If you're anything like me, you've probably noted how Obama's valiant defenders in the press have been keeping really, really quiet about the Benghazi attacks and subsequent questions that have arisen about the conduct of the State Department and the White House on the day of the attack.
Even people somewhat critical of the administration have been reluctant to look at Benghazi too closely, probably on the basis that the Republicans have been attempting to hammer Obama (and Clinton) over various aspects of that, and the Republicans are always wrong (http://lesswrong.com/lw/lw/reversed_stupidity_is_not_intelligence/).
Well, things just got interesting (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/benghazi-us-officials-blocked-congress-hearing):
QuoteWhile US diplomats were pulling bodies from a burning Libyan consulate and frantically smashing up hard drives last 11 September, their superiors blocked rescue efforts and later attempted to cover up security failings, according to damaging new evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes.
In vivid testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, deputy to murdered US ambassador Christopher Stevens, revealed for the first time in public a detailed account of the desperate few hours after the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.
QuoteHicks claimed Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a "minder" from the state department. "A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news," said Hicks, who said he had since been demoted. "She was upset. She was very upset."
The career diplomat also alleged he was actively discouraged by officials from asking awkward questions about why other top Clinton aides, including the UN ambassador Susan Rice, initially blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest that got out of control. He described that briefing he described as "jaw-dropping, embarrassing and stunning". It is now thought the attacks, involving up to 60 heavily armed militia, were co-ordinated by Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated to al-Qaida, and timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.
The allegations of a state department cover-up follow equally embarrassing claims that military leaders blocked efforts to dispatch special forces troops to the Benghazi consulate.
Of course the Republicans are doing this as a roundabout way of attacking Obama and smearing Clinton, hoping to poison the well before a possible future Presidential bid. I mean,
duh.
But that doesn't mean there are some legitimate questions as to what exactly went down that day. And what precisely the CIA were doing in Benghazi, which seems to be perhaps part of the reason for the White House's sudden drive towards damage control. Saint Brennan of the Drones must be protected at all costs, especially if he was running some kind of covert op in Benghazi and missed out on the fact his people had been made (http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf), or had them too busy collecting Stingers to focus on their own safety.
QuoteHicks claimed Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a "minder" from the state department. "A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news,"
Well that probably deserves an award for "Most suspicious sentence today"
Is "Minder" an official position in the Government?
Yes, it is. In North Korea.
:horrormirth:
Cain,
A co-worker just passed these along to me. This seems big, any input?
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/
QuoteSources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
...
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
...
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well. Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/previewing-how-the-media-will-defuse-cnns-bombshell-benghazi-revelations/
QuoteThe silence that followed CNN's bombshell report, in which they revealed that one of their reporters was able to sit down for two hours with a suspect in the deadly 2012 attack on an American diplomatic consulate in Benghazi, was deafening. A portion of the interview, airing on CNN's The Situation Room on Wednesday, revealed that the suspect is not in hiding, has no fear for his personal safety, and has never been contacted by either Libyan or American investigators. In prime time, Fox News Channel scrambled their programming lineup to dig into the implications of the CNN interview, but neither MSNBC nor even CNN's highest profile personalities touched the bombshell. Why? Perhaps the revelations were too fresh for those concerned over how the scandalous revelations may adversely impact the White House's political standing. It was on Fox, in fact, where a budding counter narrative — one that protects both the FBI and the White House — was hatched.
Not much to say, except this is just confirming the suspicion that the CIA was up to something in Benghazi that they don't want anyone - including Congress - to know about.
Cool, thanks. I'm going to keep an eye out for any more buzz around this.
Ok, Cain, I agree that SOMETHING was going on in Bengazi with the CIA. What I'm dealing with among my friends who are paying attention is that the embassy attack was the reason the CIA was there.
I'm thinking they were doing something, or somethings, and Bengazi was a hub. That hub is what they're attempting to protect. What do you think?
Well, that is the question, isn't it? Searching for Stinger missiles is one theory I've heard....coordinating CIA activity in Mali is another. Rep. Frank Wolf has alleged the CIA were moving guns, providing them to Syrian rebels, which is certainly a possibility.
But do we agree that the CIA wasn't there to facilitate the embassy attack, yeah?
I doubt it, although their operational sloppiness may have helped the attackers.
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 09, 2013, 02:58:52 PM
QuoteHicks claimed Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a "minder" from the state department. "A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news,"
Well that probably deserves an award for "Most suspicious sentence today"
Is "Minder" an official position in the Government?
Guess so now...
...Will keep eye peeled for stuff regarding this...Thanks, Cain. :)
Quote from: Cain on August 02, 2013, 04:29:19 AM
I doubt it, although their operational sloppiness may have helped the attackers.
Ah. Got it. Thanks.
Quote from: Cain on August 02, 2013, 04:20:13 AM
Well, that is the question, isn't it? Searching for Stinger missiles is one theory I've heard....coordinating CIA activity in Mali is another. Rep. Frank Wolf has alleged the CIA were moving guns, providing them to Syrian rebels, which is certainly a possibility.
On a scale of 1-10, where would you place good old fashioned drug running? Just seems worth adding to the speculation and would be a very simple explanation. I always assumed the CIA were still shifting smack, pretty much regardless of where they're operating.
Seems related:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23544515
QuoteThe US will close a number of embassies and consulates, mostly in the Middle East, on Sunday in response to an unspecified threat, officials say.
A state department spokeswoman said the order applied to any embassy or consulate normally open on Sunday.
In the Muslim world, Sunday is a work day. In other parts of the world US diplomatic offices are shut on Sunday.
Last year on 11 September, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, leaving four Americans dead.
Other embassies are routinely targets of protesters.
"We have instructed all US embassies and consulates that would have normally been open on Sunday to suspend operations, specifically on August 4th," a senior state department official told the BBC.
"It is possible we may have additional days of closing as well."
The official said the state department had "been apprised of information" leading it to these "precautionary steps... out of an abundance of caution".
CBS News reported that among those affected by closure would be the embassies or consulates in Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
The bold - I'd guess the thing to look at here would be which countries are not in the list. Not to say that they won't be affected, just that it seems odd to publicise any locations in particular. I would have thought the way to do something like this would be to shut them all down as quietly as possible. Unless you're trying to draw attention away from somewhere.
Also, those bold are prime candidates for CIA chicanery. Probably worth watching.
-
-
QuoteSo why did the attack happen?
Two guesses:
Occam's razor: General anti-US sentiment was triggered somehow and things spiralled. Once things started going on, some saw it as a potential screen for things so seized opportunities.
Paranoid ravings: The US did it. Because infowars.
Quote from: Cain on September 10, 2013, 01:41:44 PM
Here's what I don't get.
It looks like the CIA was carrying out a covert operation in Benghazi, and that operation was supplying arms to Syrian rebels. This theory coheres well with the existing evidence, that the CIA were up to something very secretive, why their Libyan staff were being polygraphed and targeted for security checks so often, and that the State Department were operating a "weapon decommissioning" program in Benghazi at the time. Benghazi is also home to many militants who fought in Iraq, and thus likely has strong ties to al-Nusra, which is made up of former Iraqi and Syrian jihadists.
That I get. That all makes sense.
But why would a militant Islamic outfit then attack the consulate? If anything, it would be in their interest to help. One could claim ignorance...but given the amount of surveillance that was apparently on the place, and the amount of planning that went into the attack, not to mention the constant chatter among Islamist groups in the region, I find it hard to believe that they were unaware of this.
So why did the attack happen?
Attackers were backed by Assad? If I were Obama, I'd be trying to make that connection.
Iran would make more sense than Assad. Keep pushing them as the ultimate problem that we're slowly working our way towards dealing with.
-
So maybe this was a "loose ends" thing.
Explains the paperwork going missing.
Maybe the ambassador found out something he wasn't supposed to find out?
-
Hypothetically, would Ambassadors make good or bad hostages? I'm pretty sure that it's unlikely to ever arise, but I can see some benefits in that regard. Obvious problems too though. Abduction attempt gone wrong?
-
Probably in paranoid territory, but fire and explosions are pretty handy at covering up other physical evidence. I assume CIA protocols would state something like "If attacked - Burn everything". So the intention was probably not to gain intelligence unless of the human variety?
A political statement perhaps? Destroying an embassy is quite a show of force. No overt credit appears to have been taken though so that feels wrong.
Maybe a third party wanted something? Is good old fashioned greed possible?
Bump.
This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-guantanamo-detainee-implicated-in-benghazi-attack/2014/01/07/c73fdf78-77d5-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html) may explain a few things:
QuoteU.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.
Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said.
So why was Qumu released, while others languished in Camp X-Ray despite the US government knowing they had no involvement in terrorist activity?
Well, there was this suspected program (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/14/have-the-spooks-finally-admitted-to-congress-theyve-been-exploiting-gitmo-detainees-as-spies/):
QuoteDIA's Ed Mornston says names of ex-#Guantanamo captives who "re-engaged" after release are secret "to protect sources and methods."
QuoteShe says that the Americans have recruited the prisoners to function as spies -- first against other prisoners, later out in the field. This would explain the reported cases of "recidivism."
Sources and methods? Well, that means they're protecting sources of intel. Strongly suggesting they turned people while in Guantanamo and released them to re-infiltrate Al-Qaeda affiliates and report back to the US intelligence community. If such a program does exist, it likely started in 2007, which is the year Qumu was released into Libyan custody (the Libyans released him in 2008).
According to government documents obtained by the NYT, Qumu has no travel restrictions, and has a "non-specific personality disorder".
And Qumu has quite the record, too. Murder, armed assault, drug trafficking...and that was before he met up with Bin Laden. Given the longstanding aminosity between Gaddafi and Bin Laden, it does seem odd that he would release such a man, let alone give him the freedom to head up his own militia (lets recall, other Islamic militants died in mysterious circumstances in Libyan jails, as late as 2009). But since 2003, Libya has been trying to play nice with the West and cooperate in the War on Terror.
So, hypothetically speaking, if Qumu were released because of his use as an intelligence asset, it would make sense that the US would lean on Gaddafi to leave him alone.
And if Qumu were an American asset, it might explain why the CIA reluctance to tell anyone what they were doing in Benghazi, and why whatever it was that they were doing was considered so secretive that they required near-constant polygraphing. And it may explain why the White House initially denied he was behind the attack - whether from complicity with the CIA or because the CIA sold them a line of bullshit.
Of course, it doesn't entirely explain the events of the day, why Qumu apparently decided to break ranks with US intelligence and target his likely handlers...but it's a start.
Note: I am indebted to Joseph Cannon (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2014/01/benghazi-bombshell-who-was-qumu-was-he.html#rssowlmlink) for the above post's information. If you want someone who can talk sensibly about covert action, parapolitics and similar, I highly recommend his site.
Very interesting.
It helps highlight the real purpose behind Gitmo and similar ilk too. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a large degree of Gitmo's training is focused on turning enemy combatants into compliant assets. There's already a wide range of living accommodation depending on how much you collaborate with your captors. I'd suggest it's possible that Qumu managed to keep up this pretence while getting into the position to do the most possible damage.
Are there any "non-specific personality disorders" that might get you through a polygraph test easier?
I don't believe it was the original intention of Guantanamo which - like so much else of Bush II's first term - was an ad hoc arrangement ordered from the White House without thinking through the consequences. But it's definitely the sort of place which could easily be turned to that end.
Well, the thing about a nonspecific personality disorder is that it's non-specific. Meaning, a polygrapher cannot adjust for it, yet it taints all testimony due to implied mental instability (which may or may not in fact be the case). And the conditions of Guantanamo could easily bring about the symptoms of psychological disorders which may (or may not) subside with the right treatment and removal from Camp X-Ray.
I was thinking that if you didn't have some kind of personality disorder before CIA care and attention, you almost certainly will at the end of it.
Cannon seems to have some pretty good articles, thanks for that too.
If Gitmo wasn't going to become a factory for turning foreign fighters into assets, then I'd be surprised. This is really good info. It's kind of funny that the GOP is trying to use Benghazi as some sort of weapon against Obama, but they're doing it all wrong.
This IS very good info. Much appreciated Cain.
Senate Committee says Benghazi Attacks Preventable (http://news.yahoo.com/senate-committee-says-benghazi-attacks-preventable-154501946.html;_ylt=A0SO8zfC1NZSNg8ACLZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0Y3Fxb2ZzBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDI4Nl8x)
And here comes the agitprop:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-clinton-benghazi-idUSBREA1A1YM20140211
QuoteEstablishment Republicans and a right-wing group of former spies and special forces operatives that says it is nonpartisan but has historical Republican ties are raising a ruckus over Hillary Rodham Clinton's handling of the 2012 assault on U.S. installations in Benghazi, Libya.
Well, when in history has that combination ever been troublesome in American politics?
Incidentally, their spokesman is "former CIA official Fred Rustmann." He's got an interesting history (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2014/02/spooks-against-hillary.html#rssowlmlink). Valerie Plame, private corporate intelligence/CIA fronts and, according to the (admittedly unreliable) Larry Johnson, a thief as well.
And OpSec has some ALEC links too. All we need is the Koch Brothers and Dick Cheney and some poor liberal's head is gonna explode...
Hmmm, related?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/12/confidants-diary-clinton-wanted-to-keep-records-for-revenge/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/hillary-clinton-blast-from-the-past-103349.html
Likely, yes.
Though I can completely understand where Clinton is coming from, and even have a certain amount of sympathy for her, putting any of that down on paper was stupid. It fits perfectly into "the Clintons are ruthless Arkansas mafia types who will crush anyone in their scramble to power, so unlike, say, Richard Nixon or George HW Bush" trope.