The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip
As he left his Marine One helicopter Wednesday evening and
walked to the residence of the White House, President Obama did not
respond to a question shouted out by ABC News’s Mary Bruce about when he
would begin to provide answers to the numerous questions building up
about what exactly what went wrong in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11,
2012.
The president smiled and continued walking.
Perhaps he couldn’t hear the question over the din of the chopper’s blades, but either way the smile and wave – almost Reagan-esque in style – underline the apparent strategy the president specifically and his administration in general have seemed to adopt when it comes to the myriad inquiries about the decisions that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens: they are deferring detailed answers to the investigation and – critics say –running out the clock until Election Day.
As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. At that meeting, senior administration officials say, the President ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies.
But beyond that, the White House has punted, saying the Accountability Review Board established by the State Department is investigating the matter and what went wrong. No detailed tick-tock, no information about the president’s involvement in decision-making. In addition, they’re preparing for a closed-door hearing of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15.
Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation. The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false.
For instance, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room.
As for recent stories suggesting otherwise, Vietor says, “the White House didn’t deny any requests for assistance. Period. Moreover, what the entire government did – the White House, State Department, Intelligence Community, Department of Defense included – was to work to mobilize all available assets and move them into the region as quickly as possible. That’s what the President ordered the Secretary of Defense and Chairman to do the first time he was briefed about these issues. Many of those assets were later used to reinforce embassies in places like Yemen, Libya and Egypt.”
But that doesn’t mean the myriad questions stacking up are all political in nature, nor that those interested in answers about the Benghazi tragedy are motivated by partisan and nefarious aims.
The Washington Post’s respected foreign policy columnist David Ignatius just yesterday posed “Lingering Questions about Benghazi.” One of them, pointedly, was “At a time when al-Qaeda was strengthening its presence in Libya and across North Africa, why didn’t the United States have more military hardware nearby?”
In the place of a detailed description from the Obama administration about what happened more than six weeks ago comes the drip-drip-drip of stories about the failures of the Obama administration to provide those Americans on the ground in Libya with all the security assets they needed.
ABC News broke some stories on this, ranging from a security team being denied continued use of an airplane its commander wanted to keep in country to better do his job; to the security team leaving Libya before Ambassador Stevens wanted it to.
Fox News Channel’s Catherine Herridge last night reported on a newly discovered cable indicating that in August, less than a month before the attack, the diplomatic post in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” concerned about local Al Qaeda training camps. Said the cable: “RSO (Regional 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.”
The cable stated that “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
The State Department’s comment to Fox: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”
It was the exact same statement given to ABC News earlier in the month about a different revelation.
This afternoon, journalists Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa in Foreign Policy Magazine reported that when they arrived at the compound in Benghazi on October 26 they found “several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents — such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack — are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit — and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.”
A Sept. 11 missive to the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes that on that morning, “one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.”
On Air Force One today, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked by ABC News how closely the President is reading and following the media reports about what went wrong in Benghazi.
“Is he engaged in the investigation and receiving updates on the investigation, or is he waiting until it’s complete?” ABC News’ Devin Dwyer asked.
Carney noted that since the “investigations are being conducted by both the FBI and the Accountability Review Board” the president himself “is not participating in the investigation. He is anticipating results that show us exactly what happened, who was responsible and what lessons we can learn from it in terms of how we ensure that it never happens again.”
The White House press secretary – who has not held a full-fledged briefing with the White House press corps since October 12 – said that the president “expects the investigations to be rigorous. He is extremely focused on making sure that we find exactly what happened and who was responsible, and tracking down those who were responsible and bringing them to justice.”
-Jake Tapper, Mary Bruce, Devin Dwyer and Dana Hughes
Many
people, including this writer, have been following the aftermath of
the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The
White House is tight-lipped and the major media refuses to investigate
or report new findings. Congress is demanding emails, documents and
videos.
There is little doubt that the 7-hour attack was carefully monitored by State Department personnel, the President and his National Security Advisers in the Situation Room, and that someone issued an order to nearby military commands to “stand down” during the heat of the attack. The rest of the story is a miss-mash of conflicting accounts.
One prominent question in my mind is whether or not Benghazi was an orchestrated effort to throw Obama under the bus and thereby kill his chances at reelection. A second possibility is that the Benghazi operation could not come to the light of day because it was a black-ops arms-running center between Libyan and Syrian rebels. A third possibility is that National Security personnel were so incredibly inept that they froze under crisis circumstances and were somehow unable to act. And of course, there could be a mixture of motives and means.
According to ABC News,
Option 1: Trilateral Commission Influence
When Obama first took office, the three people who conducted daily intelligence and security briefings with the President were all members of the Trilateral Commission. In particular, the National Security Adviser (NSA) was Gen. James L. Jones, who later resigned in 2010. The original Deputy National Security Adviser was Trilateral member Thomas Donilon, who Obama subsequently appointed to replace Jones.
One of Donilon’s key staff is Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs. Froman is also a member of the Trilateral Commission. Essentially, nothing gets to the President’s ears or eyes except through the fingers of the NSA or his immediate Deputies.
Thus, it was Donilon who was sitting at Obama’s side, offering his real-time assessment and advice, during the Benghazi attack. In fact, it was Donilon who first informed the President of the attack.
Donilon’s roots into Obama’s political career can be traced back to Harvard, where the two were classmates in law school. They also worked on the Harvard Law Review and had what others have called a “strong friendship.”
During Obama’s senatorial campaign, it was Donilon who originally introduced him to Trilateral Robert Rubin, who soon became a central adviser to Obama during all of his subsequent campaigns. Donilon’s relationship with Rubin date back to when Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury – Donilon was his Chief of Staff!
When Obama was elected in 2008, Donilon served on his transition advisory board, and was first in position to suggest other members of the Trilateral Commission for prominent positions. Other Trilaterals who were brought on board in 2009 included,
Back to Benghazi. There have been signs over the past few months that the global elite were done with Obama and were pulling their support in favor of Romney.
A similar scenario was seen with one-term President Jimmy Carter. Carter executed many “shock-and-awe” policies that accomplished certain Trilateral goals, but the right was too fired up against Carter to permit a second term like the first. Thus, after dumping Trilateral Carter for Reagan and Trilateral George H.W. Bush, they continued on with their globalist plans with little scrutiny or resistance.
Is Obama being expelled like Jimmy Carter? If so, could Donilon be playing the part of Shakespeare’s Brutus in the assassination of Julius Caesar? Well, Donilon was largely responsible for promoting Obama to the Trilaterals in the first place, so who better to remove him when he has outlived his usefulness?
The Senate committee that will ultimately investigate the Administration’s role in the Benghazi attacks would be well advised to carefully scrutinize Donilon and his incestuous relationship with his Trilateral cronies.
Option 2: Covering up a potentially scandalous gun-running operation
The following news interview is plausible enough that nothing more needs to be said.
Option 3: Gross incompetence
When Gen. Jones stepped down as National Security Adviser in 2010, articles appeared that panned Tom Donilon as his replacement. The Huffington Post wrote,
One factor remaining in Obama’s favor for reelection is that the Consumer Confidence Index has just hit a five-year high rising to 72.2 in October from 68.4 in September. By contrast, Business Sentiment has been falling. It is people who cast votes however, not businesses. There are no fundamental reasons why consumer sentiment should be rising at this point, but people vote (and spend) on feelings, not facts.
The president smiled and continued walking.
Perhaps he couldn’t hear the question over the din of the chopper’s blades, but either way the smile and wave – almost Reagan-esque in style – underline the apparent strategy the president specifically and his administration in general have seemed to adopt when it comes to the myriad inquiries about the decisions that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens: they are deferring detailed answers to the investigation and – critics say –running out the clock until Election Day.
As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. At that meeting, senior administration officials say, the President ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies.
But beyond that, the White House has punted, saying the Accountability Review Board established by the State Department is investigating the matter and what went wrong. No detailed tick-tock, no information about the president’s involvement in decision-making. In addition, they’re preparing for a closed-door hearing of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15.
Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation. The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false.
For instance, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room.
As for recent stories suggesting otherwise, Vietor says, “the White House didn’t deny any requests for assistance. Period. Moreover, what the entire government did – the White House, State Department, Intelligence Community, Department of Defense included – was to work to mobilize all available assets and move them into the region as quickly as possible. That’s what the President ordered the Secretary of Defense and Chairman to do the first time he was briefed about these issues. Many of those assets were later used to reinforce embassies in places like Yemen, Libya and Egypt.”
But that doesn’t mean the myriad questions stacking up are all political in nature, nor that those interested in answers about the Benghazi tragedy are motivated by partisan and nefarious aims.
The Washington Post’s respected foreign policy columnist David Ignatius just yesterday posed “Lingering Questions about Benghazi.” One of them, pointedly, was “At a time when al-Qaeda was strengthening its presence in Libya and across North Africa, why didn’t the United States have more military hardware nearby?”
In the place of a detailed description from the Obama administration about what happened more than six weeks ago comes the drip-drip-drip of stories about the failures of the Obama administration to provide those Americans on the ground in Libya with all the security assets they needed.
ABC News broke some stories on this, ranging from a security team being denied continued use of an airplane its commander wanted to keep in country to better do his job; to the security team leaving Libya before Ambassador Stevens wanted it to.
Fox News Channel’s Catherine Herridge last night reported on a newly discovered cable indicating that in August, less than a month before the attack, the diplomatic post in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” concerned about local Al Qaeda training camps. Said the cable: “RSO (Regional 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.”
The cable stated that “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
The State Department’s comment to Fox: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”
It was the exact same statement given to ABC News earlier in the month about a different revelation.
This afternoon, journalists Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa in Foreign Policy Magazine reported that when they arrived at the compound in Benghazi on October 26 they found “several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents — such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack — are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit — and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.”
A Sept. 11 missive to the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes that on that morning, “one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.”
On Air Force One today, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked by ABC News how closely the President is reading and following the media reports about what went wrong in Benghazi.
“Is he engaged in the investigation and receiving updates on the investigation, or is he waiting until it’s complete?” ABC News’ Devin Dwyer asked.
Carney noted that since the “investigations are being conducted by both the FBI and the Accountability Review Board” the president himself “is not participating in the investigation. He is anticipating results that show us exactly what happened, who was responsible and what lessons we can learn from it in terms of how we ensure that it never happens again.”
The White House press secretary – who has not held a full-fledged briefing with the White House press corps since October 12 – said that the president “expects the investigations to be rigorous. He is extremely focused on making sure that we find exactly what happened and who was responsible, and tracking down those who were responsible and bringing them to justice.”
-Jake Tapper, Mary Bruce, Devin Dwyer and Dana Hughes
ss?
Many
people, including this writer, have been following the aftermath of
the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The
White House is tight-lipped and the major media refuses to investigate
or report new findings. Congress is demanding emails, documents and
videos.There is little doubt that the 7-hour attack was carefully monitored by State Department personnel, the President and his National Security Advisers in the Situation Room, and that someone issued an order to nearby military commands to “stand down” during the heat of the attack. The rest of the story is a miss-mash of conflicting accounts.
One prominent question in my mind is whether or not Benghazi was an orchestrated effort to throw Obama under the bus and thereby kill his chances at reelection. A second possibility is that the Benghazi operation could not come to the light of day because it was a black-ops arms-running center between Libyan and Syrian rebels. A third possibility is that National Security personnel were so incredibly inept that they froze under crisis circumstances and were somehow unable to act. And of course, there could be a mixture of motives and means.
According to ABC News,
“the White House has disclosed that
President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic
outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon
as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin
Dempsey.”
My particular interest here is Tom Donilon, member of the
Trilateral Commission and Obama’s point man for all national
security issues.Option 1: Trilateral Commission Influence
When Obama first took office, the three people who conducted daily intelligence and security briefings with the President were all members of the Trilateral Commission. In particular, the National Security Adviser (NSA) was Gen. James L. Jones, who later resigned in 2010. The original Deputy National Security Adviser was Trilateral member Thomas Donilon, who Obama subsequently appointed to replace Jones.
One of Donilon’s key staff is Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs. Froman is also a member of the Trilateral Commission. Essentially, nothing gets to the President’s ears or eyes except through the fingers of the NSA or his immediate Deputies.
Thus, it was Donilon who was sitting at Obama’s side, offering his real-time assessment and advice, during the Benghazi attack. In fact, it was Donilon who first informed the President of the attack.
Donilon’s roots into Obama’s political career can be traced back to Harvard, where the two were classmates in law school. They also worked on the Harvard Law Review and had what others have called a “strong friendship.”
During Obama’s senatorial campaign, it was Donilon who originally introduced him to Trilateral Robert Rubin, who soon became a central adviser to Obama during all of his subsequent campaigns. Donilon’s relationship with Rubin date back to when Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury – Donilon was his Chief of Staff!
When Obama was elected in 2008, Donilon served on his transition advisory board, and was first in position to suggest other members of the Trilateral Commission for prominent positions. Other Trilaterals who were brought on board in 2009 included,
- Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
- Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
- National Security Adviser, Gen. James L. Jones
- Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
- Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
- Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell
- Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
- State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
- State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
- State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
The Donilons of Providence are shaping up as a well-placed brotherhood in the Obama-Biden White House.
Providence native Mike Donilon — a
lawyer and political consultant whose clients have included Jack Reed
and Sen. John F. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential
nominee — has been named counselor to President-elect Joe Biden.
“Mike Donilon has been one of my
closest advisers for more than 25 years, and is one of the most astute
counselors in national affairs I have ever met,” Biden, the former
senator from Delaware, said in a press release. Donilon was a key
member of the team that prepared Biden for his debate with Alaska Gov.
Sarah Palin, the GOP vice-presidential nominee.
Another longtime Biden associate,
Donilon’s older brother Tom, is leading Obama’s State Department
transition team and may be headed for the National Security Council.
The Washington Post has reported that Donilon, once chief of staff to
Secretary of State Warren Christopher [also a Trilateral Commission member], is a top candidate to be deputy national security adviser.
That’s not the end of the
Biden-Donilon family network. The newly named chief of staff to Biden’s
wife, Jill Biden, is Cathy Russell, who is married to Tom Donilon.
So, let’s unravel this web of relationships: Tom is married to
Cathy who is chief of staff to Biden’s wife Jill. Cathy’s brother-in-law
Mike is Jill’s husband’s lawyer and a close adviser for over 25 years.
Meanwhile, Tom is principal adviser to the President on everything
related to national security. Got that?Back to Benghazi. There have been signs over the past few months that the global elite were done with Obama and were pulling their support in favor of Romney.
A similar scenario was seen with one-term President Jimmy Carter. Carter executed many “shock-and-awe” policies that accomplished certain Trilateral goals, but the right was too fired up against Carter to permit a second term like the first. Thus, after dumping Trilateral Carter for Reagan and Trilateral George H.W. Bush, they continued on with their globalist plans with little scrutiny or resistance.
Is Obama being expelled like Jimmy Carter? If so, could Donilon be playing the part of Shakespeare’s Brutus in the assassination of Julius Caesar? Well, Donilon was largely responsible for promoting Obama to the Trilaterals in the first place, so who better to remove him when he has outlived his usefulness?
The Senate committee that will ultimately investigate the Administration’s role in the Benghazi attacks would be well advised to carefully scrutinize Donilon and his incestuous relationship with his Trilateral cronies.
Option 2: Covering up a potentially scandalous gun-running operation
The following news interview is plausible enough that nothing more needs to be said.
Option 3: Gross incompetence
When Gen. Jones stepped down as National Security Adviser in 2010, articles appeared that panned Tom Donilon as his replacement. The Huffington Post wrote,
Outgoing National Security Adviser
Jim Jones once disparaged his replacement and current deputy, Thomas
Donilon, for his lack of overseas experience, telling him that as a
result: “You have no credibility with the military,” according to
Bob Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars.”
In addition, Donilon, who
previously worked as a vice president for floundering mortgage
giant Fannie Mae and was known for his strong views and opinions, once
offending Defense Secretary Robert Gates so much during a meeting that
the Pentagon chief almost walked out, according to Woodward.
Gates asserted that Donilon would be a “disaster” as National Security Adviser, the book alleges.
Jones called Donilon into his office
late last year to discuss Jones’s plans to step down from the post,
writes Woodward. After praising his deputy for his “substantive and
organizational skills” which made him indispensable to the
president, he also reprimanded Donilon for three major mistakes:
- First, he had never gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, or really left the office for a serious field trip. As a result, he said, you have no direct understanding of these places. “You have no credibility with the military.” You should go overseas. The White House, Situation Room, interagency byplay, as important as they are, are not everything.
- Second, Jones continued, you frequently pop off with absolute declarations about places you’ve never been, leaders you’ve never met, or colleagues you work with. Gates had mentioned this to Jones, saying that Donilon’s sound-offs and strong spur-of-the-moment opinions, especially about one general, had offended him so much at an Oval Office meeting that he nearly walked out.
- Third, Jones said that Donilon was not good in his dealings with his staff at the National Security Council, displaying “too little feel for the people who work day and night….”
One factor remaining in Obama’s favor for reelection is that the Consumer Confidence Index has just hit a five-year high rising to 72.2 in October from 68.4 in September. By contrast, Business Sentiment has been falling. It is people who cast votes however, not businesses. There are no fundamental reasons why consumer sentiment should be rising at this point, but people vote (and spend) on feelings, not facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment