Contributors

Friday, January 17, 2014

Retractions, Please

The United States Senate has released its report on the Attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Here are some key takeaways.

The late Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, has been partially implicated for the failure of adequate security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The report notes that Mr. Stevens was aware of all of the intelligence reporting on Libya, including updates on the increased risks of anti-Western terrorist attacks that had prompted the C.I.A. to substantially upgrade the security at its own Benghazi facility in June 2012.

At times, Mr. Stevens requested additional security personnel from the State Department in Washington. But the inquiry also found that in June 2012, around the time the threats were mounting, Mr. Stevens recommended hiring and training local Libyan guards to form security teams in Tripoli and Benghazi. The plan showed a faith in local Libyan support that proved misplaced on the night of the attack.

During an Aug. 15, 2012, meeting on the deteriorating security around Benghazi that Mr. Stevens attended, a diplomat stationed there described the situation as “trending negatively,” according to a cable sent the next day and quoted in the report. A diplomatic security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.”

A C.I.A. officer at the meeting pointed out the location of approximately 10 Islamist militias and Al Qaeda training camps within Benghazi, according to the same cable. After reading the cable, Gen. Carter F. Ham, then the commander of the United States Africa Command, called Mr. Stevens to ask if the embassy in Tripoli needed additional military personnel, potentially for use in Benghazi, “but Stevens told Ham it did not,” the report said. A short time later, General Ham reiterated the offer at a meeting in Germany, and “Stevens again declined,” the report said. The same Aug. 16 cable had also promised that requests “for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs” for the Benghazi mission would be submitted through the Tripoli embassy, but “the committee has not seen any evidence that those requests were passed on by the embassy, including by the ambassador, to State Department headquarters before the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi.”

The Senate reports notes that the CIA bolstered its security at the annex, located near the diplomatic compound and actually paid attention to these reports. Stevens and the people at the State Department in DC did not. The person at the State Department specifically responsible for security at diplomatic compounds was Patrick F Kennedy. Kennedy held a similar job in 1998 when two American Embassies in East Africa were bombed. Clearly, Mr. Kennedy is not capable of doing his job and should never be allowed to be responsible in such a capacity again.

Nowhere in the report do we see secret plots or cover ups that we have been hearing squeak from inside the right wing bubble. No evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama turned down additional security requests. This bloviation can be summed up quite simply as this. Sorry, folks, the president is better at foreign policy and international security than George W. Bush. Deal with it.

With this new information, I'm expecting some retractions from people who claim they can admit when they are wrong. Let's with Kevin Baker and his bullshit lying.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a twisted version of the report. Mark was nice enough to link to the actual report. I highly recommend reading it for yourself.

Here are some highlights:

Under Finding #2:

June 6, 2012 - Recommended creation of locally hired teams. (Yes, Mark mentions this, but in a really twisted way that does not match the report.)

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters requesting a minimum of 13 "Temporary Duty" (TDY) U.S. security personnel for Libya, which he said could be made up of DS agents, DoD Site Security Team (SST) personnel, or some combination of the two. These TDY security personnel were needed to meet the requested security posture in Tripoli and Benghazi. The State Department never fulfilled this request and, according to Eric Nordstrom, State Department headquarters never responded to the request with a cable.

Gee, why didn't Mark mention this request? It's clear from the report that hiring locals, and Ambassador Stevens had clearly given up on the idea.

In an August 16, 2012, cable to State headquarters, Stevens raised additional concerns about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi following an Emergency Action Committee (EAC) meeting held on August 15, 2012, in Benghazi. The EAC is an interagency group convened periodically in U.S. embassies and other facilities in response to emergencies or security matters. In this case, the head State Department officer in Benghazi, called the Principal Officer, convened the meeting "to evaluate Post's tripwires in light of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi." The cable summarizing this EAC included the following points:

(1) The Principal Officer "remarked that the security situation in Benghazi was 'trending negatively'" and "that this daily pattern of violence would be the 'new normal' for the foreseeable future, particularly given the minimal capabilities of organizations such as the Supreme Security Council and local police."

(2) A CIA officer "briefed the EAC on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi."


There are other points. You can read them for yourself. Continuing on…

Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements where made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility. Although the Mission facility met the minimum personnel requirements for Diplomatic Security agents as accepted by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the August 15 EAC meeting …, the Committee found no evidence that significant actions were taken by the State Department between August 15, 2012, and September 11, 2012, to increase security at the Mission facility in response to the concerns raised in that meeting.

All four recommendations under Finding #2 are things the State Department needs to do. None of them put any responsibilities on the the Ambassadors.

The "deteriorating security situation" was clearly well known. The report mentions 12 other violent attacks leading up to this one. Given the months of increasing violence, the suggestion that the attack was a mere protest and that violence was "unexpected" is simply ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

Continuing on…

Under Finding #5:

There were "tripwires" designed to prompt a reduction in personnel or the suspension of operations at the Mission facility in Benghazi and although there is evidence that some fo the had been crossed, operations continued with minimal change. …

State Department documents indicate that its Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was aware of the fact that many of the tripwires had indeed been crossed and discussed suspending operations, but never did. Given these developments and the available intelligence at the time, the Committee believes the State Department should have recognized the need to increase security to a level commensurate with the threat, or suspend operations in Benghazi.


Under Finding #9:

On September 18, 2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks. Although information gathered from interviews with U.S. personnel who were on the ground during the attacks was shared informally between the FBI and CIA, it was not until two days later, on September 20, 2012, that the FBI disseminated its intelligence reports detailing such interviews.



As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks.

Anonymous said...

Then there's this:

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.



"In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta," McKeon asked, "was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham initially testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for."

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack."


Note that the article links to the actual declassified transcripts.

Where is your retraction?

Mark Ward said...

Just so we are clear...you are sticking with the right wing blog version of events of the Benghazi? Despite the info in this report and the Times story?

Anonymous said...

Despite the info in this report and the Times story?

Really? You have the sack to say that right after I quoted directly from the report?

Try BECAUSE of this report and it (and other declassified materials) contradicting the Times story.

And you wonder why we're convinced that you're a hard core partisan hack.

GuardDuck said...

The DNI's Office of Analytic Integrity and Standards (AIS) failed to provide complete and accurate information to Congress during its review of the Benghazi attacks. The
Committee found AIS's methodology in assembling documents to be flawed. Despite repeated requests from the Committee, AIS also refused to provide complete, accurate, and thoroughly cited information to Congress.



Huh. That sure looks like what would happen in a situation termed a 'cover-up'.

Mark Ward said...

That didn't answer my question, NMN. At least you are wise enough to hedge, though:)

GuardDuck said...

Well perhaps you could enlighten us with what are the specific 'right wing blog' version of events that you would expect us to retract. Of course that would also entail showing us where WE said that we agreed with whatever you are referring to.

Anonymous said...

It's clear from the report that hiring locals, and Ambassador Stevens had clearly given up on the idea.

Oops. It seems I missed something here. It should read…

It's clear from the report that hiring locals didn't work out, and Ambassador Stevens had clearly given up on the idea.

Mark Ward said...

I linked Kevin's piece which is pretty much the party line from the right wing collective. That should be sufficient enough information for you, GD.

But again, neither one of you are actually taking a stand here. What do you think happened?

I think the State Department, specifically Kennedy and Stevens, blew it and it cost the latter his life. I think the CIA was up to things there that they still won't talk about and also were responsible for the lax security. The evidence shows the video did play a part. More importantly, the situation is far more complicated than the BS being peddled inside the bubble and none of us have access to all of the information about the attack. So, to believe that the president and Hillary Clinton were derelict in their duty and covered up elements of the attack for political reasons (as well as lying about the attack) is purely speculative. Even my view should be considered rudimentary as I have no one in the State Department or the CIA pumping me information.

GuardDuck said...

I linked Kevin's piece which is pretty much the party line from the right wing collective. That should be sufficient enough information for you, GD.



The page you linked to did not say enough of anything about Benghazi to retract anything. If you expect a retraction you have to provide me with enough info to determine specifically what the fuck you are talking about.


But again, neither one of you are actually taking a stand here. What do you think happened?

Bullshit. You are demanding a retraction. You are not asking what I think, you have already condemned me for what I supposedly think.

Retract your demand for a retraction if you want a open conversation about it. Otherwise you aren't asking what I think in anything resembling honesty.

Juris Imprudent said...

There could be video of Obama standing in the streets of Benghazi directing fire on American personnel and property and M wouldn't change his tune one bit.

Seriously, does anyone expect anything different?

Larry said...

Truly, there are dain-bramaged chimps with better reading comprehension skills than Markadelphia possesses.