

  • HELENK2

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330367/axelrod-refuses-say-whether-obama-met-natl-security-team-heading-las-vegas-eliana-john

    axelrod refuses to say whether backtrack met natl security team before heading to Las Vegas

    • getfitnow

      That would be a …NO!

  • HELENK2

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/14
    /Obama%20Surrogate-Benghazi-Never-Asked-For-More-Security

    come on jennifer granholm???
    benghazi never asked for more security

  • Fred82

    Sounds like the Left is using its old Communist tactics again.

    Spin your failures and blame them on someone else.

    November cannot come fast enough.

  • AlwaysLearning715

    Such a great commentary, Larry. Thank you. The intelligence community must be silently fuming that the Administration is pointing the blame at them. Tom Brokaw repeated the intelligence failure theme this morning on Meet the Press:

    “You come back to Benghazi, what has not been addressed enough in my judgment, is where was the intel? Why was the American intelligence apparatus not tracking the possibility of that kind of a terrorist attack. The rest of it has been politicized, but that’s where we ought to be. Down in the weeds looking at the intel on how prepared we are in that part of the world.”

    Larry, do you expect someone from intelligence will speak out about this?

    • TeakWoodKite

      “is where was the intel” ?????
      up Obama’s unread PDB’s ass.!!!
      It is sooo frustrating to watch this freak show.
      The question is “Why is Obama still POTUS”?

      • Retired_from_SPOnaj

        Yeah, you’d think that since the WHCA took the time and trouble to download that secure PDB app on Obama’s iPad, the least he could do is use it once in awhile.

  • HARP2

    Morgan for Mitt: CNN Star Says Romney ‘Might Just Save America’ (Piers Morgan! WOW!!)

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2944791/posts

    • KenoshaMarge

      Now there’s a shocker.

  • retire05

    Larry, anyone with two grey cells bumping together knows that this was an attempt at a major coverup by the Oval Office. Not withstanding the fact that the Administration left Ambassador Stevens, and the other American personnel, hanging out to dry, there are other questions that need to be asked and no one is doing it. So here goes:
    What was Chris Stevens doing in Benghazi, the biggest hot spot in Libya, on the anniversary of 9-11, a day that has special meaning to jihadists?
    It has been told that Stevens was trying to make a deal for weapons retrieval. Now, we know that Obama approved of the arms being supplied to the Libyan rebels by Egypt and France but why would Stevens be trying to retrieve any arms if they were not provided by the U.S.?
    Was the cover up to try to prevent the American people from learning that WE, the U.S. provided arms/weapons to the Libyan rebels and that we have now learned those rebels were active AQ members?
    This is a huge shell game. Look over here, at the failure of State, but not over here at the involvement of the Oval Office. And while your above report is great, and puts new light on disasterous actions by the Administration, you need to dig deeper. There is more to this than meets the eye, and it all goes back to my original question; what was so important that Stevens had to be in Benghazi on 9-11?

    • DianaLC

      Thanks for writing this. I didn’t know about the arms retrieval effort. But, I’ve been wondering for some time why in the heck he was there anyway at that time. It sure makes sense that it might have something to do arms exchanges, especially since he had been talking with a Turkish ambassador just before he was murdered.

    • antielitist

      I am sharing your excellent insight.

    • NellieS

      Thanks for raising the question so many have
      wondered about. Found this on the web. I have never seen nor am familiar with
      the site. However it is AN ANSWER. Larry or yourself would be best equipped to
      let us know if it is accurate. It does make sense to me.

      http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-secret-mission-of-ambassador-stevens.html

      • TeakWoodKite

        mmm. Sounds like a useful site, thanks Nellie. Best.
        (and retire05)

    • akaPatience

      Good points. And weren’t the 2 murdered Navy Seals on assignment in Libya to retrieve weapons, and NOT to provide security for the ambassador? I think Larry may have told us that here on NQ from the get go. Nevertheless (if I recall correctly) Rice as well as willing shills in the media suggested the Seals were part of the consulate security force – I suppose in an effort to make it seem like the security situation was better than it really was.
      If your theories are true, could it even be that the WH and State know or suspect that weaponry used in the 9/11 attack was originally provided to rebels by the US???

      • KenoshaMarge

        The questions always seems to come back to who knew what and when. Also the why would be nice to know.

        If as Biden claims he and Prezzy didn’t know, why the hell didn’t they?

        And what kind of Prezzy doesn’t make a point to know instead of chit-chatting with Joyless Behar and Whoopi?

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      retire05 wrote: “why would Stevens be trying to retrieve any arms if they were not provided by the U.S.?”
      I don’t know who you are, compadre, but you hit on it. Our guys were killed with weapons that we provided. Let’s just say that I used to be in this part of the business, and I know the indicators when I see them. The secret that this administration is desperately trying to cover up before the election is that we armed Sunni jihadis to create havoc in Alawi-dominated Syria and they turned those weapons back against our own guys when we tried a desperate attempt at Indian giving (no offense, Elizabeth Warren).
      If the full story comes out before the election, Obama is finished, deja vu Jimmy Carter. If it comes up in the last presidential debate on foreign policy, he’s toast. It exposes him as a fool and an liar.
      By the way, go see the newly-released movie “Argo” about Tony Menendez’s Tehran op. This movie does Obama no favors if the viewing public starts equating what happened in Tehran with what happened in Benghazi (sorry, Ben Affleck!). Aside from that, it’s about as accurate a portrayal of CIA clandestine operations culture and White House political duplicity as I’ve seen, and I’ve seen the real think up close and personal. Best regards,

      • Fred82

        Assuming that AQAM got their hands on our weapons/equipment in Syria and Libya, what are the chances that they will sell the stuff to China and/or North Korea for the purpose of reverse engineering?

        • Retired_from_SPOnaj

          We don’t give them “our stuff” for plausible deniability purposes. What we do is acquire “their stuff” on the international secondary (i.e., black) market and give it to our surrogates to do our bidding–presumabley when and where we tell them.
          In this case, we acquired Khadafi’s surplus stuff from the new Libyan government–such as it is–and gave it to the jihadis with the promise to the Libyans that we could keep the jihadis under control until they deployed to Syria. Guess what? It didn’t work out that way. Now the Libyans have the jihadis to deal with as an internal problem. Of course, they do have the money that we paid them for the surplus weapons. But they were planning on using that quick cash for other things, not ridding themselves of a problem that the Americans created.
          Now do you understand why this is such a mess, and why the Obama administration has been working overtime on overdrive trying to hide it until after the election?
          Oh, and I haven’t even gotten into the other side of the coin–the deal(s) that we cut with the Iranians, using the threat of the jihadis that we were arming in Libya, to cool it on the nukes until after the election, at which time we would stop being such a pain in the ass to their buddy Assad and pressure the Turks to knock off their operations against Assad, as well.
          Go see the movie “Argo” if you’d like to see just how far a President, in that case, Jimmy Carter, is willing to go to keep the dirty laundry in the hamper in an election year.
          Welcome to the sandbox that I used to play in.

          • Fred82

            Gotcha.

            Sounds a little bit like what we did in Afghanistan and Central America during the 1980s.

            The stuff on the current Administration does not surprise me at all. It seems to me as if all political hacks like Axelrod and Jarrett care about is getting elected.

            • Retired_from_SPOnaj

              The methodologies don’t change, just the players and the locations. I once stood on a pier where a ship was loading the weapons that I’d bought, bound for Afghanistan. On the next pier over was my Russian counterpart, loading the weapons that he’d bought on his own ship, bound for Central America. Guess where my next tour was? Central America. We did pretty well there. I hope my Russian “friend” didn’t end up in Afghanistan, where things didn’t go as well for them.

      • retire05

        I just recently read a not-so-recent article in the UK Independent that said Obama was trying to get the Sauds to provide weapons/arms to the Libyan rebels. We sell them to the Sauds, the Sauds give them to the Libyan rebels and Wholla! plausible deniability for the Oval Office. “No, no, no, we didn’t know the Sauds were going to arm the rebels or we would have not done the arms trade.”
        But there was a major hic-up. The Sauds balked and Obama had to find another route. That is why I think he personally armed the rebels. There is no doubt that it is clear that Obama thinks the Constitution that limits his power is just some pesky document that has long been outdated.
        Everyone is missing the boat on this one. The cover-up by the Oval Office is not trying to redirect blame for the attack, the cover-up is not wanting Benghazi to turn into Fast and Furious, Libyan Style. We supply the rebels with arms, they depose Gaddafi, which the Oval Office wanted, and then turn those arms on us. That is the real story, from my POV. That is the real cover-up.
        Oh, and as to the 9-11 Cairo protest being over a stupid video? WRONG. Nic Robertson of CNN did an interview with the Blind Sheikh’s brother that very morning. It’s on youtube. What wasn’t mentioned as a reason for the protest? The anti-Mohammed video. What was the reason? The Egyptian’s demand that the Blind Sheikh be released to them. Why did CNN decide to not air that interview? Two words: lap dog.

        • Retired_from_SPOnaj

          If anyone knows the danger of arming jihadis, it’s the Saudis. After all, the House of Saud is the main “internal enemy” of the jihadi movement. The idea that the Saudis would say, “Not only no, but f**k no” to arming jihadis makes total sense.
          Obama and his crew, I fear, draw analogies between jihadis and Alinsky disciples (the latter of which includes Obama’s inner circle). This is so incredibly ignorant and misguided, it’s almost hard to believe that any educated person with a modicum of sense would take such a position. Obama, who is considered takfir by the jihadis, would be the first one to go in their twisted minds, if they could get their hands on him.

          • Fred82

            I respectfully disagree there.

            Saudi Arabia is the den of Wahhabism, probably the most common ideology amongst the jihadis. Many Saudi citizens are ardent Wahhabis. The non-Saudi business class tends to be disproportionately Wahhabi and there are members of the House of Saud who are ardent Wahhabis.

            It is also in the Saudis interests to dispel Iranian influence. So in essence, arming jihadists to fight Assad would be a pragmatic step that would be popular amongst the Saudi public. It would also feed the pathological need of ardent Wahhabis to annihilate Shiites.

            From what I have seen, the only time the House of Saud gets serious about cracking down on jihadis is when they actually attack the Saudi regime. After a few months, its back to business as usual.

            • Retired_from_SPOnaj

              Well, Fred, I think that it’s been pretty conclusively proven that once jihadis get their hands on arms, it’s pretty hard to take the guns away. And since the US was trying to tell the jihadis in Libya to stand down, that we weren’t going to support them in a Syrian venture anymore, what would another logical target for armed jihadis with plenty of time on and weapons in their hands be? Overthrowing the House of Saud, perhaps? I agree that a considerable number of Saudis are of the Wahabbi persuasion, and that most takfiris have Wahabbi roots. That having been said, takfiris consider non-takfiri Wahabbis as takfir, themselves, and the thing about takfiris is that, unlike “mainstream” Wahabbis, takfiris don’t need a ruling by a supreme Islamic court to produce an execution fatwa. They just kill you when they feel like it.

              • Fred82

                I don’t think the House of Saud will be the next target for AQAM. Start up groups and lone takfiris may try to hit the House of Saud but they are likely to fail. I also tend to think that some jihadi groups are proxies of Saudi interests.

                Regarding AQAM, I would say they are aware that prior attacks on the House of Saud were a failure and that Saudi Arabia is a closed, totalitarian police state that can be quite difficult to operate in. While Saudi Arabia has often been a permissive environment for AQ and Co, failed attacks tend to temporarily do away with that environment. And unlike attacks in places like Iraq, attacks on Saudi soil did not generally meet with a warm reception from the Wahhabis.

                I always tended to view the AQ vs Saudi conflict to be more akin to a dispute over tactics and who gets to be caliph vice ideology.

                On the other hand, attacks on Shia apostate regimes like Syria seem to make the whole Wahhabi gang happy. Likewise, Al Qaida has shown itself to be aware of the fact that attacks on Israel and the United States generate much more goodwill and less controversy on the Arab street.

                Al Qaida and Co also have a grand chance to defeat the second superpower in Afghanistan. If they can sell that to the World, imagine the street cred and recruiting bonuses that they will reap.

                • Retired_from_SPOnaj

                  All very good points. The jihadis have a chance to settle longstanding Sunni scores with the Alawites as well as put a knife in the back of the “far enemy” (i.e., the west, particularly the US) as we execute our openly declared withdrawal in 2014. With regard to the latter, the continued absence of a central government of any capability in Afghanistan could allow them a return to the good old days pre 9/11/2001, a considerable strategic achievement for their movement.
                  Or, the northern border of Saudi Arabia (with Iraq) being under de facto Iranian control, the Iranians could make it worth their while to settle scores once and for all with the “near enemy,” the House of Saud, one of their original targets after the Saudis defiled Muslim lands by allowing in the far enemy (us) to defend the Sauds from Saddam. Saudi Arabia is a police state, but it’s land forces are split in two (Army and National Guard) to prevent an Army coup, and the Army is mostly stationed in the north. A well-trained and motivated jihadi guerilla force could create considerable havoc in a lacksadaisical Wahhabist Army that’s not particularly known for showing up to the morning formation on a daily basis, and it was Bin Laden himself that issued the jihadi edict against Saudi Arabia.
                  A pleasure discussing things with you, by the way.

    • HObama HObamanana

      I’m not sure how I missed this earlier. From the Washington Post, of all places.

      More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the wreckage of the U.S. mission on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate information about American operations in Libya.

      Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and an interpreter visited Wednesday.

      The article also contains photocopies of some of the documents referenced in the quoted paragraphs.

  • Hokma

    Tremendous analysis. One can only hope that Romney knows these facts and throws them at Obama on stage Tuesday night.

    I was watching Chris Wallace getting testy with Axelrod and stopping him dead in his tracks with every lie he kept trying to use.

    This debate could get very interesting if Romney finds an opening to pound him on the missteps and distortions.

    I agree and disagree about Watergate. Watergate was a coverup of a botched robbery. I find what Obama (and believe he has been involved throughout for different reasons) is more deplorable because this involved his primary job as a CiC and national security and he evidently placed his personal political future over the lives of Americans serving him in foreign service.

    I had read somewhere that the reason that the additional security was turned down was because of an Obama policy to give the appearance of normalization in places like Libya in order not to antagonize the masses.

    • TeakWoodKite

      That was my thesis as well and it was not me alone that came to that conclusion. It was a whole bunch of people, from expert to layman, observing the same facts as I was. No one but an idiot Obot would arrive at any other conclusion. The One is only concerned about his political survival and NOT the well being of Americans, no matter where on this planet they are.
      When experts tell congress that the Taliban are in the house, and even a simple kite can observe the same, the only one who invited them IS Barry Soetoro, the Grand Mufti-in chief.
      I keep hoping Romney will ask Soetoro, “How is it you consider arming Mexican drug cartels, Libyan and Syrian jihadists who used those weapons to kill our Ambassador and other innocent Americans and foreign nationals a foreign policy?”
      I can’t be the only ex-democrat who is deeply deeply offended and irate at Obama putting his political advancement ahead of the lives of innocent American citizens and Mexicans and Syrians and Iraqis and Egyptians and Iranians and and and who have died because of Barry’s blind arrogance and incompetence.
      The violence of Barry Soetoro’s deadly indifference transcends the normal realm of human existence and is disconnected from any underpinnings of anything even resembling a civil society our Constitution sets out.

    • getfitnow

      Keep in mind, this is a townhall. The foreign policy debate is the last one. Perhaps a citizen will ask. I certainly would.

      • Hokma

        I do not think there is a choice without Gallup and Crowley appearing partisan.

        • mgm

          I’m sure the questions are vetted ahead of time. But Romney is smart enough to get the topic included no matter the actual question.

          • Hokma

            Ya better believe he will be prepared for that.

      • Retired_from_SPOnaj

        If Candy allows such a question. She gets to approve all of them. One good thing about this is that we will probably finally find out whether it’s boxers or briefs for Obama. I don’t really want to know what the answer is for Candy.

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      Romney knows. The intelligence protocal is that once the Republican nominee is confirmed, he gets presidential level intel briefings. But more than that, he has retired intelligence officers on his advisory staff that are very, very well informed.
      The question is: How does he use what he knows without the political blowback of compromising still-classified information?

      • Hokma

        I think all you can do is raise questions – rhetorical questions of course.

  • akaPatience

    Excellent essay Larry. I really appreciate how you’re keeping us abreast of the situation. I think a lot of people realize that Americans will continue to be the victims of terrorism, especially those who’re stationed in hot spots. And some of those lives lost will unfortunately be due to incompetence. What bothers me most about Benghazi is the outrageous attempt to hoodwink the public and falsely lay blame.

  • Popsmoke

    This was a failure to evacuate our people in advance of the threat and protect our ambassador or better yet keep him away from Benghazi. Tactically speaking I agree with Nordstrom when he say sadditional security would have made no difference. Take a good look at what hit our consulate. This was indeed a determined large force with heavy weapons. Its my opinion that all the SST would have done was inflict a little more damage at its own peril.

    • Hokma

      Agreed. But say there was a large force of marines would they have been able to carry out the attack. The Ambassador and the others were sitting ducks.

      You are right. with what they knew what were they doing in Benghazi?

      • Popsmoke

        Interestng question. What were they doing in Benghazi? Now if there was a large force of Marines more than likely there would have been no attack. Or the attack would have been much larger. Of course we will never know.
        But with what we do know. State knew about the threats. Our embassador was not protected properly nor was the consulate staff.
        The question that Kennedy needs to answer is.
        Why did you not elevate the threat evacuating the consulate and warn off Stevens?
        The rest of the protection issue as far as force is duckspeak…

        • Hokma

          On the Benghazi issue and what were they doing there, that was a consulate and not the embassy so why were there intelligence files there at all? Maybe the reason they were there were to retrieve them knowing that there were prior attacks.

          They never did say why they were there did they?

    • TeakWoodKite

      OT. I saw a mention of Bolton as national security advisor… wasn’t at all clear who was pushing it from the article, but I would think it won’t last long.

      • Popsmoke

        Scary thought! Bolton as NSA..

        • TeakWoodKite

          That’s what I thought. I think Sununu would be an interesting choice.

      • Hokma

        Doubt it. Romney would be more like George H.W. Bush and not like W.

        I think he will bring in the best and brightest and will avoid seek foreign policy people with strong resumes and relations. No more of the crap from the last 12 years.

      • Retired_from_SPOnaj

        If I had to put money on it, I would say Cofer Black, assuming that the Republicans control the Senate.

        • TeakWoodKite

          You think that would be a sound choice or political patronage?

          • Retired_from_SPOnaj

            Mixed feelings. I served with Cofer. He’s very well-informed. If his political insight has grown appropriately in the last twenty years, he would be a good choice. But he would never get through Senate confirmation unless there is a Republican majority because he was chief of the counterterrorism center on 9/11. He went to the White House and tried to warn Condi Rice a couple of months before 9/11, but she blew him off because she considered him to be a DO knuckledragger. Of course, few are aware of this.

            • TeakWoodKite

              I recall it like it was yesterday, the interview he did explaining how he and Tenent would hustle down to Motel 1600 with all dispatch. He seemed clearly upset that Condi repeatedly blew him off. Curiously, I think Tenent’s senate career made him a more able political animal and Cofer not so much.
              That just a kites view from where the wind blows, but I have always had the impression that Cofer drew the short straw. Meddle of Freedom vs. living to see another day. (Tough choice. /snark off) I hope he has a sense of humor.

              • Retired_from_SPOnaj

                Tenent is a total political animal. To his credit, he invested the necessary time and intellectual effort to understand CIA. That is why he is generally liked there. Cofer is not a political animal in the sense that when it comes to a choice between doing the political thing or the morally right thing, Cofer will always choose the morally right thing. To a politician, that makes him dangerous because he can’t be depended on to betray the American people for the good of the party.

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      Yep, right on target. The question is: What was considered so important that the Ambassador and others were ordered to take the risk of being there? See above for the answer. Hint: It wasn’t saving American lives, unless you consider the political life of this administration as American lives worth sacrificing an Ambassador and other brave Americans for.

  • HELENK2

    http://spytalkblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-benghazi-debacle-fubar.html

    I do not think anyone is questioning that you accept some risk when you go in the field. But when you tell DC that you need more security, shouldn’t your request be looked at and filled ?

    When incidents like Benghazi happen lying about them only makes it worse

  • HELENK2
  • HELENK2

    http://www.examiner.com/article/administration-plays-confusing-blame-game-with-libyan-attacks

    don’t think Hillary is going to fall on her sword for backtrack

    • HELENK2

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330358/axelrod-
      throws-state-department-under-benghazi-bus-eliana-johnson

      axelrod throws state dept under the bus

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      HK2, I want to say a word about some of the links you so graciously provide.

      I followed this link to the “Examiner,” knowing nothing about the source cited. Customarily, I do not read unfamiliar sources, without first verifying who they are. This time, I was lazy; I began skimming the article intending to ‘check them out’ if I found a ‘fact’ which appeared to be material to the analysis of the news. Well, while I was reading, I noticed in the sidebar, tidbits of several other stories also found in the Examiner. This headline jumped out at me: “Did Hillary Clinton Send Gay Ambassador to Libya as Intentional Provocation?” I checked the byline; it was written by an Examiner reporter. Thus, I knew this publication was another untrustworthy rag. (Hyperbolic straw dog question on ‘knee-jerk’ ‘sexy’ theme.) I skimmed the article; it cited as one of its sources, the “HillBuzz” blog, notorious for conflating homosexually-related fantasy fetishization, for news. I clicked on that link, to find this hyperbolic headline: “BREAKING NEWS: Two sources in Chicago diplomatic circles identify Ambassador Chris Stevens as gay (meaning State Department sent gay man to be ambassador to Libya)” I skimmed that article so as to confirm my assumption, no ‘sources’ would be named.

      I was right.

      In sum; I add the “Examiner” to other internet sites like “FreeRepublic,” “CanadianFreePress,” and “WorldNet Daily,” for example, for providing text which, while perhaps inciting its readers with titillating gossip, does nothing to inform the situation.

      • Hokma

        Even if he were gay, he had served in Libya on and off since 2009 and the people knew him well.

        So the people using that as a reason he did not belong there forget his history int he region.

        • Theymustbemorons

          Just wondering, Let’s say Ambassador Stevens is gay … would that give him extra problems with security and make him a target in that country, despite his history with the people and the high regard for him in the region? Would his sexual preference make it more dangerous for him to be there? (Hard to believe anything else could make it more dangerous, but I’m wondering where the stories that he was raped and his body desecrated are coming from.) Here’s another article mentioning this.
          http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/no_decency_of_candor.html

          • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

            Assume Ambassador Stevens was gay. Evidently, the Muslims who protested his murder, calling him a friend of Libya, couldn’t have cared less. And neither can I.
            http://www.theworld.org/2012/09/ambassadors-death-prompts-libyan-protests-for-peace/

          • Retired_from_SPOnaj

            Ambassador Stevens was a career professional of the Senior Foreign Service. Such people, hetrosexual or gay, almost never allow their sexual preferences to interfere with their job or the mission.

            • Theymustbemorons

              I quite agree with your points. And I haven’t seen any comment here that would cast doubt on the late Ambassador’s dedication to his job or his mission. That would be absurd and very disrespectful to Ambassador Stevens. I am still wondering if his radical Islamist enemies feel the same as the rest of us.

      • akaPatience

        jbjd, of course I agree that all news sources are not equally credible. But I’ve been checking out ABC’s website lately and it offers its readers titillating gossip as well! The most popular articles on HuffPo pertain to celebrity gossip. I suspect websites rely on prurient interest to increase their hit counts.

    • getfitnow

      The knives are out, it seems, on both sides. What a sad mess, and 4 dead Americans lost in all.
      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2012/10/14/that_bus_is_rolling

  • TeakWoodKite

    It must really piss the US personel in charge of security that the US was , but our own US personnel couldn’t even get the basic security requirements of a high threat environnment.
    Thanks LJ.

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      I think that the real career professionals don’t get pissed off, they issue a mental “chit” for future collection. And when their “chit coolies” come around to collect, said collection always seems to happen at the worst of times. I think that we may soon be witnessing the chit coolies collecting.

      • TeakWoodKite

        That cuts across a lot of angles in the room. Don’t know whether to file that one under “Payback is an bitch” (or an empty chair) or Dancing with the Stars does the Potomac Two Step…aka Clear and Present Danager …
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk
        However it works out I am always appreciative of your insights and all the other voices of experience commenting here.
        As Halloween is fast approaching, perhaps it will be a zoombie coolie…

  • HELENK2
  • HObama HObamanana

    In my opinion, what took place in Benghazi and the coverup that has occurred here in the USA is much worse than what happened at Watergate. American citizens were actually murdered in Benghazi and we have an Administration that was warned that those citizens were at serious risk and did absolutely nothing to protect them.

    It may not specifically be a criminal offense to lie to the American people but I was not under the impression that a President’s sworn declaration of the Oath of Office did not end until he was out of office. It is also my opinion that any President that intentionally does not live up to his Oath of Office has committed a “high crime” and should be impeached.

    • MG6

      Hear hear!!

      • TeakWoodKite

        Hear Hear!!

  • HELENK2
    • HObama HObamanana

      You are being much too kind and polite.

  • HELENK2

    this is unbelievable
    investigators could not get to benghazi for 17 days because they were waiting on visas

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/unreal-obama-administration-didnt-reach-benghazi-for-17-days-because-they-were-waiting-on-visas-video/

  • HELENK2

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/14/what-did-hillary-tell-obama-on-911/

    good question what did Hillary tell backtrack on 9-11??

  • Sally Vaci

    Larry, thank you for lining up the excuses and batting them away one by one. I especially appreciate your explanation about Patrick Kennedy’s stunt during the hearings which I also heard you discuss on John Batchelor’s program. It’s despicable and rather juvenile as well. As a citizen it makes me very nervous thinking such political hackery passes for professionalism, by people in very important jobs.

  • elizabethrc

    Romney had it right during the first debate when he said that Obama doesn’t pick winners and losers, he picks losers. An administration is only as good as the people in it, starting at the top.
    The only failure of intelligence here starts with Obama and extends to the yes men and women he has put into positions which affect the security of this country. They are reminiscent of the fawning, frightened people around Nero, Caligula and so many past and present despots around the world.
    Neither side can say that the American people deserve this sort of representation. We deserve so much better.

    • KenoshaMarge

      Some of us deserve so much better.

      Those that vote for an incompetent, lying mediocrity because he’s cool or has the “right” color skin, don’t!

  • HoosierinDixie

    Excellent post Larry. I agree with you about bringing up Watergate. However, in all fairness, I think the comparison is being made because of the coverup rather than accusations of criminal intent. I do have a few questions I hope you can address.

    1. Does the fact that Mitt is now receiving intelligence briefings create any specific challenges to bringing up what happened in Libya at the debates? Since they are trying to blame the Republicans for the aerial photos I expect they will try the same thing against Mitt.

    2. As you know, the head of security at the U.S embassy in Yemen was recently assassinated. I have seen no reports that say he was in fact an American citizen. Is it a common practice to have non-citizens in charge of security in our embassies/consulates or is this something only seen in this administration?

    • Theymustbemorons
      • HoosierinDixie

        Thanks for the links. This clarifies his job as the head of the Foreign Service National Investigative Unit. His main responsibility is conducting personnel checks and serving as a liaison with the Yemen intelligence service. After the attacks in Libya and the blue on green attacks in Afghanistan, I wonder whether we should be trusting non-citizens to conduct personnel checks?

        • Theymustbemorons

          You’re welcome. The reuters story says one of those killed worked in the embassy for more than a decade. I thought as you did, about the non-citizen aspect, but these days it seems as if those who look like enemies might be friends … and those who seem to be friends are actually enemies. I think Mr. J knows how these things work more than I ever will.

          • HoosierinDixie

            I agree and hope Larry will shed some light on the subject. I am not accusing the victims in Yemen of any wrong doing. But it is not hard to imagine they weren’t approached at some point in time to play ball for the other team. Their positions and refusal may have made them a direct target. Ms. Lamb’s assertion that Libyan rent-a-cops (my term not hers) is just as good as our Special Forces guys is just plain stupid. In the wake of all these events, I don’t think it is unreasonable that any current or long standing policy of non-citizens taking leading roles in the security of our people needs to be revisited. Particularly in an area of the world that has become increasingly hostile towards Americans. Having a policy where Americans take the lead does not completely eliminate the threat but it can minimize the likelihood of where their loyalties may be.

          • HObama HObamanana

            Who was it that said: The Taliban are in the Building?

            • HELENK2

              eric northrum. he said in dealing with DC he felt like the taliban were in the building

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      Re: question 1, Romney has what is known in the intelligence operations world as a “blowback” problem. If he tells the truth of what he knows, he will be accused of compromising classified information. That is, of course, unless the press breaks the story first. In my view, with the general release of the movie “Argo” on Friday and the analogies that viewers may draw with the current Libyan debacle, the press may not be able to resist breaking this story.

      • HoosierinDixie

        Thank you RetiredSPOnaj. I thought the classified vs. unclassified may pose a problem. I am hoping some little bird will point the press in the right direction before the foreign policy debate. Considering how the OFA is pointing fingers at the intelligence community, it just might happen sooner than we think. If not Romney should still pose the questions What didn’t you know and why didn’t you know it? Did you receive an intel briefing on 9/12 before leaving for Vegas? How can you say it was a movie and a spontaneous protest when the attack was being watched in real time? Why not prepare for the unexpected on the anniversary of 9/11? How can you say AQ is on it’s heels when it quite clear to anyone with a television set that it is not? By posing enough of these types of questions he will cause the public to doubt their excuses.

  • HELENK2

    the attack lasted six hours and was watched in real time by the people in DC, why was there no rapid response team sent??

  • HELENK2

    yesterday I read an article about the February 17th brigade and it’s history. We put in the foxes to guard the hen house. Didn’t anyone at state know the history or understand the history enough to know it would not be safe to hire them?? If not , why not??

    • Sally Vaci

      Helen, thank you. I saw your link yesterday and read it. Very enlightening. I am still a bit confused, having a hard time telling the good guys from the bad guys. But the significane of the date is a big puzzle piece.

  • HELENK2

    http://www.therightscoop.com/former-uss-cole-commander-on-benghazi-obama-only-cares-about-power-and-getting-reelected/

    I brought this up from down stairs
    it is a hell of an indictment on the backtrack bunch

  • mgm

    Why is it so impossible for politicians of all stripes to learn that what brings their downfall is not the initial event, it’s the COVERUP? The Obama administration’s arrogant assumption that no one is as smart as they are, thus they can say anything that springs too mind and it will not be challenged by an apathetic public and a compliant cooperative media. of course, all too often that’s been true. But this time they may have crossed a brfdge too far by attempting to lay blame on the intelligence community. We can only hope that Romney has enough information to successfully confront Obama and his minions on nationwide TV.. What are the odds of this happening?

    • HELENK2

      http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-madrid-train-bombings/

      they should remember Madrid. the lies changed the elections or should I say the getting caught in the lies

    • HObama HObamanana

      I don’t think that the Obama Administration is so arrogant that they think no one is as smart as them; they are so arrogant that they believe that the American people are stupid enough to allow the power of Obama’s personality to get away with blatant and obvious lying.