Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by seemslikeadream » Mon May 05, 2014 9:28 am
by seemslikeadream » Fri May 16, 2014 11:16 am
How ‘Benghazi’ Birthed the New Normal in Africa
by Nick Turse and Tom Engelhardt, May 16, 2014
Amid the horrific headlines about the fanatical Islamist sect Boko Haram that should make Nigerians cringe, here’s a line from a recent Guardian article that should make Americans do the same, as the U.S. military continues its “pivot” to Africa: “[U.S.] defense officials are looking to Washington’s alliance with Yemen, with its close intelligence cooperation and CIA drone strikes, as an example for dealing with Boko Haram.”
In fact, as the latest news reports indicate, that “close” relationship is proving something less than a raging success. An escalating drone campaign against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has resulted in numerous dead “militants,” but also numerous dead Yemeni civilians – and a rising tide of resentment against Washington and possibly support for AQAP. As the Washington-Sana relationship ratchets up, meaning more U.S. boots on the ground, more CIA drones in the skies, and more attacks on AQAP, the results have been dismal indeed: only recently, the U.S. embassy in the country’s capital was temporarily closed to the public (for fear of attack), the insurgents launched a successful assault on soldiers guarding the presidential palace in the heart of that city, oil pipelines were bombed, electricity in various cities intermittently blacked out, and an incident, a claimed attempt to kidnap a CIA agent and a U.S. Special Operations commando from a Sana barbershop, resulted in two Yemeni deaths (and possibly rising local anger). In the meantime, AQAP seems ever more audacious and the country ever less stable. In other words, Washington’s vaunted Yemeni model has been effective so far – if you happen to belong to AQAP.
One of the poorer, less resource rich countries on the planet, Yemen is at least a global backwater. Nigeria is another matter. With the largest economy in Africa, much oil, and much wealth sloshing around, it has a corrupt leadership, a brutal and incompetent military, and an Islamist insurgency in its poverty-stricken north that, for simple bestiality, makes AQAP look like a paragon of virtue. The U.S. has aided and trained Nigerian “counterterrorism” forces for years with little to show. Add in the Yemeni model with drones overhead and who knows how the situation may spin further out of control.
In response to Boko Haram’s kidnapping of 276 young women, the Obama administration has already sent in a small military team (with FBI, State Department, and Justice Department representatives included) and launched drone and “manned surveillance flights,” which may prove to be just the first steps in what one day could become a larger operation. Under the circumstances, it’s worth remembering that the U.S. has already played a curious role in Nigeria’s destabilization, thanks to its 2011 intervention in Libya. In the chaos surrounding the fall of Libyan autocrat Muammar Qaddafi, his immense arsenals of weapons were looted and soon enough AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, and other light weaponry, as well as the requisite pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns or anti-aircraft guns made their way across an increasingly destabilized region, including into the hands of Boko Haram. Its militants are far better armed and trained today thanks to post-Libyan developments.
All of this, writes Nick Turse, is but part of what the U.S. military has started to call the “new normal” in Africa. The only U.S. reporter to consistently follow the U.S. pivot to that region in recent years, Turse makes clear that every new African nightmare turns out to be another opening for U.S. military involvement. Each further step by that military leads to yet more regional destabilization, and so to a greater urge to bring the Yemeni model (and its siblings) to bear with… well, you know what effect. Why doesn’t Washington? ~ Tom
The U.S. Military’s New Normal in Africa
By Nick Turse
What is Operation New Normal?
It’s a question without an answer, a riddle the U.S. military refuses to solve. It’s a secret operation in Africa that no one knows anything about. Except that someone does. His name is Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee Magee. He lives and breathes Operation New Normal. But he doesn’t want to breath paint fumes or talk to me, so you can’t know anything about it.
Confused? Stay with me.
Whatever Operation New Normal may be pales in comparison to the real “new normal” for U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). The lower-cased variant is bold and muscular. It’s an expeditionary force on a war footing. To the men involved, it’s a story of growth and expansion, new battlefields, “combat,” and “war.” It’s the culmination of years of construction, ingratiation, and interventions, the fruits of wide-eyed expansion and dismal policy failures, the backing of proxies to fight America’s battles, while increasing U.S. personnel and firepower in and around the continent. It is, to quote an officer with AFRICOM, the blossoming of a “war-fighting combatant command.” And unlike Operation New Normal, it’s finally heading for a media outlet near you.
Ever Less New, Ever More Normal
Since 9/11, the U.S. military has been ramping up missions on the African continent, funneling money into projects to woo allies, supporting and training proxy forces, conducting humanitarian outreach, carrying out air strikes and commando raids, creating a sophisticated logistics network throughout the region, and building a string of camps, “cooperative security locations,” and bases-by-other-names.
All the while, AFRICOM downplayed the expansion and much of the media, with a few notable exceptions, played along. With the end of the Iraq War and the drawdown of combat forces in Afghanistan, Washington has, however, visibly “pivoted” to Africa and, in recent weeks, many news organizations, especially those devoted to the military, have begun waking up to the new normal there.
While daily U.S. troop strength continent-wide hovers in the relatively modest range of 5,000 to 8,000 personnel, an under-the-radar expansion has been constant, with the U.S. military now conducting operations alongside almost every African military in almost every African country and averaging more than a mission a day.
This increased engagement has come at a continuing cost. When the U.S. and other allies intervened in 2011 to aid in the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, for instance, it helped set off a chain reaction that led to a security vacuum destabilizing that country as well as neighboring Mali. The latter saw its elected government overthrown by a U.S.-trained officer. The former never recovered and has tottered toward failed-state status ever since. Local militias have been carving out fiefdoms, while killing untold numbers of Libyans – as well, of course, as U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in a September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the “cradle” of the Libyan revolution, whose forces the U.S. had aided with training, materiel, and military might.
Quickly politicized by Congressional Republicans and conservative news outlets, “Benghazi” has become a shorthand for many things, including Obama administration cover-ups and misconduct, as well as White House lies and malfeasance. Missing, however, has been thoughtful analysis of the implications of American power-projection in Africa or the possibility that blowback might result from it.
Far from being chastened by the Benghazi deaths or chalking them up to a failure to imagine the consequences of armed interventions in situations whose local politics they barely grasp, the Pentagon and the Obama administration have used Benghazi as a growth opportunity, a means to take military efforts on the continent to the next level. “Benghazi” has provided AFRICOM with a beefed-up mandate and new clout. It birthed the new normal in Africa.
The Spoils of Blowback
Those 2012 killings “changed AFRICOM forever,” Major General Raymond Fox, commander of the II Marine Expeditionary Force, told attendees of a recent Sea-Air-Space conference organized by the Navy League, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine. The proof lies in the new “crisis response” forces that have popped up in and around Africa, greatly enhancing the regional reach, capabilities, and firepower of the U.S. military.
Following the debacle in Benghazi, for instance, the U.S. established an Africa-focused force known as Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response (SP-MAGTF CR) to give AFRICOM quick-reaction capabilities on the continent. “Temporarily positioned” at Morón Air Base in Spain, this rotating unit of Marines and sailors is officially billed as “a balanced, expeditionary force with built-in command, ground, aviation, and logistics elements and organized, trained, and equipped to accomplish a specific mission.”
Similarly, Benghazi provided the justification for the birthing of another rapid reaction unit, the Commander’s In-Extremis Force. Long in the planning stages and supported by the head of the Special Operations Command, Admiral William McRaven, the Fort Carson, Colorado-based unit – part of the 10th Special Forces Group – was sent to Europe weeks after Benghazi. Elements of this specialized counterterrorism unit are now “constantly forward deployed,” AFRICOM spokesman Benjamin Benson told TomDispatch, and stand “ready for the commander to use, if there’s a crisis.”
The East Africa Response Force (EARF), operating from the lone avowed American base in Africa – Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti – is another new quick-reaction unit. When asked about EARF, Benson said, “The growing complexity of the security environment demonstrated the need for us to have a [Department of Defense]-positioned response force that could respond to crises in the African region.”
In late December, just days after the 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, out of Fort Riley, Kansas, arrived in Djibouti to serve as the newly christened EARF, members of the unit were whisked off to South Sudan. Led by EARF’s commander, Lieutenant Colonel Lee Magee, the 45-man platoon was dispatched to that restive nation (midwifed into being by the U.S. only a few years earlier) as it slid toward civil war with armed factions moving close to the U.S. embassy in the capital, Juba. The obvious fear: another Benghazi.
Joined by elements of the Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response and more shadowy special ops troops, members of EARF helped secure and reinforce the embassy and evacuate Americans. Magee and most of his troops returned to Djibouti in February, although a few were still serving in South Sudan as recently as last month.
South Sudan, a nation the U.S. poured much time and effort into building, is lurching toward the brink of genocide, according to Secretary of State John Kerry. With a ceasefire already in shambles within hours of being signed, the country stands as another stark foreign policy failure on a continent now rife with them. But just as Benghazi proved a useful excuse for dispatching more forward-deployed firepower toward Africa, the embassy scare in South Sudan acted as a convenient template for future crises in which the U.S. military would be even more involved. “We’re basically the firemen for AFRICOM. If something arises and they need troops somewhere, we can be there just like that,” Captain John Young, a company commander with the East Africa Response Force, told Stars and Stripes in the wake of the Juba mission.
The New Normal and the Same Old, Same Old
A batch of official Army Africa documents obtained by TomDispatch convinced me that EARF was intimately connected with Operation New Normal. A July 2013 briefing slide, for instance, references “East Africa Response Force/New Normal,” while another concerning operations on that continent mentions “New Normal Reaction Force East.” At the same time, the phrase “new normal” has been increasingly on the lips of the men running America’s African ops.
Jason Hyland, a 30-year State Department veteran who serves as Foreign Policy Advisor to Brigadier General Wayne Grigsby, the commander of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), for instance, told an interviewer that the task force “is at the forefront in this region in implementing U.S. policy on the ‘new normal’ to protect our missions when there are uncertain conditions.”
A news release from CJTF-HOA concerning the Juba operation also used the phrase: “While the East Africa Response Force was providing security for the embassy, additional forces were required to continue the evacuation mission. Under the auspices of ‘the new normal,’ which refers to the heightened threat U.S. Embassies face throughout the world, the SP-MAGTF CR arrived from Morón, Spain,” wrote Technical Sergeant Jasmine Reif.
Earlier this year in Seapower magazine, the commander of Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response, Colonel Scott Benedict, described the “new normal” as a world filled with “a lot of rapidly moving crises,” requiring military interventions and likened it to the Marine Corps deployments in the so-called Banana Wars in Central America and the Caribbean in the early twentieth century.
On a visit to Camp Lemonnier, Marine commandant General James Amos echoed the same sentiments, calling his troops “America’s insurance policy.” Referencing the Marine task force, he invoked that phrase in an even more expansive way. Aside from “winning battles” in Afghanistan, he said, the creation of that force was “probably the most significant thing we’ve done in the last year-and-a-half as far as adjusting the Marine Corps for what people are now calling the new normal, which are these crises that are happening around the world.”
In March, Brigadier General Wayne Grigsby explicitly noted that the phrase meant far more than simple embassy security missions. “Sitting in Djibouti is really the new normal,” the CJTF-HOA commander said. (He was, in fact, sitting in an office in that country.) “It’s not the new normal… as far as providing security for our threatened embassies. It’s really the new normal on how we’re going to operate as a [Department of Defense entity] in supporting the national security strategy of our country.”
Operation New Normal and the Incredible Disappearing Lee Magee
With so many officials talking about the “new normal” and with documents citing a specific operation sporting the same name, I called up AFRICOM’s media chief Benjamin Benson looking for more information. “I don’t know the name new normal,” he told me. “It isn’t a term we’re using to define one of the operations.”
That seemed awfully curious. An official military document obtained by TomDispatch explicitly noted that U.S. troops would be deployed as part of Operation New Normal in 2014. The term was even used, in still another document, alongside other code-named operations like Juniper Micron and Observant Compass, missions to aid the French and African interventions in Mali and to degrade or destroy Joseph Kony’s murderous Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa.
Click here to see a larger version
From a 2013 U.S. Army Africa briefing slide referencing Operation New Normal.
Next, I got in touch with Lieutenant Colonel Glen Roberts at CJTF-HOA and explained that I wanted to know about Operation New Normal. His response was effusive and unequivocal: I should speak with Lee Magee – that is Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee Magee, a West Point graduate, third-generation Army officer, and commander of the East African Response Force who had deployed to South Sudan as the nation shattered on the rocks of reality. “He lives this concept and has executed it,” was how Roberts put it.
Was I available to talk to Magee the next day? Yes, indeed.
On March 27th, the day of the proposed interview, however, a lower-ranking public affairs official got in touch to explain that Lieutenant Colonel Magee could not speak to me and Lieutenant Colonel Roberts was out of the office. I asked to reschedule for the next day. The spokesman said he didn’t know what their calendars looked like, but that Roberts was expected back later that day. I left a message, but heard nothing.
The next morning, I called the press office in Djibouti and asked to speak to Magee. He wasn’t there. No one was. Everyone had left work early. The reason? “Paint fumes.”
That was a new one.
Another follow-up and Roberts finally got back in touch. “Apologies, but I am no longer able to arrange an interview with Magee,” he informed me. “Thanks for understanding.”
But I didn’t understand and told him so. After all, Magee was the man who lived and executed the new normal. I thought we were set for an interview. What happened?
“He has simply declined an interview, as is his privilege,” was the best Roberts could do. Magee had been dropped into the hot zone in South Sudan to forestall the next Benghazi, and had previously spoken with other media outlets about his work in Africa, but conversing with me about Operation New Normal was apparently beyond the pale. Or maybe it had something to do with those paint fumes.
On March 31st, Roberts told me that he could answer the questions by email – questions that I had already sent in on March 17th. But no response came. I followed up again. And again. And again. I sent the questions a second time.
As of publication, almost two months after my initial inquiry, no word yet. That, evidently, is the new normal, too.
The Real New Normal
Quite obviously, the U.S. military isn’t eager to talk about Operation New Normal, which – despite Benjamin Benson’s contentions, Lee Magee’s silence, and Glen Roberts’ disappearance – is almost certainly the name for a U.S. military mission in East Africa that, U.S. documents suggest, is tied to the Benghazi-birthed East African Response Force.
More important than uncovering the nature of Operation New Normal, however, is recognizing the real new normal in Africa for the U.S. military: ever-increasing missions across the continent – now averaging about 1.5 per day – ever more engagement with local proxies in ever more African countries, the construction of ever more new facilities in ever more countries (including plans for a possible new compound in Niger), and a string of bases devoted to surveillance activities spreading across the northern tier of Africa. Add to this impressive build-up the three new rapid reaction forces, specialized teams like a contingent of AFRICOM personnel and officials from the FBI and the departments of Justice, State, and Defense created to help rescue hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by members of the Islamic militant group Boko Haram, and other shadowy quick-response units like the seldom-mentioned Naval Special Warfare Unit 10.
“Having resources [on the continent] that are ready for a response is really valuable,” Benson told me when talking about the Djibouti-based EARF. The same holds for the U.S. military’s new normal in Africa: more of everything valuable to a military seeking a new mission in the wake of two fading, none-too-successful wars.
The Benghazi killings, unrest in South Sudan, and now the Boko Haram kidnappings have provided the U.S. with ways to bring a long-running “light footprint in Africa” narrative into line with a far heavier reality. Each crisis has provided the U.S. with further justification for publicizing a steady expansion on that continent that’s been underway but under wraps for years. New forces, new battlefields, and a new openness about a new “war,” to quote one of the men waging it. That’s the real new normal for the U.S. military in Africa – and you don’t need to talk to Lieutenant Colonel Lee Magee to know it.
by seemslikeadream » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:42 am
U.S. captures Benghazi suspect in secret raid
An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi late on Sept. 11, 2012. The alleged ringleader in the attack has been captured by involving Special Operations forces. (AFP/Getty Images)
BY KAREN DEYOUNG, ADAM GOLDMAN AND JULIE TATE June 17 at 11:19 AM
U.S. Special Operations forces captured one of the suspected ringleaders of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in a secret raid in Libya over the weekend, the first time one of the accused perpetrators of the 2012 assault has been apprehended, according to U.S. officials.
The officials said Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday near Benghazi by American troops, working alongside the FBI, following months of planning, and was now in U.S. custody “in a secure location outside Libya.” The officials said there were no casualties in the operation, and that all U.S. personnel involved have safely left Libya.
Khattala’s apprehension is a major victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for having failed so far to bring those responsible for the Benghazi attacks to justice.
One jubilant official called Khattala’s capture “a reminder that when the United States says it’s going to hold someone accountable and he will face justice, this is what we mean.”
The Washington Post learned about the capture Monday but agreed to a request from the White House to delay publication of a story because of security concerns.
Last year, the U.S. Attorney in the District filed charges against Khattala and at least a dozen others in connection with the Benghazi attacks. None besides Khattala — who is expected to be arraigned in Washington — has been apprehended.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity about the still-secret operation, would not say where Khattala was being held. They said he was “en route” to the United States, but would not say when he was expected to arrive.
Several terrorist suspects abducted overseas have been held aboard U.S. naval ships at sea while being interrogated, after which they were turned over to FBI “clean teams” to question them for trial without endangering the admissibility of evidence.
The State Department designated Khattala a terrorist in January, calling him a “senior leader” of the Benghazi branch of the militant organization Ansar al-Sharia, a group that arose after the 2010 fall of the Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi.
Ansar al-Sharia was also designated a terrorist organization and held specifically responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and State Department security official Sean Smith dead.
Two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed in a mortar attack at a nearby CIA annex where the attackers moved after overtaking the diplomatic compound.
Officials who confirmed Khattala’s capture declined to comment on whether others were apprehended with him, or to describe the specific military or law enforcement units that were involved. Last October, commandos from the Army’s elite Delta Force, along with members of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, carried out a similar raid in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and abducted Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai,who is accused of participating in the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa.
Ruqai, also known as Anas al-Libi, is currently awaiting trial in New York.
A plan to grab Khattala days after Ruqai’s capture was postponed because of violent uprisings against the Libyan government, which had approved the abductions. Asked whether Libya had approved the Sunday abduction, a U.S. official said: “I am not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic discussions, but to be clear: This was a unilateral U.S. operation.”
“We have made clear to successive Libyan governments our intention to bring to justice the perpetrators of the attack on our facilities in Benghazi,” the official said. “So it should come as no surprise to the Libyan government that we would take advantage of an opportunity to bring Abu Khatalla to face justice.”
Following the October raid, the FBI feared it had missed its best opportunity to arrest Khattala.
Shortly after the Benghazi attacks, FBI agents in New York, which has territorial responsibility for Africa, began working with federal prosecutors there, although the case was subsequently moved without explanation to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District.
Failure to make arrests in the Benghazi case was seen as an enormous frustration for the FBI, and a subject of sharp criticism from lawmakers. Within weeks of the attacks, and sporadically thereafter, Khattala was interviewed by American reporters in the open in Benghazi, where he said he did not participate in the initial assault on the Benghazi compound but came on the scene as it was ending.
In a June 11 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director James Comey testified: “I take the Benghazi matter very, very seriously. It is one that I am very close to—briefed on a regular basis. One we are putting a lot of work into and that we’ve made progress on.”
“One thing you’ve got to know about the FBI, we never give up,” Comey said. “So sometimes things take longer than we’d like them to, but they never go into an inactive bin.”
Believed to be in his 40s, Khattala was imprisoned for many years by the Gaddafi regime for his Islamic views.
The FBI believes other groups were also involved in the Benghazi attacks and is pursuing criminal charges against several individuals, including Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah. Qumu has also been designated a terrorist by the State Department, as has his group.
In 2007, Qumu was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to Libya, where he was detained. Gaddafi’s government released him in 2008.
The Benghazi attacks and their aftermath have been the subject of ongoing controversy. A volatile political issue, Benghazi has already influenced initial skirmishing over the 2016 presidential election, particularly for Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Obama’s secretary of state at the time of the attacks.
Republicans have charged the White House with failing to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, attempting to cover up what actually occurred on the night of the attacks, and mishandling the subsequent investigation. After numerous hearings and an official State Department review, a select committee has been set up in the House of Representatives to investigate further.
by seemslikeadream » Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:42 pm
House Committee: No Benghazi Scandal
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R - South Carolina) meets with the other appointed majority members of the Benghazi Select Committee. (Photo: Caleb Smith / Flickr)
WALTER BRASCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The House Select Committee on Intelligence, following almost a two-year intense investigation, unanimously determined there is no basis for what has become known as the Benghazi Scandal.
The Committee consists of 12 Republicans and 9 Democrats.
The pretend-scandal began September 11, 2012, when terrorists raided the U.S. consulate, and killed the ambassador and three others.
Although there was confusion, and the Obama administration didn't have all the facts when it began to inform the American people about the events and the causes, there was no evidence of anything even remotely linked to a scandal. However, as expected, the blathering mouths of the extreme right-wing media pundits and politicians, and those who blindly parrot their "talking points" in bars, on front porches, and hunting lodges, kept caterwauling about scandal.
Among the findings of the House Committee, all of which conflict with the manufactured propaganda by the extreme right-wing:
--There was no stand-down order given to any personnel–military or civilian–who tried to assist. This information is consistent with testimony provided to the House Armed Services Committee. In contrast, immediate response by the United States prevented additional injuries and deaths.
--Although Intelligence agencies were warned about a possible threat, there was no advance knowledge of what was planned.
-- The extreme right-wing attacked Ambassador Susan Rice for her initial reports, possibly worried that President Obama would nominate her to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was planning to leave the Administration after more than four years.
--Although there was a lack of coordination between the intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and the White House, the Obama Administration did not deliberately mislead the American people. Committee Member Adam Schiff said evidence suggests, "The initial talking points provided by the Intelligence Community were flawed because of conflicting assessments, not an intention to deceive." As new information became available, the Administration informed the people.
--All activities by the CIA were legal and authorized.
--There was no illegal activity or illegal arms trading that allowed any weapons provided by the U.S. to get into the hands of the terrorists.
Now, here is also what is known.
--In contrast to extreme right-wing allegations that the Obama Administration has done nothing to find those who killed the four Americans, the person believed to have been the leader of the attacks, Ahmed Abu Khattalah, is in federal custody, awaiting trial. The United States has identified and is conducting operations to bring other terrorists to trial.
--Ambassador Christopher Stevens five months before the attack had requested additional military security. However, his request was denied. The reason? The Republican-led obstructionist Congress had earlier refused to fund additional personnel and budget for embassy and consulate security.
--During the George W. Bush administration, terrorists killed 60 personnel in 10 separate attacks at U.S. consulates and embassies. There were no outraged Republicans.
Within a week of the seventh anniversary of 9/11, terrorists killed 16 at the U.S. embassy in Yemen. Americans grieved but did not launch a barrage of lies and half-truths, nor try to politicize the deaths of the 60 Americans.
--The extreme right-wing, apparently worried that Hillary Clinton would become the leading candidate for president, has willfully and maliciously attacked her leadership during this crisis, hoping to tarnish her reputation and reduce the possibility she will become the nation's first female president.
Given the reality that a thorough investigation by a Republican-led House committee shows there is no scandal, you'd expect the rest of the House to drop its $3.3 million investigation that they increased for political purposes months before the November mid-term elections.
You'd also expect Fox News empty heads who have been screeching "scandal!" almost 24/7 for two years to either admit they were wrong or to just shut up.
You'd expect that. But, you won't get it in an atmosphere fueled by hate and prejudice.
by stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:39 pm
Benghazi: Cover-up By Both Parties?
By Russ Baker on Jan 15, 2014
The continued finger-pointing between the GOP and the Obama Administration over “what really happened in Benghazi” may be obscuring a much more disturbing narrative—a story in neither party’s interest.
WhoWhatWhy’s discussion of that new possibility comes below, but first, here’s the background:
On September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group of more than 100 gunmen destroyed the US consulate compound and a nearby CIA facility in the Eastern Libyan city; ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died. The attack has been characterized as “the most significant attack on United States property…since Sept. 11, 2001.”
Shortly after the incident, Susan Rice, then Obama’s UN ambassador, claimed publicly that the uprising was spontaneous—a reaction to an anti-Islam YouTube video that had just aired. She, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others soon came under severe attack for purportedly making a false claim to deflect attention from administration security failures, and the blogosphere has continued to resound with the issue ever since.
The GOP—along with its allies at Fox News and elsewhere—insistently drummed allegations that the Obama Administration was responsible for the tragedy. The charges have ranged from a failure to address Al Qaeda’s purported presence in Benghazi to not properly controlling weaponry in the hands of local militias.
These critics also decry what they say is a long-running cover-up. According to one count, nearly 80 percent of House Republicans now say they want a Watergate-style inquiry convened. Liberals have charged the Republicans with being recklessly partisan and exhibiting “lunacy.”
Recently, the controversy’s simmer went back to boil when The New York Times published an investigative report on Benghazi. Some of its conclusions vindicated the Obama Administration. It concluded that there was no Al Qaeda role, and that indeed the inflammatory video may have played some role. However, while finding that the crowd attack was partially spontaneous, the paper’s reporter suggested that some intelligence lapses might have contributed. Specifically, he laid out superficial evidence that a local, non-Al Qaeda militia leader played some possible role as an inciter and sympathizer with the attack—and that the man should have already been drawing scrutiny from American spies. In other words, a kind of draw, with neither the GOP nor the Obama administration fully vindicated.
When the Times piece came out, the GOP and its echo chamber, including Donald Trump, raced to accuse the paper of covering up the role of Al Qaeda in the attacks. By most accounts, though, that critique is dependent on perpetuating a still-popular though overly simplified notion of Al Qaeda as a unified, globe-girdling command, ignoring the local origins of so much Islamist activity. The perpetuation of the “Al Qaeda threat” has worked well because it continues as an easy sell for those stoking the fear machine.
On a scorecard comparing the traditional news outlets, the Times would, not surprisingly, score higher on the credibility and integrity meter with the Benghazi story than, say Fox News. But that’s not saying a lot. Because very few establishment news entities of any stripe are willing to look deeper at the true causes of convulsive events, to wade into the shadowy world of larger interests duking it out through surrogates and deception.
Sometimes, to be sure, such events as the Benghazi “uprising” are as they appear: spontaneous acts of anger and passion. But often enough, there is more to the story.
That appears to be the case here. Delve deep into the particulars and you will uncover clues that, when carefully juxtaposed, suggest a more coherent design.
Here are some of those pieces:
-The date of the assault: anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks
-The evidence of advance planning and preparation
-The timing, content, provenance, and beneficiaries of the inciting video
-The nature of the uprising itself and its similarity to other supposedly spontaneous or locally-ignited debacles with international implications and hints of a guiding hand.
Cui Bono?
Let’s start with the last point.
At least 12 hours before the attack, guards at the US compound had noticed evidence that the complex was under some kind of surveillance. They’d seen a man taking cell phone photos from the second floor of an unfinished building across the street, and when they approached, the man fled in a police car with others—all of whom were wearing the uniform of a quasi-official militia. So if the crowd was whipped up over the video, and spontaneous, then the crowd was phase two of a far less spontaneous, and carefully planned, operation.
If those so obviously “staking out” the building chose to wear uniforms of a Libyan-government-connected militia and to “escape” in a police car, most likely they were neither government nor police.
All investigators know to ask: Cui Bono? It’s Latin, which loosely translates as “who benefits?” Who benefited from the destruction of the consulate and the deaths of the Americans, and the subsequent US-prompted heat placed on the militias by deeply embarrassed Libyan authorities? Not the militias. Not the Libyan government or the local police. And certainly not the Obama administration.
The net effect of the attack—and the outsized attention devoted to it at the time and over the course of the 16 months since it unfolded—was to revive concerns about global Islamic fundamentalism.
In the long stretches of quiet, public sentiment tends to move toward cutting aggressive foreign military action and the tremendous costs, as well as the domestic equivalent, in the form of the post-9/11 government and highly profitable private enterprises all grouped under “homeland security.” When Obama has tried at various points to rein in military operations and to promote diplomatic initiatives over armed intervention, especially in his second term, he has faced staunch opposition, including in Congress, where those benefiting most from war and discord spend heavily to influence members.
It was no surprise, really, that the Benghazi attack was quickly followed by claims that the Obama administration is not doing enough to protect American lives and property. And the result almost certainly has not been further restraint in spending or implementation of security measures. Indeed, with the emphasis on Benghazi as “the most significant attack on United States property…since Sept. 11, 2001,” the US compound attack became the far bookend on a period of actual substantive safety and calm for Americans, lasting eleven years since the Twin Towers came under attack.
The GOP and its allies have, remarkably, even sought to create some kind of equivalency between Benghazi and 9/11—but on the Democrats’ watch, instead of George W. Bush’s. However, given that four people died in Benghazi, compared to nearly three thousand deaths from 9/11, the alacrity with which the Republicans, their partners at Fox and the like have pummeled Obama tells you something about their cynicism.
Practically, though, the Benghazi attack sends the message that the US must continue to be aggressive abroad, and that it expects the same from “friendly” regimes in the Middle East.
And no friendly regime was watching developments more closely than the one right next door—in Egypt.
For Answers, Look Next Door
For decades, dictators ruled Egypt with the full support of European powers and the US government. With the Arab Spring uprising—which was viewed with consternation by US authorities—the country finally embraced democracy. But it brought new perils, as Egyptian voters elected Islamists.
On June 30, 2012, Mohamed Morsi of the Islamic Brotherhood was sworn in as president of Egypt. He won 51.73 percent of the vote in that country’s first free election, becoming its first civilian president.
The Brotherhood, however, did not last long. A year later, the army overthrew Morsi.
At the time, US authorities predictably issued restrained condemnations of the army and its overtly anti-democratic action. In the ensuing months, however, the criticism became more and more muted as the mandarins of American foreign policy argued that military dictators were preferable to elected Islamists.
While the Egyptian military could be expected to serve the interests of the wealthy and of transnational corporations, as it had in the past, its supporters abroad cited humanitarian concerns as justification.
Among these concerns was the instability and intolerance that Islamist control heralded, particularly in the form of retribution against Egypt’s religious minorities. Most notably, these included the affluent Coptic Christian community, traditionally protected by the Egyptian government just as minorities in Syria have been protected by President Assad. Assad himself is a member of a minority Muslim sect, the Alawites.
With this background, consider the role of that briefly infamous viral video in the Benghazi attack. The video was a strikingly crude production characterized by the secrecy of the sponsors and the seeming intention to antagonize Muslims—and perhaps direct the antagonism against Christians.
The video, with its Egyptian roots, appeared barely two months after Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took power. It was publicized heavily by Egyptian television stations closely allied with the country’s military–stations whose audience includes Libyans, and specifically much of the population of Benghazi. We learned that the odd figures behind it were….Coptic Christians.
The details of the production of this amateurish film remain hazy; no serious investigation has yet established who was ultimately behind it. But the multiple deceptions involved in tricking the actors and others who worked on the film, the subsequent overdubbing of dialogue highly offensive to Muslims, the criminal past of the Coptic Egyptian purportedly responsible for the film, all these cry out for further investigation. They also send up flares that we’re looking at a classic, multilayered disinformation operation orchestrated by someone with lots of skin in the game.
That it appeared on television channels closely associated with the Egyptian military just as the anniversary of 9/11 rolled around, and that it allegedly became the match that set off the Benghazi mini-conflagration cannot be ignored.
When Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and others were noting the role of the video in the tragedy, they may well have been right. But we heard no more from the administration on who they believed was responsible for the video or the timing of its release.
Given the strong Egyptian connection, it’s hard to imagine that no one put two and two together and wondered if the attack on the American mission, with its apparent advance planning and sophisticated deception, were not the work of some disciplined entity with substantial interests and resources.
So far, the evidence pointing to Egypt is purely circumstantial. But the net effect, and the message, is clear: North Africa is a tinderbox, and we’d be well to leave the Egyptian military alone while it pursues its brutal and bloody campaign to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood. (The latest of a constant series of moves to quash the Islamists was the announcement by the Egyptian minister of education that the government had taken over more than 150 Brotherhood-run schools.)
Hence, our question: Were Egyptian intelligence services responsible for the inciting video, for stirring up the crowd, and essentially stage managing the attack on their “friend’s” consulate, with the goal of firming US support for their “get tough” policy? The net effect, more than a year later, has certainly been favorable to the military government. The dictatorship is firmly ensconced in power, and the US government has made little effort to get the military to withdraw to its barracks which would allow for democracy, however messy, to prevail in Egypt.
For the US military-industrial complex that has profited mightily from Egyptian military purchases, much of which is subsidized by US taxpayers, the benefits of a continued justification are apparent. Although the US has periodically announced modest and highly temporary freezes on military assistance to Egypt to symbolically protest aggression, these moves do nothing to seriously restrain aid that has typically run up to $1.5 billion dollars a year. And Secretary of Defense Hagel and Secretary of State Kerry have been supportive of the military regime; Kerry has been public in his praise of purportedly democratic moves by the generals in charge.
Whipping up unwitting crowds is nothing new. It’s been done in Iran, Chile, and in other places—including, as WhoWhatWhy has reported, a covert French role in the initiatory incident for the Libyan “Arab Spring” itself in 2011. It is a classic trick of the covert operations trade. It would not have been hard to light the match that turned into the Benghazi conflagration. Many of the veterans in “friendly” foreign intelligence services were trained by masters of public opinion manipulation from the West, spiritual heirs of familiar old intriguers such as David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt.
If our hunch on Benghazi is correct—and despite the indications, it is only a hunch—this pattern might mirror what happened with 9/11. In that situation, an attack bearing evidentiary signs of Saudi sponsorship paradoxically resulted not in investigations but in a strengthening of the US relationship with the dictatorial Saudi royal family. (For more on that, see this, this, and this.) In the case of 9/11, the US government has consistently blocked disclosure of relevant documents, apparently on the grounds of undefined “national security” interests. Is the Obama administration in the same self-imposed “bind” regarding Benghazi?
And here we see another convergence. Besides the Egyptians, another power that made sure everyone heard about that inflammatory video was Egypt’s traditional ally, Saudi Arabia. In a confidential memo from Clinton family confidant Sid Blumenthal to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, later obtained by a hacker and released, a “sensitive” source cites information from the French intelligence services which
“indicates that the funding (for the Benghazi attack) originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.”
Our Media, Unhelpful As Always
Did you hear any of this in the conventional media? Doubtful. From the Times to Fox News, we’ve seen little more than perpetuation of the Democratic-versus-Republican slugfest. This makes easy-to-follow coverage, but it obscures deeper patterns of behavior benefiting institutions and individuals that transcend party.
Fox and the GOP, however, ought to be singled out for the extent of their cynicism, whipping up their typically uninformed and perpetually choleric base. By hammering away relentlessly at the Obama administration for its purported “failures” and alleged “cover-up” of Benghazi, and by not looking at the likelihood of what really happened, they have only heaped manure on any original cover-up.
As always, the only hope for getting to the bottom of things is to turn to non-traditional “muckrakers” and whistleblowers.
by seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:18 am
17 new charges against suspected Benghazi ringleader Khatallah
By Evan Perez, CNN
updated 9:19 PM EDT, Tue October 14, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Grand jury hands down 17 more charges against suspected militant
Ahmed Abu Khatallah was captured in Libya and transferred to the U.S.
He has pleaded not guilty to a charge of providing support to terrorists
Washington (CNN) -- Federal authorities filed 17 new charges against Ahmed Abu Khatallah, alleging that he was the ringleader of twin 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic and CIA compounds in Benghazi that killed four Americans.
A new indictment against Khatallah, 43, provides new details of the attack and what federal prosecutors say was his role in leading 20 armed men in the attacks carried out over more than seven hours. Previously, prosecutors charged him with a single count of providing material support to terrorists.
According to the indictment, Khatallah conspired with others "on or before Sept. 11, 2012" to attack the U.S. diplomatic post. "He believed the facility was being used to collect intelligence, that he viewed the U.S. intelligence actions in Benghazi as illegal," the document said.
"These additional charges reflect Ahmed Abu Khattalah's integral role in the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, which led to the deaths of four brave Americans," said Attorney General Eric Holder.
The indictment doesn't say how much planning was involved, and doesn't account for the possibility that the attack coincided with other attacks elsewhere in the Muslim world that targeted U.S. diplomatic facilities.
Republican critics have said the Obama administration failed to take sufficient measures to prevent the attacks. They also criticize officials for initially portraying the terrorist rampage as spinning out from street protests blamed on an anti-Islam movie produced in the United States.
Khatallah has pleaded not guilty to one count of providing material support to terrorists and will remain jailed until his trial, a federal magistrate ruled in July. He will be arraigned on the new charges on October 20. Ten of those charges, including murder, could carry the death penalty.
Authorities contend that Khatallah is a senior leader of Ansar al Sharia, whose members were among several militias that participated in the two-pronged armed assault.
Khatallah remained free for more than a year after the attacks, doing interviews with CNN and other media, prompting criticism of the Obama administration over how long it was taking to arrest the alleged attackers.
He was arrested in a military raid in Libya in June and charged in federal court in Washington, D.C., mere yards away from Capitol buildings where he has become the center of political controversy.
Assistant Attorney General for national security John Carlin said in a statement Tuesday that the case "highlights our resolve to find and hold terrorists accountable wherever they may hide."
Prosecutors say the attack in Benghazi began around 9:45 p.m. with Khatallah and about 20 armed men attacking the main gate of the diplomatic mission. They set fire to buildings and Khatallah and others allegedly turned away emergency responders. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Patrick Smith, a mission employee, perished from wounds suffered in that attack.
The attackers retreated briefly around 10:15 p.m., according to the indictment, and then an hour later launched another attack on the mission's southern gate. They used assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades and other explosives.
The attackers plundered what they could from the compound, then shortly after midnight, the indictment says Khatallah and others retreated to a camp operated by Ansar al Sharia.
Khatallah then led the attacks on the CIA annex beginning at 12:30 a.m. and again at 5:15 a.m., according to the indictment. Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, security officers at the CIA annex, were killed.
At a July hearing, defense lawyers contended the Justice Department hasn't provided evidence to support the case.
by seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:59 pm
The Next Speaker of the House Revealed the Real Reason the GOP Is Investigating Benghazi
By Gregory Krieg September 30, 2015 LIKE MIC ON FACEBOOK:
In an interview Tuesday night with Fox News, the California Republican congressman likely to become the next House speaker described the investigations into the attacks on Benghazi as a model for future GOP "strategy" because, he said, they were responsible for putting a massive dent in Hillary Clinton's poll numbers.
"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy told host Sean Hannity. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would've known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."
The Next Speaker of the House Revealed the Real Reason the GOP Is Investigating Benghazi
For the Clinton campaign, McCarthy's remarks could not have arrived at a better time, with her once-dominant standing in the polls having steadily eroded over the past several weeks. For years, the former secretary of state has condemned the multiple Republican-led probes into the attack, which killed four U.S. foreign service workers.
Now the campaign and fellow Democrats are latching onto McCarthy's comments as proof the Benghazi investigation is a politically motivated witch hunt designed to damage Clinton's prospects for the presidency.
The fight: In an emailed statement, Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon called the episode a "damning display of honesty," saying "Kevin McCarthy just confessed that the committee set up to look into the deaths of four brave Americans at Benghazi is a taxpayer-funded sham."
McCarthy's remark, he continued, "confirms Americans' worst suspicions about what goes on in Washington."
In the interview Tuesday, Hannity pushed McCarthy, the likely successor to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), to explain how his leadership would be different from the outgoing regime.
"What you're going to see is a conservative speaker that takes a conservative Congress that puts a strategy to fight and win," McCarthy said. The Benghazi committee, he continued, was "one example" of that.
The select committee McCarthy referenced is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican. Gowdy has repeatedly denied their work was driven by partisan politics.
The background: In a March appearance on Fox News Sunday, Gowdy offered a pointed defense of his investigation.
"If you look back at the three hearings we have had so far, I have mentioned Hillary Clinton's name a whopping zero times," he said. "We were interviewing witnesses that have nothing to do with Secretary Clinton when this story broke. So to the extent that Democrats are frustrated, they should talk to Secretary Clinton, not me."
But by July 8, Gowdy confirmed Clinton had been issued a call to testify — months before his Fox News Sunday appearance. He went public in response to Clinton's claim that she had not deleted any messages "while facing subpoena," which she said during a July 7 interview with CNN centered on her use of a personal email server during her time at the State Department.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), a Clinton ally, said Gowdy's actions then were "nothing but a stunt." The New York Times story that inspired Gowdy to act had been released March 2. Clinton had turned over 55,000 pages of emails and deleted what her lawyers deemed "personal" months earlier.
Clinton will have a chance to answer further questions in person when she returns to Capitol Hill to testify before Gowdy's committee Oct. 22.
by backtoiam » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:00 am
Leaked Audio: Hillary Clinton Calls at Private Fundraiser for Infrastructure Bank to Resemble Clinton Global Initiative
Posted September 30, 2015 2:49 pm by PatriotRising with 0 comments
Exclusive: Union-backed project would be modeled on work of controversial nonprofit
Hillary Clinton told donors at a private fundraiser in New York last Thursday that she plans as president to create a “national infrastructure bank” modeled on the Clinton Global Initiative, according to a recording of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
This was the first time that Clinton, who has long supported the formation of a government-controlled bank to invest in national infrastructure projects, cited the Clinton Global Initiative—the flagship arm of her family’s controversial foundation—as an investment model for her proposed bank.
Clinton said CGI’s “public-private” partnership with labor unions has created tens of thousands of jobs, and argued that a federal infrastructure bank could take on this type of project.
“Think of what we can do on a national scale,” said Clinton.
Clinton’s plan for a national infrastructure bank dovetails with the financial interests of some of her most prominent supporters. Her comments could also give ammunition to critics who say that the Clintons’ philanthropic operations, including CGI, have been plagued with conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement.
“I want to see if we can create what is called an infrastructure bank,” said Clinton. “It’s like a revolving loan fund so we can take it out of to a great extent the annual fight over appropriations. If we can get it funded with a combination of public and private funds, we can do this.”
Clinton cited as an example a $15 billion project she said the Clinton Global Initiative is running with labor union pension funds to train people for “clean energy work.”
“The Clinton Global Initiative that my husband started has a project with a lot of labor union pension funds. They have put $15 billion into a fund to train workers to be able to do energy efficiency and other clean energy work,” said Clinton. “Think of what we can do on a national scale. … There is no doubt in my mind this is a win-win.”
The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. Clinton did not take questions after her remarks, which is unusual for a prominent candidate at a closed-door fundraising event.
Clinton’s campaign website says the proposal would “leverage public and private capital to invest in critically important infrastructure projects, including energy infrastructure projects.”
Supporters of such a bank say it would help spur investment and job creation by letting the private sector invest in public projects. But the concept has also been criticized as a magnet for cronyism that could allow government officials to hand out loans to allies as political favors.
“The basic premise is if we throw enough public and private money into a bucket and then let private parties sort of draw on it to build better roads, the whole problem will sort itself out,” said Adam J. White, counsel at Boyden Gray & Associates, a law firm that focuses on federal regulation. “That strikes me at best a recipe for a failed transportation policy and at worst an opportunity for wasting billions of dollars.”
White said recent controversies over the green energy company Solyndra and the Export-Import bank also show the potential for “favoritism, waste, politicalization.”
Clinton’s plan could also be a windfall for some of her top financial supporters.
One likely beneficiary would be Robert Wolf, a Clinton donor and former bundler for the Obama campaign who previously chaired UBS Americas. Wolf runs the consulting firm 32 Advisors, which has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
The firm announced the formation of a new infrastructure practice in April to help clients obtain funding for infrastructure projects. It brought on Michael Likosky, an expert in infrastructure financing and government planning, to lead the practice. Likosky has also advised CGI on infrastructure projects, and billed himself in July as “an Expert to the Clinton Initiative.”
Another donor that could benefit from a national infrastructure bank is Mary Scott Nabers, head of the consulting firm Strategic Partnerships, Inc. The firm helps clients to procure government contracts for public-private infrastructure projects. Nabers has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Labor unions, which represent a major voting bloc and well of financial support for Clinton, would also benefit significantly from a national infrastructure bank.
Union officials said they hoped that their project with CGI—which was cited by Clinton at her recent fundraiser—would help “spur creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to spur subsidized bonds for public works projects,” the Chicago Tribune reported in 2011.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:59 pm
Dems on GOP’s Benghazi committee start to play hardball
10/05/15 12:46 PM—UPDATED 10/05/15 01:54 PM
By Steve Benen
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, 9/30/15, 9:22 PM ET
Benghazi committee 'is a joke': Congressman Smith
It’s always interesting to see what happens when a charade ends. For quite a while, congressional Republicans tried to keep up appearances, pretending their Benghazi committee was a legitimate, non-partisan search for truth – a claim no one, anywhere, seriously believed – but House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) accidental candor last week ripped off the mask.
There was brief discussion about whether Democrats would simply quit the taxpayer-funded, anti-Clinton fishing expedition in protest, a move Dems ultimately rejected, but that doesn’t mean they plan to sit idly by. The Washington Post reported this morning:
Democrats are taking the unprecedented step of releasing excerpts from a closed-session interview the House Benghazi committee conducted last month with Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, accusing the panel’s Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy (S.C.) of selectively leaking information to damage Clinton in the presidential race.
In a letter sent Monday morning, Democrats on the panel released statements made by Mills from the Sept. 3 interview that paint Clinton in a favorable light. The letter charges Gowdy with failing to provide a fair account of Mills’s interview, alleging that he orchestrated small press leaks designed to produce negative stories about the Democratic presidential front-runner.
In a letter signed by all five Democratic members of the panel, the lawmakers told Gowdy, “It has become obvious that the only way to adequately correct the public record is to release the complete transcript of the Committee’s interview with Ms. Mills…. [W]e plan to begin the process of correcting the public record by releasing the transcript of Ms. Mills’ interview. Since you have indicated your unwillingness to do this in a bipartisan manner, we plan to do so ourselves.”
Let’s back up for a minute to recap for those unfamiliar with the issue surrounding Mills.
About a month ago, former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills agreed to testify before the Benghazi panel, but she urged the committee’s Republican leaders to hold a transparent, public hearing, open for all the world to see, so there’d be no concerns about misleading leaks. After all, she had nothing to hide and no incentive to keep her testimony private.
As we discussed at the time, Gowdy and the committee’s Republicans refused, insisting that Mills answer questions behind closed doors. Committee Democrats asked for a full transcript to be released to the public and the media – again, so everyone could see exactly what was discussed – but Gowdy and his team refused this request, too.
And right on cue, immediately after Mills spoke to the committee, Republicans leaked misleading information to Politico about her testimony. It was not the first deceptive leak from the panel.
Gowdy once boasted, “[S]erious investigations do not leak information or make selective releases of information without full and proper context.” And yet, that’s precisely what his investigation has done.
This, coupled with McCarthy’s admission last week, appears to have pushed committee Democrats over the edge. They have the transcript – the whole thing, not excerpts edited by Republicans to advance a partisan agenda – and they want the public to have it, too. From today’s letter:
“We do not take this action lightly. We have held off on taking such action for more than a year, but we will no longer sit and watch selective, out-of-context leaks continue to mischaracterize the testimony the Select Committee has received.
“Please notify us within five days if you believe any information in the full transcript should be withheld from the American people. We are providing the State Department and Ms. Mills’ attorneys with this same opportunity.”
I’m not entirely sure what, if anything, Gowdy can do at this point to (a) keep the truth shielded from public view; and (b) punish the Democrats on his committee for going around him.
But as the masquerade ends and the Benghazi committee is exposed as the partisan exercise it has always been, the politics surrounding the scheme are clearly intensifying.
by seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:17 pm
Democrats on Benghazi Committee Release Devastating Fact Sheet on Gowdy
byericlewis
From the web site of the Democratic members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:
FACT SHEET:
How the Benghazi Committee Targeted Hillary Clinton
Gowdy Cancelled All Planned Hearings Other Than Hillary Clinton’s After NYT Email Story
Before the New York Times broke its story on March 2 about Hillary’s Clinton’s emails, Gowdy had sent to Committee Members an investigative plan that set out monthly hearings with all the different agencies involved in preparing for and responding to the attacks in Benghazi, including the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Intelligence Community.
After the New York Times’ email story broke on March 2, however, Gowdy completely abandoned this plan and began focusing almost exclusively on Hillary Clinton.
Since then, Gowdy has not held any of the hearings on his schedule, and his upcoming hearing with Hillary Clinton is the only hearing now scheduled.
For example, Gowdy abandoned the hearing he had planned for April with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Leon Panetta.
The Committee has never held even one public hearing with anyone from the Department of Defense. The Committee has held only one hearing with an intelligence official, but it was with the CIA’s head of Legislative Affairs regarding the status of document production.
Gowdy Dropped Key Interviews with Top Defense and Intelligence Leaders
Gowdy also abandoned plans he had made in February to start conducting interviews of the following top defense and intelligence leaders in April: former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former CIA Director David Petraeus, General Martin Dempsey, and former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matt Olsen.
He never invited any of these defense or intelligence leaders for interviews.
Gowdy then announced that he planned to start conducting the following interviews in June: former Defense Secretary Panetta, General Martin Dempsey, and General Carter Ham.
Those interviews were also abandoned.
Gowdy Scheduled New Interviews and Depositions of Hillary Clinton’s Associates
By the end of this month, Republicans will have interviewed or deposed 8 current or former Clinton campaign staffers, compared to only a total of four Defense Department officials.
Gowdy sent armed Marshals to serve a deposition subpoena on longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal despite the fact that he was completely cooperative and would have voluntarily appeared without a subpoena, but was never asked.
Gowdy later admitted that he “never expected Witness Blumenthal to be able to answer questions about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The Select Committee asked Blumenthal more than 160 questions about his relationship and communications with Clinton, but fewer than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks; more than 50 questions about the Clinton Foundation, but only 4 about security in Benghazi; and more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters and affiliated entities, but no questions at all about Ambassador Stevens or other personnel in Benghazi.
Gowdy Stepped Up Aggressive Press Campaign Against Hillary Clinton
Since March, Gowdy’s press releases have focused almost entirely on Secretary Clinton.
Over the past nine months, he has issued 22 press releases related to Secretary Clinton (including one on Sidney Blumenthal’s emails with Clinton), but only 5 press releases on any other topic during that period.
Of the 5 non-Clinton press releases, three (1, 2, 3) are about the State Department’s compliance with document production, one marks the anniversary of 9/11, and one is Gowdy’s interim progress report.
The only documents Gowdy has publicly released over the past 17 months were Clinton’s emails with Sidney Blumenthal, and Gowdy did this unilaterally with no debate or vote by the Select Committee.
At the same time, he has blocked the public release of Blumenthal’s deposition transcript, which would reveal all the questions Republicans asked about Hillary Clinton and other issues that have nothing to do with Benghazi.
Almost immediately after the interview with Cheryl Mills, Republicans began leaking inaccurate information to damage Clinton with unsubstantiated or previously debunked allegations, while refusing to release the complete transcript.
Gowdy refused to investigate or condemn a leak that made more unsubstantiated allegations against Clinton despite the fact that Politico was forced to correct a front-page story that relied on apparently doctored information about an email produced to the Select Committee.
Gowdy’s Taxpayer-Funded Political Campaign Against Clinton
The Committee was given an unlimited, taxpayer-funded budget, and it has now spent more than $4.6 million in one of the longest and least productive investigations in congressional history—focused on Clinton.
The Committee is being used by Republican fundraisers to attack Clinton.
The Committee’s attacks were described by the conservative PAC America Rising as a taxpayer-funded political activity: “This has all occurred without a single cent of paid advertising taking place.”
Gowdy’s name, image, and position has been used to solicit political donations by Stop Hillary PAC, which describes itself as “created for one reason only—to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.
Gowdy appeared at a GOP political event in June where local Rep. Chuck Fleischmann explained: “Whether you are Hillary Clinton or any other lefty out there, you better beware because Trey Gowdy is out there and he is going to get you.”
Gowdy reportedly does not plan to release his findings until “just months before the 2016 presidential election.”
Gowdy’s approach has been criticized even by conservative commentators: “Whatever the findings are in this investigation—it will forever be plagued by allegations of unfairness, and politics if this investigation is dragged into 2016. That would not be fair to the American people.”
http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/...
And boom goes the dynamite. Seems like a smart call to direct attention toward Gowdy, and away from McCarthy, who accidentally told the truth a few days ago about the actual partisan purpose of the committee. They can always revisit McCarthy's "gaffe" if need be.
The same Democrats on the committee also released a video today:
I haven't even watched it yet - but want to get it out there.
In related stories...
1. I saw Hillary's new ad about McCarthy run on MSNBC earlier today. Keep running it!
2. Chris Matthews reported today that Gowdy was hiding the fact that Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills testified to the committee that, as the Benghazi attack was happening, Secretary Clinton urged several agencies, including the Pentagon, to do everything they possibly could to save and protect the Americans at the Consulate.
by justdrew » Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:28 pm
by seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:20 am
Ex-Benghazi investigator sues Trey Gowdy for discrimination and defamation
11/23/15 08:31 AM—UPDATED 11/23/15 09:13 AM
By Ari Melber
A former investigator for the House Benghazi Committee filed a federal lawsuit against the committee Monday, opening a new chapter in legal skirmishes over the Benghazi attacks and subsequent investigations.
Last month, Brad Podliska, an Air Force Reserve major, alleged the Benghazi committee terminated him based on his military obligations and his refusal to advance an agenda targeting Hillary Clinton. Now, Podliska is detailing those charges in court in a new filing that alleges Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy broke the law by defaming him in their public battle over Podliska’s firing.
Gowdy previously said Podliska was terminated partly for mishandling classified information.
The suit cites Gowdy’s claim from a press release and an interview with NBC News, and argues it was a damaging line of attack, since allegations of such a “serious crime” have “ended the careers of many professionals in national security-related industries.”
But the charge was totally false, the suit says, because the information Podliska handled was drawn entirely from “sources from the Internet.” Podliska adds that the committee staffer who made the allegation later admitted the material “was not classified.” The committee has not withdrawn the allegation.
RELATED: Ex-Benghazi investigator alleges Rep. Gowdy violated federal law
Suing Gowdy for defamation reflects a confrontational legal strategy, as Podliska is moving beyond the details of his termination – a largely staff-level issue – to directly impugning Gowdy’s conduct afterward. It also means that Monday’s filing goes further than expected, not only suing the Committee, but naming Gowdy as an individual defendant.
The filing emphasizes Podliska is not seeking money for the defamation claim. Instead, he is calling for a statement establishing that Gowdy’s allegation was false, and asking the Court to bar Gowdy from repeating it.
It is an unusual request against a member of Congress, given the wide legal latitude for legislators’ public comments, though the suit focuses on Gowdy’s role as an employer. Podliska’s complaint also seeks lost pay, benefits, damages, and reinstatement in his old job on the committee.
Gowdy and the committee have denied all of Podliska’s allegations, casting his suit as the selective complaints of a disgruntled former employee. Last month, Gowdy told NBC News’ Kristin Welker that Podliska’s criticism of the committee was a “lie,” that his work was “lousy,” and that the Committee’s top investigator was “a three star general,” undermining a claim of military discrimination.
Podliska’s experience has made him hard to dismiss, however, as a matter of both politics and law. He is a registered Republican, and he told CNN he plans to vote for the GOP next year.
Legally, his status in the military secures him a place in court that aggrieved House staffers don’t usually have. Congress passed “whistleblower” protections for most federal employees, but exempted its own staff in a self-interested loophole. Yet Podliska argues he is able to sue under The Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA), a 1994 law that protects service members from employment discrimination.
Under the law, employees in government and the private sector are protected from any retaliation for their military duties. While one might expect employers to be deferential and careful regarding an employee’s service, Congress found that long or unpredictable reserve obligations sometimes result in a backlash against reservists.
RELATED: Another Republican admits: Benghazi panel is political
That is the picture Podliska paints in his new filing – House staffers were upset he would be leaving the high-profile committee for over a month.
The suit states that when Podliska first announced a reserve assignment in Germany, Gowdy’s top staffer, Staff Director Phil Kiko, emailed back, “wow.” The suit says another committee staff was later heard questioning whether Podliska “really needs to go to Germany,” and alleges “a significant change in Kiko’s attitude and demeanor the moment [Podliska] returned from military duty.” According to the suit, this was when the situation broke down. Kiko no longer acted “cordially,” he singled out Podliska negatively, and tensions rose over what Podliska says was his refusal “to go along with the hyper-focus on Department of State and Secretary Clinton.”
So in Podliska’s theory of the case, his core legal reason for getting into court – military discrimination – is inextricably linked to the politically explosive charge that the committee was out to get Hillary Clinton. The suit presses that point by arguing:
“During the month that [Staff Director Phil] Kiko and [Deputy Director Christopher] Donesa began to treat Plaintiff differently, the Committee’s investigation changed significantly to focus on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department, and deemphasize the other agencies that were involved in the Benghazi attacks and the aftermath of the attacks.”
Beyond the legal claims, the filing includes some other detailed accusations sure to draw attention in Washington.
The suit says Gowdy conveyed to staff that he thought his Staff Director and Deputy “were incompetent,” that senior Republican committee staffers regularly drank alcohol together in the “office during the workday,” and that a nonpartisan security staff member deleted documents to avoid detection by Democratic committee members.
Podliska is seeking a jury trial, raising the prospect of one of the most high profile Washington courtroom dramas since the 2007 prosecution of Scooter Libby, a senior aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
The House Benghazi Committee, which has to contend with the suit, has drawn less attention since Hillary Clinton completed her testimony last month. Its investigation into the attacks and their aftermath remains open, however, and it will continue operating until 30 days after it issues a final report, under rules the House passed.
by Grizzly » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:45 pm
by Pele'sDaughter » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:35 am
by RocketMan » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:56 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 177 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
