Thread: The Benghazi Hearings

The Benghazi hearings began today, on the 227th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Chairman Trey Gowdy opened up the hearing in true, powerful Gowdy fashion calling on everyone to work as Americans in search of the facts, not as partisan hacks.

Trey Gowdy Opens Benghazi Hearings:
‘We Can Just Be Americans in Pursuit of the Facts’
September 17, 2014 By Matthew Burke

Congressman Trey Gowdy issued the following opening statement at the beginning of the Select Committee on Benghazi Hearings that began on Wednesday, stating that both the American people, including the families of those lost during the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11/12, are owed the truth.

A little over two years ago, four Americans were killed serving our country in Benghazi, Libya. Two were killed when a facility emblematic of our country was set on fire. Two were killed because they dared to fight back and defend themselves and others. Sean Smith, Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty represented us. They represented our country and our values. We sent them to do that. They were killed in an attack rooted in the animus some people hold toward us, simply because we are us.

To the family, friends, and loved ones of those killed, we can never adequately express our condolences and gratitude. As you have helped us understand, the four killed were more than just pictures on a TV screen. They were sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends. And they were our fellow Americans.

I remain hopeful there are still things left in our country that can transcend politics. I remain convinced our fellow citizens deserve all of the facts of what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi and they deserve an investigative process worthy of the memory of those who died and worthy of the trust of our fellow citizens.

Some question the need for this committee. I respect your right to disagree, but the mark of a professional, indeed the mark of character, is to do a good job even if you do not think the task should have been assigned in the first place. Given the gravity of the issues at hand, I am willing to risk answering the same question twice rather than risk not answering it once. I am willing to reconsider previously held beliefs in light of new, additional, complimentary or contradictory evidence. I am willing to approach anew witnesses previously interviewed in light of the real possibility that additional questions may be warranted. As we are keenly aware, all documents responsive to congressional requests have not been produced. Moreover, there are witnesses with information or access to information with whom no committee of Congress has spoken. I am optimistic the vast and varied backgrounds of our colleagues can be put to great use on behalf of our fellow citizens. The House of Representatives constituted this committee to find all of the facts, and I intend to do so fully and in a manner worthy of the people we serve.

Our fellow citizens have legitimate and high expectations:

(1) They expect us to protect and defend those we send to represent us,

(2) They expect us to move heaven and earth to help those representing us who are in harm’s way;

(3) They expect government to tell the truth in the aftermath of a tragedy;

(4) They expect we will not continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Which leads to this hearing.

Benghazi was not the first time our diplomatic facilities and people have been attacked. The barracks in Beirut, our facilities in Tanzania and Kenya are a few that come to mind amid too many others. And after those attacks, groups came together and made recommendations on how to prevent future attacks. That is the process seemingly followed. An attack takes place, we commission a group to study how to make sure it doesn’t happen again, we pronounce it is time to move on and yet it happens again. So to those who believe it is time to move on, that there is nothing left to discover, that all questions have been asked and answered, that we have learned the lessons to be learned— we have heard that before. And yet the attacks and the tragedies keep coming.

It is stunning to see the similarities in the recommendations made decades ago and the recommendations made after Benghazi. If you doubt that, compare the recommendations made nearly 25 years ago with those made after Benghazi. We do not suffer from a lack of recommendations. We do not suffer from a lack of boards, commissions and blue ribbon panels. We suffer from a lack of implementing and enacting those recommendations. That must end.

So it is appropriate to review the recommendations of the most recent ARB and Rep. Adam Schiff is to be credited for suggesting we do so. It is also fair for us to ask why have we not done a better job implementing recommendations made decades ago. Why does it take an attack on our people and facilities for us to make recommendations? Why not evaluate the threat before the attack? Why not anticipate rather than react?

The people we work for yearn to see the right thing done, for the right reasons, and in the right way. They want to know that something can rise above the din of politics. They want to trust the institutions of government. So to fulfill the duties owed to those we serve and in honor of those who were killed perhaps we can be what those four brave men were: neither Republican nor Democrat. We can just be Americans in pursuit of the facts, the truth, and justice no matter where that journey takes us.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/17/break...-of-the-facts/

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...people-46.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...olence-11.html

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...-libya-10.html

Trey Gowdy Shows He’s Not Playing Games With Fierce Interrogation at First Public Benghazi Hearing
By Nicole Higman 57 mins ago

Today Rep. Trey Gowdy got “personal” with his questions for the State Department as part of the review board investigation on the September 11, 2010, attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

In 1999, the Accountability Review Board released a report for the 1998 attacks on Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, saying that they were “disturbed by inadequacy of of relative lower priority of security enhancements” for American citizens in countries of high risk of danger.

Gowdy stated that you can take 1999’s report and “lay it over” the report on Benghazi.

The 1999 report also recommended that: http://fas.org/irp/threat/arb/accoun...ty_report.html

[IMG]“First and foremost, the Secretary of State should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of US diplomatic personal.”[/IMG]

With “25 years of data” sitting before them, Gowdy was determined to get an answer as to why the ARB would use such specific language. Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the State Department, Greg Starr, was not forthcoming. After first answering “no comment,” after Gowdy’s tough prodding Starr ultimately agreed with the 1999 safety recommendations.

As the hearing moved on, Gowdy inquired why those safety recommendations were not followed in the days leading up to the Benghazi attack. Here were some of his fiercest remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPTKF_xPuUQ

“We don’t get to sentence ourselves when we’re in court, we don’t get to grade our own papers in the classroom.”

*

“When I pause that’s generally the indication I’m waiting on you to answer, but I’ll make it more clear in the future.”

*

“A quarter century’s worth of recommendations and yet here we sit…”

*

“Mr. Stevens was equally clear that he needed help. He was equally clear that the situation was getting worse in Benghazi. He was equally clear in asking the people who sent him there to represent us to provide adequate security, and none was forthcoming. With that I would recognize the ranking member for his closing remarks.”

Gowdy questioned the efficacy of the ARB process, implying they have gone unchecked for too long — that we have “essentially let it grade its own papers.” Starr insisted the security of US Consulate personal is “absolutely one of our highest priority.”

Looks like this hearing is going to be interesting.



http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/1788...ghazi-hearing/

Breaking! Benghazi Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett, Commander In Chief

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:

At approximately 5 PM Washington time, reports came in through secure-channels that Special Mission Benghazi was under attack. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summoned the President,and briefed him on the crisis, face to face.

Subsequent to that brief meeting, President Obama proceeded to the White House to dine in his living quarters.

After supper, Barack Obama had a telephone conference scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett was present for that conference, which was held due to problems the President was having with the perception of him snubbing Netanyahu in previous, formal encounters.

The telephone call between Obama and Netanyahu carried on for a full two-hours, creating the appearance of respect between the two world leaders.

As that meeting drew to a close, Ms. Jarrett, who is also the Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, went from the living quarters to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials.

Whether she was instructed by the President to go there, or if she went of her own volition, is only known by the President and herself.

A critical question that needed to be answered, and the sole military-order that could have launched offensive-actions, neutralizing the Ansar al Sharia terrorists attacks on the Mission (the purpose of which is detailed here) and its subsequent attacks on the adjacent CIA Annex, was the issuance of “Cross Border Authority”, an order that can only be issued by the Commander in Chief, himself.

As was reported earlier by Conservative Report, Cross Border Authority was denied.

Two revelations are deeply troubling:

First, it is reported that an Army Special Forces team was present with an AC-130U Spooky (also known as a Spectre Gunship) on the tarmac at the airport in Tripoli, Libya. The Spooky is a technologically sophisticated, tactical aircraft, operated by the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.

It operates under the overall Special Operations Command stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, which is reportedly in charge of all military special operations units, including: Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Rangers and certain Marine units, as well as the USAF AC-130Us, and “stealth Blackhawks,” used in the Bin Laden raid.

The AC-130U Spooky is equipped with weapons that sync with laser-designators, like those that Woods, Doherty and Ubben had on that lonely rooftop above the CIA Annex. The laser-designator was used to “paint” the mortar targets during the attack, subsequently claiming the lives of Woods and Doherty, and leaving Ubben without a leg. Had the AC-130U been on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar rounds were fired, instead of “awaiting further instructions,” the entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.

Add to that, a team of Green Berets on the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.

The second, and most troubling aspect of the refusal to issue Cross Border Authority is, who issued the refusal. Rather than the President, the Commander In Chief, making critical decisions, granting or denying the authority to initiate offensive-actions in support of our valiant fighting men, the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect, nor did the Congress have confirmation power over.

The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

And this is a “phony” scandal?

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2...nder-in-chief/

Read more http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2...nder-in-chief/

Networks Black Out Coverage of Benghazi Hearing
By Curtis Houck | September 17, 2014

The major broadcast networks on Wednesday refused to cover the first hearing held by the House Select Committee on Benghazi to begin assessing what happened in the 2012 attack that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty dead.

Between their morning and evening newscasts, the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC neglected to offer any stories on the bipartisan hearing chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who promised that: “[O]ur fellow citizens deserve all of the facts of what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi and they deserve an investigative process worthy of the memory of those who died and worthy of the trust of our fellow citizens.”

Meanwhile, Fox News Channel’s flagship evening news show, Special Report with Bret Baier, offered a full segment on Wednesday from FNC’s chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel.

In his nearly three-minute-long report, Emanuel told of how the main focus of the first hearing was examining “the latest State Department Accountability Review Board recommendations after Benghazi and implementation.”

While Wednesday’s proceedings were described as relatively calm, Emanuel predicted that:

There are signs future hearings may feature more fireworks, when the panel looks into the explosive allegations made by former State Department official Robert Maxwell: that aides to then-Secretary Clinton scrubbed Benghazi documents that made top officials look bad.

The censorship by the major broadcast networks of this story marks yet another chapter in the media’s lack of coverage on Benghazi. Despite numerous developments, the coverage has been scant over just within the last two weeks.

Earlier on Wednesday, CNN and MSNBC provided minor coverage during the nearly three-hour-long meeting. The Media Research Center’s Matthew Balan found that CNN offered only a 15-second news brief at the top of the 10:00 a.m. hour and “MSNBC set aside 12 minutes worth of segments to the event, and sometimes showed split-screen video, but didn’t provide the audio.”

In contrast, FNC provided 40 minutes and 51 seconds of live coverage of the committee’s hearing and just over 25 minutes of reports, interviews, and panel discussions related to it as well.

Also, the networks (and websites such as Politico) also did not cover news on Monday reported by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson that a weekend meeting was held in a State Department basement sometime after the attacks to examine any and all documents related to Benghazi to see if any painted then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top advisers in a negative light.

Last week, the major broadcast networks failed to report on the second anniversary of the fatal attack (but found time to show video of a bear dancing with a flag tee at a golf course).

Finally, ABC, CBS, and NBC omitted news on September 5 from two men on the ground in Benghazi that fateful night that a CIA official delayed a rescue attempt to the U.S. diplomatic mission.

With thanks to my colleague Matthew Balan, the complete transcript from the segment that aired on FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on September 17 is transcribed below.

FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier
September 17, 2014
6:07 p.m. Eastern

BRET BAIER: Now to a terror attack that has already happened – the Select Committee on Benghazi held its first public session today, and it could easily be characterized as the bipartisan calm before what is expected to be a highly-partisan storm. Chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel was there.

[Fox News Graphic: "Benghazi Hearing Begin: Calm Before The Storm?"]

MIKE EMANUEL (voice-over): Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasn't at the Benghazi Select Committee's first open hearing, but Chairman Trey Gowdy introduced her into the discussion, and a witness wouldn't answer.

TREY GOWDY, (R-SC), HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI CHMN. (from congressional hearing): The Secretary of State should personally review the security situation of diplomatic facilities – closing those who are highly vulnerable and threatened. Why do you think the 1999 A.R.B. went out of its way to use the word 'personally'?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN 1 (off-camera): No comment, sir.

EMANUEL: Today's hearing focused on a Democrat member's idea looking at the latest State Department Accountability Review Board recommendations after Benghazi and implementation. Early on, there was an effort made to be bipartisan in tone.

GOWDY: Maybe – just maybe, we can be what those four brave men were – neither Republican nor Democrat.

EMANUEL: The panel's top Democrat said it's too late to bring back the Americans killed at Benghazi, but there's an opportunity to make a difference now.

ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D-MD), HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI CMTE. (from congressional hearing): The things that we do today, and over the next few months, will have lasting affects – even when we're gone on to heaven. And that's how we have to look at this.

EMANUEL: Lawmakers heard from security officials who reviewed State Department policies – with one raising this red flag: that there continues to be a pre-Benghazi approach to diplomatic security.

TODD KEIL, INDEP. PANEL ON BEST PRACTICES (from congressional hearing): Clear the smoke. Remove the mirrors. Now is the time for the Department of State to finally institutionalize some real, meaningful, and progressive change.

EMANUEL: There was also an attack on the A.R.B. report itself.

JIM JORDAN, (R-OH), HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI CMTE. (from congressional hearing): So was anything but independent-

EMANUEL: And Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan says those serving in Libya should have been a higher priority due to the danger there.

JORDAN: If you were an agent on the ground in Benghazi at the time, Mr. [Todd] Keil, would you be – would you have been lobbying for more help to come to Benghazi?

KEIL: I'd probably be doing more than lobbying. I'd be extremely frustrated, and try to push every button I could possibly push.

JORDAN: Flip it around. You're the guy at the desk in Washington. You get the request from these guys on the ground for more help. Would you have fought to make that request happen?

KEIL: I would have put a significant amount of priority on Benghazi requests.

EMANUEL: There are signs future hearings may feature more fireworks, when the panel looks into the explosive allegations made by former State Department official Robert Maxwell: that aides to then-Secretary Clinton scrubbed Benghazi documents that made top officials look bad.

MIKE POMPEO, (R-KS), HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI CMITE. (from interview on Fox News Channel's "America's Newsroom"): Mr. Maxwell's allegations will certainly be a part of what we're doing. I'm confident that Mr. Maxwell will come before the committee.

EMANUEL (on-camera): After the hearing wrapped, Chairman Gowdy was asked if a Benghazi-type attack could happen again. He noted it was a very dangerous world. Bret?

BAIER: Mike Emanuel on the Hill – Mike, thank you.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-....oJTV45Y1.dpuf

Trey Gowdy's Greatest Hits
September 17, 2014 - 10:18 AM
By Dan Joseph

House hearings on Benghazi begin today and manning the helm will be Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

Gowdy is not exactly a shrinking violet. He’s known for his take-no-prisoners style of questioning and his aggressive pursuit of the truth. Here are a collection of clips featuring some of Gowdy’s most memorable moments since he got to Congress.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/dan-jo...-greatest-hits

Clinton Aides Withheld Benghazi Documents!

http://conservative-daily.com/2014/0...azi-documents/

?????????

This ‘Made-Up’ Term Uncovered In Benghazi Testimony Could Have Huge Implications For The State Dept
By Caroline Schaeffer 9 hours ago



During questioning on the first day of the Benghazi Committee Hearings, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) brought up a seemingly minor detail about the Benghazi compound that could have huge implications for the State Department’s fault in the 2012 attack.

In question was the designation of the embassy as a “Special Mission Compound.” Roskam asked Todd Keil, a member of the Independent Panel of Best Practices, what that term actually means. Keil stated:

To be honest, from our review, Under Secretary Kennedy, in authorizing that, made up that term in order to avoid the OSPB security standards.

Keil was referring to Patrick Kennedy, who is the Under Secretary for Management. Several bureaus, including the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, fall under his jurisdiction.

The OSPB, or Overseas Security Policy Board, security standards are in place to carry out “the statutory security responsibilities prescribed by the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.”

They consist of “threat-indexed countermeasures (i.e., actions, devices, procedures, or techniques that reduce vulnerability),” according to State Department documents. Keil was referring to Patrick Kennedy, who is the Under Secretary for Management. Several bureaus, including the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, fall under his jurisdiction.

The OSPB, or Overseas Security Policy Board, security standards are in place to carry out “the statutory security responsibilities prescribed by the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.”

They consist of “threat-indexed countermeasures (i.e., actions, devices, procedures, or techniques that reduce vulnerability),” according to State Department documents. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/137787.pdf

In searching for other instances of “Special Mission Compounds,” Roskam said he and his staff found nothing – Benghazi alone had this designation.

So if the category of the compound was changed to avoid important anti-terrorism security standards – as Keil confirmed – that mere word change could have drastic effects on how the crisis would be handled. Roskam continued:

“What does it mean if something is said, ‘Well, we’re just going to declare this as something other than that which is to be regulated.’ That means you have no regulations, isn’t that right?”

Keil’s brief response: “Correct, sir.”

This minor detail of a designation change has major implications for the State Department’s responsibility. It furthers the idea that State Department leaders, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were either in over their heads, or that they were preemptively covering their tails should they fail to protect the compound and its inhabitants.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/1793...ns-state-dept/

Witness Says Benghazi Files Were Withheld to Protect Hillary Clinton
September 18, 2014 By Ernest Istook


Hillary Clinton on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Another cover-up is being described by a State Department official who says key files were pulled out and not turned over to investigators about the Benghazi killings.

A new claim details how the State Department allegedly concealed embarrassing documents about Benghazi.

Benghazi, Libya, is where the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed, despite numerous warnings about threats from Islamic terrorists.

The special House investigation committee is about to begin hearings, which should include a State Department supervisor who says he witnessed the activity of sorting out embarrassing documents, removing them from the papers turned over to internal investigators. That might explain why that inquiry never even interviewed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to the witness, he was there when Clinton’s chief-of-staff presided over the effort to remove documents that would embarrass Clinton.

Hopefully, the hearings will bring out the truth. It sounds like another sorry chapter in how government officials are abusing power to protect themselves, and keep the public either in the dark or totally misled.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/18/witne...llary-clinton/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/oba...ment-benghazi/

On MSNBC, Luke Russert Dismisses Benghazi Hearing as Repetitive, Expensive
By Laura Flint | September 18, 2014

While CNN and MSNBC were too busy discussing the NFL and the investigation of Joan Rivers' death to give any time to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, MSNBC host Jose Diaz-Balart managed to carve out two full minutes of his program on Wednesday for NBC’s Luke Russert to blast the hearing for being partisan and expensive.

Russert made sure to describe the committee from the Democratic point of view, explaining their misgivings over the lack of a “long-term strategy” and “planning in terms of the rules of the committee.” Russert ended his left-wing report by blasting the hearing for “com(ing) in a tune…of $3.3 million cost to taxpayers.” Apparently MSNBC’s big government liberals only care about cost when conservatives are spending the money.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/msnbc-lu...tive-expensive

For his part, Diaz-Balart began the segment by leading that while the committee is “officially supposed to focus on how the State Department has implemented recommendations,” “some signs point at it to be possibly becoming more than that.” Russert agreed, wondering what the committee will “seek to answer that ha(s) not already been answered by the seven other investigations,” and what do Republicans “want to answer again.”

After Russert’s interview, Diaz-Balart invited political strategist Angela Rye and Republican strategist Adolfo Franco onto the show to talk “politics.” Per usual for a segment on MSNBC with a Republican guest, the interview ended up being two against one, with Diaz-Balart hyping how “the RNC is actually fundraising after Benghazi. Do you not see a very clear political motivation behind this…”

Of course, Franco’s response that “anytime there is a controversy…it is absolutely legitimate for a political party or anybody else to say we need to get to the truth” was completely ignored by the two liberals on set.

Transcript: MSNBC Jose Diaz-Balart September 17, 2014 10:14 a.m. Eastern 2 minutes

JOSE DIAZ-BALART: And let's really get some issues out of the way. Because this is officially supposed to focus on how the state department has implemented recommendations made by an independent review board two years.

But some signs point at it to be possibly becoming more than that. NBC’s Luke Russert joins us from Capitol Hill. Luke good to see you this morning. What do we expect out of today’s hearing today?

LUKE RUSSERT: Well, as you mentioned, Jose today's hearing is technically supposed to be about the recommendations the accountability review board put forward in terms of diplomatic security. So at least expect it on the face for the Benghazi hearing to move forward in that type of direction. Sort of this idea of how can we as a country better protect our diplomats overseas so we don't lose another ambassador?

But this issue has been politically very radioactive for some time. There are folks on the right that say that is a cover-up. The Obama administration moved forward to the degree of Watergate and Richard Nixon. Folks on the left say it's nothing more than the GOP trying to pad their numbers and throw red meat to the base.

What’s interesting though Jose is that there was a press conference yesterday from the Democrats on this panel and they have said, look, we've had no meeting regarding what the long-term strategy of this committee is. We have had no planning in terms of the rules of the committee. So we are really sort of lost in the wilderness right now, so to speak. So that's really something to keep an eye on, is what questions will this committee seek to answer that have not already been answered by the seven other investigations that have gone forward in some capacity on Capitol Hill.

The question they really want to get at were those talking points Susan Rice and the Sunday shows after this horrific incident. Were those cooked for political purposes? So far there's no clear evidence that's the case, but they want to investigate that again.

Was there a stand down order given to the security personnel in Benghazi, protecting the ambassador?

So far there's been conflicting reports but nothing definitive as yet the C.I.A. denies it. So these are the types of questions they want to answer again. It does come in a tune though of $3.3 million cost to taxpayers, Jose

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/laura-f...tive-expensive

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

UPDATE IV – In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):



Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.

The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”. No visible footprint.

We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.

We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.

We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.

All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’was also covert – No visible footprint.

Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?

Such a request would have travelled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.

Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.

To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.

In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.

Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilables surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.

The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?

The short answer is, we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.

Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?

Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.

The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves.

The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.

It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.

Unfortunately for the administration they are not that good.

Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operations “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.

How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.

The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.

Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the backstory – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...gs-are-futile/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

'You're the Son I Don't Have' : Benghazi Victim's Mom Addresses Americans Who Tried to Save Her Son



by Fox News InsiderFox News Insider // Sep 11 2014 // 8:43am
As seen on Fox and Friends Fox and Friends

It was an emotional moment on Fox and Friends this morning as the mother of one of the Benghazi attack victims got to talk for the first time to three American security operatives who tried to save her son in Benghazi.

The three men had just sat down with Steve Doocy to go over the events of Sept. 11, 2012 after revealing their inside accounts in an explosive Fox News special, 13 Hours at Benghazi, and in a book of the same title.

They recall that a CIA officer held them back for a half hour at a location near the U.S. facility where Amb. Chris Stevens and Sean Smith died. Smith's mother, Pat, continued to question who gave that order to the CIA operative only identified as "Bob."

"Who's the stupid idiot that we have in our government that would order something like that?!" she said, asking what role the White House and then-Secetary of State Hillary Clinton played in that order.

Smith said she wanted to travel to meet the three men in person, and hopes to do that soon. "I want to do things for you. I don't want to vent to you. You guys are wonderful. You're the son that I don't have anymore. ... I want to give you all a big kiss and a hug," she said.

Kris Paronto responded that they all want to sit down with her in a private setting and answer all of her questions. And he offered a recollection of the team's last moments with Sean Smith. "Please know that ... your son said prayers when we found him and we did say our prayers over him," said Paronto

Smith tearfully thanked the men, saying she has a "million questions" to ask.

Watch the emotional exchange above. And watch Steve's full sit-down with the three men, here. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/11...ia-hired-guard

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/11...d-save-her-son