Tag Archive: Glen Doherty
‘STAND DOWN’: U.S. HAD TWO DRONES, AC-130 GUNSHIP, AND TARGETS PAINTED IN BENGHAZI
” Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used.
This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack.
There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making.
1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area — both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drone may have been armed.
2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel.
3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came.”
—
White House Releases 100 Pages Of Benghazi E-mails
” The White House released more than 100 pages of e-mails on Wednesday in a bid to quell critics who say President Barack Obama and his aides played politics with national security following the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
The e-mails detail the complex back and forth between the CIA, State Department, and the White House in developing unclassified talking points that were used to underpin a controversial and slow-to-evolve explanation of events last September 11.”
You can read all the e-mails here.
—
Related articles
- Did the White House selectively leak e-mail to distort Benghazi timeline story? Update: Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails (hotair.com)
- White House releases emails on Benghazi talking points (shortformblog.com)
- White House Releases Benghazi E-mails (nationalreview.com)
- WH releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails – Link to Docs (riehlworldview.com)
- Just Released: More than 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails (legalinsurrection.com)
—
From Independent Journal Review
” Sometimes it is better to show a scandal than to explain it. SHARE this exposure of the Benghazi cover-up!”
—
Watch Out For Petraeus In Benghazi Scandal
” By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.
But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.
Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.
Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.”
—
BENGHAZI LEADS TO CLINTON CONFIDANT FROM INVESTIGATIONS PAST
” This week was not the first time Cheryl Mills’ name has come up in a controversial manner at a congressional oversight hearing. In fact, it’s not the first time Ms. Mills has been the subject of potential wrongdoing in the very same hearing room–Room 2154 in the Rayburn House Office Building to be exact.
While being questioned under oath by Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Wednesday, former Deputy Ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was “very upset” when she called him about his cooperation with congressional investigators.
Throughout the 1990s, Mills was a big part of the Clinton White House counsel’s office “damage control” detail. Name a Clinton scandal, and Cheryl Mills was usually running interference for the Clintons with congressional investigators. In fact, in 1998, Mills allegedly crossed the line in her dealings with the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who felt it was necessary to send a criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding Mills’ activities and testimony on behalf of the Clinton White House. “
—
CNN Gives 30 Times More Coverage To Tabloid Stories Than Benghazi Hearing
” On Wednesday evening, CNN barely covered the congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack from earlier that afternoon. Instead, the network provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Jodi Arias trial verdict and the Cleveland kidnappings.
From the hours of 5 p.m. until 11 p.m. ET, CNN gave a whopping 4 hours, 9 minutes of coverage to the two crime stories, but a measly eight minutes to Benghazi — over 30 times more coverage. And three of CNN’s prime-time shows didn’t even mention Benghazi.
The 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET hours of Anderson Cooper 360 featured over one hour and twenty minutes of material on Arias and the Cleveland abduction, but not a second on the hearing. The 9 p.m. ET hour of Piers Morgan Live aired over 40 minutes on the two stories, but completely ignored the Benghazi hearing.”
—
Her Fatal Mistakes Mirror The Disaster At Mogadishu
Delta Snipers Gary Gordon and Randy Shugart
” When I took Hillary Rodham Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, I told her that if I had been president at the time, I would have relieved her of her post. Some politicians and pundits took offense at my line of questioning.
During those hearings, I reminded Mrs. Clinton that multiple requests were sent to the State Department asking for increased security measures. I asked if she had read the cables from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens asking for increased security. She replied that she was busy and had not read them. I find that inexcusable.
Four months later, we are hearing that Mrs. Clinton allegedly withheld information from a counterterrorism bureau during the response. We are hearing new allegations that Special Forces wanting to respond during the attacks were told, “You can’t go” by superiors.
The secretary of state’s responsibility is to protect our diplomats. Mrs. Clinton should have been relieved of her post for denying pleas for additional security. Almost 20 years ago, President Clinton’s secretary of defense was relieved of his post for a similarly bad decision.
In early October 1993, a battle between U.S. forces and Somali militia in Mogadishu left 18 Americans soldiers dead, 80 wounded and two American helicopters shot down. Today, this is remembered as the Battle of Mogadishu or more popularly, “Black Hawk Down,” thanks to a subsequent movie of the same name.”
State Dept "Contractors" Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods
While we are comparing politicians Clinton and Aspen’s actions and noting similar incompetence displayed during American foreign policy disasters there is another similarity between the two events . This parallelism however, instead of reflecting a common theme of political incompetence , involves America and American’s at our/their finest .
We refer to the ultimate sacrifice paid for the politician’s bungling in Mogadishu by Gary Gordon and Randy Shugart and in Benghazi by Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods .
—
The Benghazi Lie
” Shortly before last November’s election I took part in a Fox News documentary on Benghazi, whose other participants included the former governor of New Hampshire John Sununu. Making chit-chat while the camera crew were setting up, Governor Sununu said to me that in his view Benghazi mattered because it was “a question of character.” That’s correct. On a question of foreign policy or counterterrorism strategy, men of good faith can make the wrong decisions. But a failure of character corrodes the integrity of the state.
That’s why career diplomat Gregory Hicks’s testimony was so damning — not so much for the new facts as for what those facts revealed about the leaders of this republic. In this space in January, I noted that Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens’s warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office” — and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all “Chris this” and “Chris that,” as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.”
Leave it to Mr Steyn to ask the important questions …
” What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last.”
Read the whole thing .
—
After Benghazi Revelations, Heads Will Roll
” There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.”
Related articles
- BBC Editor: ‘Heads Will Roll’ Over Benghazi – ‘This Is Now Very Serious’ (patdollard.com)
- Heads will roll on Benghazi (bbc.co.uk)
- BBC News covers whistle-blower testimony: “After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll” (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
- Obama administration emails raise new questions on Benghazi (fox6now.com)
- Hillary Was Behind The Talking Points Revisions (sweetness-light.com)
—
Fourth Benghazi Witness Gagged By Red Tape
” Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistle-blower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.
The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.”
—
CBS News Bosses Irked By Correspondent’s Thorough Benghazi Reporting
” The biggest Benghazi-related story that took place outside of the House Oversight Committee’s hearing room today is this item in Politico, regarding CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. She’s the reporter who famously drew White House officials’ profane ire over her unapologetic pursuit of the Fast & Furious scandal story; now she’s apparently facing searing criticism from another source: Her own bosses. Why? Because she’s been covering the Benghazi story too aggressively. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you media bias:“Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi,” Farhi writes. But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile. The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson’s Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can’t get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. Farhi mentions “internal conflicts” in the final paragraph, though he seems to dismiss them. The “internal conflicts” are indeed real — Attkisson is still eyeing an exit, according to sources — and provide important context for today’s piece. Today, CBS News is celebrating Attkisson’s commitment to the Benghazi story. It’s good press. But that support is an aberration.
“Dangerously close to advocacy”? That’s how CBS News apparently views the work of a reporter who is doggedly seeking truth about an issue of enormous importance that many of her colleagues have scrupulously ignored. Remarkable. And as Ed Morrissey noticed, Attkisson’s Twitter feed went curiously silent very early on during today’s hearings. What happened? Allahpundit thinks he knows what’s going on here, and I agree with him:
[The media establishment and liberals] can’t stop conservative media from existing, but they can ghettoize it as illegitimate and “partisan” in a way that their own partisan garbage isn’t….Skepticism about Benghazi is fine for the wingnuts at Fox, but bringing such unhelpful nonsense into an “impartial,” i.e. pro-Obama, outlet like CBS risks lending credence to the GOP’s accusations. The proper line to take on Benghazi is to dismiss the new hearings with a sneer, a la Joe Klein, or, in the case of “impartial” news coverage, to dismiss them more lightly by referencing Hillary’s long-ago whining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit the Clintons. “Going where the story leads” is unhelpful to liberalism in this case, ergo it’s advocacy by definition.”
So the only MSM reporter who is actually doing her job is being maginalized by her own employer for … actually doing her job .
—
24 Tweets Tell the #Benghazi Whistleblowers’ Story
” This is what you missed if you were at work or watching the mainstream media all day. Please SHARE with those who were affected by the media blackout of the Benghazi whistleblowers’ testimony! “
—
5 Benghazi Mysteries That Must Be Solved
” On Wednesday, at least three State Department employees will testify before the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee on Benghazi. They are expected to say that yes, there was a stand-down order during the battle. They may also testify that the State Department itself has tried to bully them into silence. What else they may say is not yet known.
As the Benghazi story has unfolded, many mysteries have persisted. Why wasn’t the Benghazi mission’s security enhanced? Where was President Obama? What role, if any, did Obama campaign officials play in crafting the government’s communications after the attack? Perhaps Wednesday’s witnesses can help shed some light on them.”
—
