Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Newmexican

Thread: Benghazi: What the report reveals about Hillary Clinton

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723

    Benghazi: What the report reveals about Hillary Clinton

    Misleading editorial from the chicago Tribune? This is the last paragraph.
    The Benghazi report offers evidence of Clinton's lapses, but not a lot of pathbreaking information. That's good in a way. We never thought there would be some smoking gun proving that four brave Americans might have been saved. Instead, we looked for evidence that Clinton managed a terrible ordeal and its fallout with exemplary skill and integrity. Unfortunately, we didn't find that either. It will be up to American voters to make the final judgment on her performance.
    Had the political appointees made up their minds about what the marines should wear for a rescue, at least two of the Americans might have been saved... JMO


    Benghazi: What the report reveals about Hillary Clinton



    The House committee report makes clear that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew almost immediately that the Benghazi attack was the planned work of terrorists, not a spontaneous mob action. (Andrew Harnik / AP)

    Editorial Board
    June 29, 2016

    Two years in the making, 800 pages long, gripping in tone, the report of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi — released Tuesday — is the definitive account of the Sept. 11, 2012, Libya attacks that killed four Americans: Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

    Parts read like a Tom Clancy thriller, but it's the sections that mirror "House of Cards" — you know, the behind-the-scenes political stuff — that give "Benghazi" its immediate significance. That's because in this drama the role of secretary of state was performed byHillary Clinton, the now-presumptive Democratic nominee for president. So the voting public wants to know how Clinton fares: Does the report cast her as a villain or a more nuanced character?

    Probably you thought you knew a little, or a lot, about this document. In some ways it's a sequel, or even a reboot, given the fact that there already have been multiple, narrower investigations. A preliminary Select Committee report was published a year ago. Last October Clinton testified in public for 11 hours. Many Democrats have viewed all of this as a Republican-led attempt to undercut her campaign.


    Congressional Republicans accused the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on June 28, 2016, of failing to protect U.S. diplomats in the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack that killed four Americans. (Reuters)

    But when packaged as a complete volume, the report delivers on its promise to analyze the entire debacle so the risk of a future disaster is reduced. On the question of how Clinton and the Obama administration reacted, we see more than enough evidence to reaffirm our opinion that the secretary of state failed a crucial chance to show decisive, principled leadership.
    The crux of it is that during and well after the chaos of the attacks on the State Department's outpost and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Clinton and the Obama administration promoted a false narrative for public consumption: that the violence came from a spontaneous outburst of mob anger. Although Clinton confided to her daughter, Chelsea, in an email that night that an al-Qaida faction was responsible, for two weeks she let fester the story that mob action, not a planned assault her department might have anticipated, killed her employees.

    The supposition Clinton and others held to was that the attacks were related in nature to political protests the same day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Those demonstrators were angry about an anti-Islam video. With the Benghazi attacks still unfolding, Clinton released the administration's only statement on the evening of Sept. 11, and she focused on the video. But the next day, Clinton told Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest."

    What she told Kandil was true, the report confirms: The Americans came under sudden attack at their compound by a force of about 70 heavily armed men. The only warning: the sudden disappearance of a Libyan police vehicle. Attackers approached the building, invaded and set fire to it. Stevens and Smith died in the fire. Doherty and Woods were killed in a subsequent attack on the CIA annex.

    As hours and days passed, the report shows, inaccurate accounts of the Benghazi timeline inexplicably endured. On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive."

    The administration looked for an official to go on the Sunday morning talk shows Sept. 16. Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, sent a request to Clinton but never heard back. The thankless job fell to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice had little knowledge of the events. She relied in part on background information from Rhodes.

    Here the report gets at the politics of Benghazi, because it shows that among Rhodes' talking points to Rice was this specific goal to communicate to the viewing public: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

    In other words: In mid-September 2012, in the wake of a terrorist attack in Libya, with Obama up for re-election in two months and Clinton's own presidential aspirations at risk, the White House sent a lesser representative in front of the cameras. Armed with bad information, she insisted that four Americans died as the result of a spontaneous protest — not because of Washington's failure to anticipate a terrorist attack on an isolated U.S. compound in unstable Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.

    According to the report, several Libya experts at State flipped out when they heard Rice peddling the demonstration story. "Off the reservation on five networks!" wrote one. "WH (White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing," wrote another.

    Obama, too, went uncorrected publicly by Clinton when, in several public appearances, he conflated Arab world protests about the video with the terrorist attack in Benghazi. In a Sept. 25 speech at the U.N., Obama cited the video six times.

    The Benghazi report offers evidence of Clinton's lapses, but not a lot of pathbreaking information. That's good in a way. We never thought there would be some smoking gun proving that four brave Americans might have been saved. Instead, we looked for evidence that Clinton managed a terrible ordeal and its fallout with exemplary skill and integrity. Unfortunately, we didn't find that either. It will be up to American voters to make the final judgment on her performance.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...628-story.html




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    [QUOTE]Had the political appointees made up their minds about what the marines should wear for a rescue, at least two of the Americans might have been saved... JMO[/QUOTE]
    Or if hillary didn't make a major mess, then leaves our people unprotected. 600 emails asking for more protection and she says "not my dept"'? If she cared one little bit, she would have made sure the security was sufficient after she pushed to knock off the long time ruler. She also would have had a secure email system instead she led them to our ambassador.

    Expect main stream media to cover for her - they have their orders.

    While she slept...


  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723
    Obama Administration Misled Libyan Government to Hide U.S. Mission in Benghazi

    Alex Wong/Getty Images

    by AARON KLEIN
    3 Jul 2016

    TEL AVIV – The State Department used deceptive means to ensure staff at the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi received diplomatic immunity without notifying the acting Libyan government of the existence of the American mission in Benghazi.

    That detail is contained in the final report of the House Republicans Select Committee on Benghazi, released on Tuesday and reviewed in full by Breitbart Jerusalem. The report further shows that the State Department acted in an underhanded way so as not to “raise congressional notification issues” regarding the Benghazi mission.

    The report relates State Department discussions “ensued over how to bring the personnel in Benghazi under the diplomatic umbrella of the Embassy in Tripoli without triggering formal recognition of the Benghazi office.”

    The report states Joan A. Polaschik, Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, “was aware of this issue and wanted to ensure that all personnel in Benghazi had the protections of the privileges and immunities accorded by the Vienna Convention.”

    The U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions.

    According to Article 2 of the convention, the establishment of “permanent diplomatic missions” requires notification to the host nation. “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.”

    The Republican report documents State got around the issue of notifying the Libyan Transitional Government about the U.S. Benghazi Mission’s existence by claiming that staff there were really working at the publically known U.S. Embassy in Tripoli 404 miles away.

    Listing personnel in Benghazi as a separate office was rejected, however, as “[t]he reference to the establishment of an office in Benghazi may raise congressional notification issues ….”Earlier in the year, [Clinton deputy Patrick F.] Kennedy, determined congressional notification was not needed because “the Hill knows we are there.”

    Ultimately, it was decided to submit “one dip[lomatic] list for Tripoli, but noting on it that certain staff members will be performing their duties on a TDY (temporary duty travel) basis in Benghazi.”

    Thus, without formally notifying the new Libyan government of the Benghazi Mission, the personnel in Benghazi received diplomatic immunity only because the State Department told the Libyan government the personnel in Benghazi were actually assigned to Tripoli.

    The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board (ARB), co-authored by seasoned diplomat Thomas Pickering, documented the Libyan government was not notified about the Benghazi mission’s existence.

    “Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states.

    “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”
    I previously reported on questions about whether the State Department’s qualifications of the U.S. Special Mission may have violated the Vienna Convention:

    According to Pickering’s (ARB) report, there was a decision “to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility,” likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary.

    However, the same sentence in Pickering’s report noted the host government was not notified about the Benghazi mission “even though it was also a full-time office facility.”

    Articles 12 of the Vienna Convention dictates, “The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.”
    If the Benghazi mission was a “full-time office facility,” it may violate Article 12 in that the mission most likely was considered an arm of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, which served as the main U.S. mission to Libya.

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    With additional research by Joshua Klein.

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...sion-benghazi/

    artist likes this.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2015, 05:34 PM
  2. Hillary Clinton Implicated In Benghazi Murders - The Butcher of Benghazi
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-11-2014, 01:43 AM
  3. This New Benghazi Bombshell Will Sink Hillary Clinton and Obama
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2014, 01:09 AM
  4. Hillary Clinton heckled on Benghazi: ‘You let them die’
    By Newmexican in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2013, 09:37 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2013, 12:13 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •