Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[Chicog]

Seems like my "ilk" are still wanting the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama’s battle on Benghazi far from finished

By Shaun Waterman-The Washington Times Thursday, November 8, 2012

President Obama’s victory in the general election this week does not silence those who have been criticizing his administration’s response to the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The critics, which include of former military and intelligence personnel, conservative commentators and grieving relatives, are set to redouble their efforts, highlighting what they call the administration’s failure to give straight answers to questions about security at the consulate and official actions before, during and after the attack.

“We are going to keep the pressure on,” said Fred W. Rustmann Jr., from the advocacy group OpSec.

OpSec, a military term meaning “operational security,” is a group of former special operations forces and intelligence veterans who campaigned during the election to raise national security issues about Mr. Obama, though as a 501© 4 organization it was not allowed to campaign for or against the election of anyone.

http://www.washingto...-from-finished/

You know Chuck, I wish to make something extremely clear. I loathe governments that conceal information from the electorate, and if I thought for a minute that Hillary saw "CIA Ops Center" on her bat-cellphone and rolled over and went back to sleep, she would deserve the criticism she gets. Who knows, perhaps she's jumping before she's pushed?

But everything I have read that comes from a reputable source says that the errors were probably on the ground, and that the CIA probably put a little too much faith in local resources. Now if the CIA told Clinton and/or Obama "it's all OK, the Libyans are giving us all the protection we need", are they not supposed to trust them? And is it not the CIA's fault for misreading the situation?

You haven't produce a single fact of note the implies that Clinton or Obama have committed any crime, it's all just more innuendo.

I expect the hearings will probably end up saying much the same thing. I hope you and your ilk won't be too disappointed.

[chuckd]

So, tell me. Is this the transparency you would like to see? The State Department has offered the Senate Committee a chance to peek at diplomatic communications "in camera" today and tomorrow. Congress is NOT in session Thursday and Friday with most Senators out of town.

This, sir, is why I do not trust the Democratic controlled Senate to do the right thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benghazi documents available to senators only when they are out of town

Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 12:16 PM

Under pressure from senators, the State Department is allowing some lawmakers to look at cables and other documents related to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, but only today and tomorrow, when most senators are not in Washington.

Congress is gearing up for a full week of Benghazi-related hearings next week, including a Nov. 13 hearing behind closed doors of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Chairman John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry has written two letters to the State Department requesting congressional access to information and documents related to the circumstances leading up to and during the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. Several sensitive documents have already been leaked to congressional offices and the media, so the State Department has decided to let some senators view Benghazi documents but not take them home.

...from the article...

"To facilitate your committee's work, we want to offer you and other members of the committee the opportunity to review these cables and memoranda. This set of material contains classified and other sensitive information... Mindful of these concerns, the Department is prepared to make copies of these documents available for the committee's in camera review."

One senior GOP Senate staffer told The Cable that State is only making the documents available for senators and committee staff to view today and tomorrow, which won't actually allow the members to prepare for the hearing. Staffers for committee members are also not allowed to see the material.

http://thecable.fore...are_out_of_town

Edited November 9, 2012 by chuckd

[Chicog]

only today and tomorrow, when most senators are not in Washington

They're on expenses aren't they? So stay in Washington and view them. Isn't it important enough?

And if they don't, you know what it means, don't you?

That's right, the only people that think this is worth getting so het up about is (are?) Fox News.

On this para:

One senior GOP Senate staffer told The Cable that State is only making the documents available for senators and committee staff to view today and tomorrow, which won't actually allow the members to prepare for the hearing. Staffers for committee members are also not allowed to see the material.

I can understand staffers not having clearance, so is that surprising? And as the hearing is the 15th, would they not rather have them today and tomorrow, rather than the 14th?

More importantly, are they not entitled to ask to see them again, and schedule more hearings if they feel there is more to be discussed?

Oh, and maybe this update came in after you read the site:

UPDATE #2: A spokesperson for Corker told The Cable that after Corker spoke directly with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the State Department agreed to allow staffers for Sens. James Risch (R-ID) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) view the documents while their bosses are out of town. Corker will be in Washington Friday and will view them himself as well, the spokesperson said.

It's about to come on Fox, lets see if they report that last bit.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Chicog

[Chicog]

No, they didn't go overboard about it, so I can assume they are satisfied there's no meat left to chew on that bone.

[koheesti]

Seems like my "ilk" are still wanting the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama’s battle on Benghazi far from finished

By Shaun Waterman-The Washington Times Thursday, November 8, 2012

President Obama’s victory in the general election this week does not silence those who have been criticizing his administration’s response to the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The critics, which include of former military and intelligence personnel, conservative commentators and grieving relatives, are set to redouble their efforts, highlighting what they call the administration’s failure to give straight answers to questions about security at the consulate and official actions before, during and after the attack.

“We are going to keep the pressure on,” said Fred W. Rustmann Jr., from the advocacy group OpSec.

OpSec, a military term meaning “operational security,” is a group of former special operations forces and intelligence veterans who campaigned during the election to raise national security issues about Mr. Obama, though as a 501© 4 organization it was not allowed to campaign for or against the election of anyone.

http://www.washingto...-from-finished/

You know Chuck, I wish to make something extremely clear. I loathe governments that conceal information from the electorate, and if I thought for a minute that Hillary saw "CIA Ops Center" on her bat-cellphone and rolled over and went back to sleep, she would deserve the criticism she gets.

The implication is not that anyone didn't answer the "bat-cellphone", but that they did answer it and gave orders not to do anything to save the lives of our people. I get it...the last thing they (our gov't) wanted was another drone strike killing innocents in the Middle East in a country that we helped. Of course, that should have been the second-to-last thing they wanted. The last thing they should have wanted was four of our people getting slaughtered including the ambassador.

[Chicog]

The implication is not that anyone didn't answer the "bat-cellphone", but that they did answer it and gave orders not to do anything to save the lives of our people. I get it...the last thing they (our gov't) wanted was another drone strike killing innocents in the Middle East in a country that we helped. Of course, that should have been the second-to-last thing they wanted. The last thing they should have wanted was four of our people getting slaughtered including the ambassador.

Chuck,

I'm sure the last thing they wanted was four Americans dying needlessly, and let's hope whatever mistakes led to it get fixed.

But I have yet to see evidence that says they did anything but trust the intelligence from an Agency that got it wrong.

[theblether]

David Patraeus has resigned, he had an affair.

[Chicog]

David Patraeus has resigned, he had an affair.

Does that get him out of testifying?

Added: That stinks of all sorts of manure:

She also said Petraeus will not need to testify at hearings she is chairing next week into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Chicog

[softgeorge]

David Patraeus has resigned, he had an affair.

People have affairs all the time but don't quit/lose thier jobs because of it, thier marriage maybe. Political correctness gone completely mad.

[keemapoot]

If I had to guess, I would say somebody leaked the affair to the media and a smear machine was getting itself geared up. Resigning was his only option. Who would have done such a thing?

More interesting, is does the buck (and blame) stop with him on Benghazi? Now that he is out of the administration, will any fallout rest solely on his shoulders, largely leaving Clinton and Obama intact? My guess is yes. Look for this "scandal" to die a quick death insofar as it implicates anyone other than Petraeus.

I can't see why it would get him out of any testifying or anything. Remember Ollie North?

[lomatopo]

Maybe the affair was discovered during the vetting process for Secretary of State? News articles mention it was discovered by the FBI.

Maybe he was banging a subordinate?

Maybe he was banging a foreigner, or a representative of another country's intelligence service?

Maybe he was banging someone when he missed the Benghazi call?

Edited November 10, 2012 by lomatopo

[mania]

Maybe the affair was discovered during the vetting process for Secretary of State? News articles mention it was discovered by the FBI.

Maybe he was banging a subordinate?

Maybe he was banging a foreigner, or a representative of another country's intelligence service?

Maybe he was banging someone when he missed the Benghazi call?

I believe he was "banging" as you say his biographer, Paula Broadwell

[geriatrickid]

Perhaps the CIA Director was "occupied" at a point in time when his input was required.

I don't think there is any conspiracy in respect to the Petraeus infidelity. There had been whispers for quite some time as he had spent considerable time with his biographer. It is more likely that he pushed the enveolope too many times and created a security risk that became obvious. He can still be called to testify, so his resignation doesn't get him away from that. However, he joins folks like Gingrich and Giuliani with their marital foibles. At least he wasn't caught trying to make friends in a public washroom. It would appear his potential career as a GOP senate candidate has just fizzled.

[lomatopo]

Maybe the affair was discovered during the vetting process for Secretary of State? News articles mention it was discovered by the FBI.

Maybe he was banging a subordinate?

Maybe he was banging a foreigner, or a representative of another country's intelligence service?

Maybe he was banging someone when he missed the Benghazi call?

I believe he was "banging" as you say his biographer, Paula Broadwell

She's hot. West Point '95. Married with two sons.

Gives new meaning to the word "embedded". , and the title of the book, "All In".

http://gawker.com/5959347/and-the-reporter-who-had-an-affair-with-david-petraeus-ispaula-broadwell

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-25-2012/paula-broadwell

[keemapoot]

How long will it take Fox News and their ilk to expose a plot by Obama to hang Benghazi on Republican Petraeus, by exposing his affair so he resigns and is no longer part of the administration? I can just imagine all those Fox "sources on the ground" scrambling to make this one up.

[lomatopo]

I wonder what the "potential criminal matter" was?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all

Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, F.B.I. agents met with Mr. Petraeus to discuss the investigation.

Administration and Congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, the co-author of a biography of Mr. Petraeus. Her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” was published this year. Ms. Broadwell could not be reached for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-storied-career-of-david-h-petraeus/2012/11/09/38c8a6fa-2ac7-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html

He falls from a self-built pedestal that was based on more than battlefield heroics. As a general, his principal message to the troops under his command was not just about military tactics and high-concept strategy. He preached individual leadership above all else, often telling his charges that character meant doing the right thing when nobody was watching.

Presumably Ms. Broadwell closed her eyes during their intimate relations?

[mania]

Presumably Ms. Broadwell closed her eyes during their intimate relations?

Probably no more than Monica Lewinski

All through history great men have fallen from grace over similar desires yes?

Can't say I know much about the General surely not enough to judge him

based on sexual indiscretions between two consenting adults

[simple1]

Extramarital affairs are a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and possibly subject to court martial proceeding. He had no choice, but to resign

[lomatopo]

http://usmilitary.ab...s/a/mcm1342.htm

Maximum punishment.

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Probably a good thing his father-in-law, Gen. William A. Knowlton, is deceased, otherwise I suspect Gen. Patraeus would be taken out to the woodshed.

Edited November 10, 2012 by lomatopo

[mania]

Maximum punishment.

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

As I said do not know the man but,

Without even knowing him I would hope he does not get that kind of punishment.

I can imagine the things he has had to do for his country & the things he has seen

compared to most. I would hope that does count for something even against this transgression.

I will also say one has to wonder about the FBI putting this out there & why?

I have often said the system is broken.

Of course national security is one thing but is this the America he spent his life defending freedoms for?

We have a CIA & FBI that will not disclose many things to their employers ( we the citizens )

Even as the CIA will not give body counts in Pakistan

Yet a extra marital affair the FBI is quick to divulge?

Something is wrong with the whole thing & I do not mean the affair.

[lomatopo]

Maximum punishment.

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Yet a extra marital affair the FBI is quick to divulge?

Something is wrong with the whole thing & I do not mean the affair.

I suspect that once Gen. Patraeus knew that his indiscretions would have to be revealed, even if only to the President and perhaps select members of the Senate Intelligence committee, that he chose to do the right and honorable thing, which was to tender his resignation. Evidently President Obama only reluctantly accepted it.

I'm not seeing a conspiracy here but then I rarely do - my tin-foil hat often covers up my eyes. And we all know Big Government can't do anything right or well, and that includes conspiracies, except Roswell of course, and the alien/U.S. Government treaty of 1948.

And does anyone else think "Ms. Broadwell" is not the perfect name for a Bond femme-fatale? Perhaps "Felicty Broadwell"?

Edited November 10, 2012 by lomatopo

[Chicog]

I suspect that once Gen. Patraeus knew that his indiscretions would have to be revealed, even if only to the President and perhaps select members of the Senate Intelligence committee, that he chose to do the right and honorable thing, which was to tender his resignation. Evidently President Obama only reluctantly accepted it.

I'm not seeing a conspiracy here but then I rarely do - my tin-foil hat often covers up my eyes. And we all know Big Government can't do anything right or well, and that includes conspiracies, except Roswell of course, and the alien/U.S. Government treaty of 1948.

And does anyone else think "Ms. Broadwell" is not the perfect name for a Bond femme-fatale? Perhaps "Felicty Broadwell"?

I just find it extremely convenient that, given the heat on the CIA for its misreading of Libyan support in Benghazi, he might well have been in the hot seat come November 15th. Now he doesn't have to testify?

Seems a tad too convenient for me.

Added: Who does it benefit:

(i) The CIA?

(ii) Republicans - they can throw all the heat on Clinton and Obama?

(iii) Democrats - they can use it to their advantage?

Edited November 10, 2012 by Chicog

[mania]

I suspect that once Gen. Patraeus knew that his indiscretions would have to be revealed, even if only to the President and perhaps select members of the Senate Intelligence committee, that he chose to do the right and honorable thing, which was to tender his resignation. Evidently President Obama only reluctantly accepted it.

I'm not seeing a conspiracy here

You should not see a conspiracy as none here mentioned one.

I did mention I think the system is broken & has been for a long time.

The FBI found out by supposedly checking a computer he used because they thought it may be compromised.

I guess while they were in there they figured they would read his emails just in case.

I highly doubt the FBI then said "psst Hey General" So then the the general ran to resign?

Now that would be a conspiracy theory you have there.

No as I said I just think the system is broken in many ways.

[chuckd]

What it comes down to is Benghazi-Gate is now over. The blame will be placed solely on the shoulders of Gen. Petraeus and the film maker is already back in jail.

Nothing will come of the facts that the Clinton/Obama vaudeville act had months of advance notification the Consulate was poorly constructed, completely indefensible, an Embassy security detail was inadequately manned and the Ambassador was virtually alone on 9/11. It will be conveniently forgotten the Ambassador had called for help for months and had called for help early on in the attack.

It will be overlooked that the nearest F-16 was 20 minutes away, a C-130 gunship was circling the compound with a former SEAL available on site with a laser tracking device, a special forces unit was less than two hours away and the rescue effort was so poorly carried out that the rescue team from Tripoli could not find transportation from the Benghazi airport to the Consulate for five hours.

Nope, nothing suspicious here. Blame it on the guy whose marital indiscretion of the past several months was somehow leaked by the FBI five days before Petraeus was required to testify.

Carry on, there is nothing to see here.

Edited November 10, 2012 by chuckd

[Chicog]

Sorry Chuck, even Fox can't find a way to spin this - although you can tell they are straining at the leash to find something - plus if the committees want to talk to him, they can subpoena him.

You're right, there's nothing to see here. There never was.

Just a standard bureaucratic SNAFU that sadly cost four American lives.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Chicog

[lomatopo]

Added: Who does it benefit:

(i) The CIA?

(ii) Republicans - they can throw all the heat on Clinton and Obama?

(iii) Democrats - they can use it to their advantage?

I don't think it benefits anyone? Certainly not the spouses and children affected, nor the CIA, where by many accounts Patraeus was doing a fine job, nor the Nation, nor the Military establishment. It seems like everyone loses on this one,but clearly he had to offer his resignation. I don't think Obama wanted to accept it but my sense is that Obama knew that Patraeus really did want to resign so he honored the General's request.

I'm not that familiar with the Benghazi inquiry but I'm not sure the resignation absolves former Director Petraeus from appearing at Congressional inquiries?

[Chicog]

He has been excused from testifying (see above).

[Chicog]

The loudmouth on Fox keeps saying that "The Libyan story keeps changing every day". He seems oblivous to the fact that, yes, it is a story and, it's Fox News that keep changing it every day with their silly lies.

I love this channel, it's comedy gold.

[keemapoot]

He has been excused from testifying (see above).

Not sure where this "excused from" or "will not need to testify" comes from? Certainly he can be compelled to testify through issuance of subpoena.

[Chicog]

I believe he was scheduled to testify but has been excused by the committee(s). His Deputy will attend instead. If they feel they need to talk to the General, they can subpoena him. I did post something earlier to that effect but I can't be arsed trawling back through the posts.

A House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer told The Daily Caller that former CIA Director David Petraeus will not testify before the committee next week. The committee, however, expects to have a CIA witness at its November 15 hearing.

Petraeus was slated to testify about the September 11, 2012 attack that resulted in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. His testimony was to come before both the House committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed door hearings.

He unexpectedly announced his resignation Friday, citing an extramarital affair.

CBS News’ Mark Knoller reported on Twitter that Petraeus also will not testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee and that acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify in his place.

The House and Senate panels could choose to subpoena Petraeus to compel his testimony.

Ah here you go:

Acting CIA director Mike Morell will take outgoing agency chief David Petraeus's place during a key Senate intelligence hearing scheduled for next week, The Hill has learned.

Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee excused Petraeus from testifying on the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, hours after the former four-star general officially resigned as the nation's top spy.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Chicog