More information on Benghazi from Sharyl Attkisson
Sharylattkisson.com
Posted: 14 Jan 2015 04:41 PM PST
Most of the work done by the House Select Committee on Benghazi is happening behind closed doors. Today, Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. announced that members have just wrapped up a classified briefing with State Department officials.
“The Department of State provided new information to the committee and answered questions raised by committee members,” said Gowdy in a press statement.
In addition to questioning State Department officials, the Benghazi Committee has had a closed-door meeting with Justice Department officials regarding document product and potential witnesses.
So far, the committee isn’t tipping its hand as to what information has been gleaned. Gowdy confirms there will be public hearings in the future, but that the bulk of the effort will be done “in classified settings or through investigative techniques that do not lend themselves to public hearings.”
Democrats have said that continued inquiries about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya constitute “a witch hunt.” They point out there have been seven investigations to date, and that Gowdy’s committee is providing an eighth.
Gowdy says,
“The committee is continuing its probe into all aspects of Benghazi and is currently focused on ensuring access to all first-hand accounts from those on the ground that night. This process will be ongoing and in some respects must remain classified.”–Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Gowdy also reports the committee held a closed-door meeting with the Department of Justice regarding document production and potential witnesses related to the committee’s ongoing probe. He went on to say while the bulk of the committee’s work will have to be done in classified settings or through investigative techniques that do not lend themselves to public hearings, he still plans to hold more public hearings.
A House Intelligence Committee report recently concluded that no orders using the words “stand down” were given to intelligence officers the night of the Benghazi attacks. However, it stated that would-be rescuers were directed to “wait” for a short period of time when they wanted to depart immediately to help. Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, acknowledged that the committee’s findings on that point are at odds with testimony from first-hand participants who claimed they were given “stand down” orders (using those words).
A number of news reports portrayed critical analyses of what went wrong as “dark conspiracy theories,” and claimed the Intelligence Committee report “dismissed the bulk of the most damning [criticisms] against the administration” and “cleared the administration of wrong doing.” One news report stated that the report “utterly destroys everything right-wing conspiracy theorists have been pushing for more than two years about the deadly attack…literally every accusation has been debunked. No exceptions.”
In fact, the House Intelligence Committee report was, in many respects, the opposite of those descriptions. As the report and Chairman Rogers stated: since the report focused on the intelligence community, it was not a comprehensive examination of the many controversies. It generally did not attempt to examine, indict or exonerate actions by the White House, the State Department or the military.
Written by the committee that conducts oversight of the intelligence community–and works closely with it– the report portrayed actions of the intelligence community in a positive light stating that there was no intelligence failure on the intelligence community’s part.
But it also verified many long-standing accusations: the Obama administration’s many accounts blaming a YouTube video were incorrect, “there was no protest,” the State Department ignored warnings and denied security requests, none of the witnesses interviewed ever thought the attacks were anything other than the work of terrorists (though Obama officials maintained otherwise), some Obama officials gave incomplete and incorrect information and testimony, the State Department was ill-prepared for attacks, that the CIA provided prior warnings of a likely attack in Benghazi (though not a specific time and date), the talking points furthered by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice were incorrect (though the committee says it did not have access to information to determine what she personally knew prior to speaking on the talking points).
Read “The ‘Other’ House Intel Committee Benghazi Report”
The House Benghazi Committee was formed last year after the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained internal government emails that had been withheld from Congress, though subpoenaed. One of the emails showed that White House adviser Ben Rhodes wanted to ensure the underlying public message provided after the attacks would “underscore that these protests are rooted in [an] Internet video, and not a broad failure or policy.” Another email revealed then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell played a major role in altering the so-called “talking points,” which removed mention of al-Qaeda, terrorism and prior warnings provided to the State Department. Morell had kept his role in drafting the talking point changes secret, though questioned about it by members of Congress.
A year and a half after the attacks, an internal government email revealed that the morning after Sept. 11, 2012, the State Department informed Libya that the attacks were the work of terrorists–at the same time the Obama administration was publicly saying it was the result of a spontaneous protest.
In an exclusive story for CBS News in May of 2013, I reported that Obama officials acknowledged many mistakes but claimed they were more the result of incompetence than malice.
Last fall, former State Department official Raymond Maxwell stepped forward to reveal that he witnessed what he called a “document sorting” session at State Department headquarters in the basement shortly after September 11, 2012, after a call to turn over documents. Maxwell, a Democrat who donated to President Obama’s campaign, claimed the operation appeared to be supervised by top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Some Republican Senators have pressed to join the House investigation into Benghazi by forming a joint select committee, but there has been no public response from Republican leadership, which would have to make such a decision.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, has said that Gowdy wants to put the Obama administration on trial and accused Republicans of using Benghazi to “score cheap political points.”
“It has been obvious that the GOP’s obsession with Benghazi has never been about getting to the truth of what happened or preventing future attacks against U.S. personnel overseas,” said Boxer.
Last fall, Democrats portrayed the work of the Benghazi Committee as a waste of time, claiming there are no outstanding questions or conflicts. The committee’s top Democrat Elijah Cummings stated,
“The point is that these questions have been investigated and answered.”–Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
Democrats say the investigation to date has been exhaustive, including:
• 9 Congressional committee investigations
• 17 hearings
• 50 briefings
• 25 transcribed interviews
• 8 subpoenas
• 25,000 pages of documents reviewed
However, as each investigation has looked at different pieces of Benghazi events, new information has come to light. Much of it has directly contradicted original information released by the Obama administration.
“Since all documents responsive to congressional inquiries into the Benghazi terrorist attack have not been produced, it is fair to say that not all questions have been asked and answered,” a committee spokesman responded, at the time.
Benghazi Unanswered Questions: A SeriesBenghazi story links
Unanswered Benghazi Questions: 7th in a SeriesPosted: 14 Jan 2015 03:30 AM PST
[Above image: Aftermath of Benghazi attacks, obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. State Dept.]
One of the unravelled mysteries surrounding the aftermath of Benghazi is why, as documents reveal, CIA Director Gen. Petraeus begrudgingly allowed his subordinate, Mike Morell, to overrule him on content of the Benghazi talking points.
Morell first denied to members of Congress that he played a key role. But later, after documents revealed it, Morell admitted he removed language that his own agency had included in the talking points disclosing that the C.I.A. had provided “warnings” in advance of the attacks. Morell differed with his boss, Petraeus, who wanted the warning language included.
“I reacted very strongly to inclusion of the warning language,” Morell testified to Congress last year in explaining the changes he made. He was asked to appear before Congress to clarify discrepancies in his accounts of the talking points. “I thought it was an effort on the C.I.A.’s part to make it look like we had warned and shift any blame to the State Department…I made a decision at that moment I got the talking points I was going to take the… language out.”
It was left unexplained as to why Morell was put in the driver’s seat and was defending the State Department’s interests rather than his own agency’s and that of his boss.
Documents show that Petraeus was so disgusted by all of the edits made to the talking points that he said he’d rather they not be used at all.
Upon learning of Petraeus aquiescence, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) commented, “Petraeus seems so passive I’ve never know anyone so passive…Why was he sitting back the way he was?” That has never been publicly explained.
As the talking points were being developed, Petraeus was under F.B.I. investigation for his alleged extramarital affair, which later prompted his resignation, but Morell says he was unaware of Petraeus’ troubles at the time.
Below are previous questions published in this series.
Under Presidential directive installed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., a special Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) was to be convened in the event of any action against the U.S. that could potentially be terrorist-related. The idea, say sources familiar with the directive, was to allow for the best inter-agency coordination of information and response available.
However, after the Benghazi attacks, sources told me that the Obama administration declined to convene the CSG, much to the chagrin of some of its members who felt they had valuable contributions to make but were not consulted.
An Obama administration official who was involved with the process told me that the CSG wasn’t necessary because agency principals were engaged at the highest level. However, some of these top agency officials were people who — even after the attacks — were wholly unaware of all of the resources available to the U.S.
Another question: Since the Presidential directive wasn’t followed, has the Obama administration now altered or dismissed the directive?
Had the response to the attacks gone better, it would be more convincing to argue the CSG’s expertise wasn’t needed. However, considering the night’s tragic outcome, the reasons behind the failure to use the group is worth exploring.
The military describes an After Action Review as “a keystone of the evaluation process.” It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which evaluation is more crucial than after Benghazi. Yet more than two years after the attacks, the After Action Reviews remain secret even to members of Congress who requested copies.
An accurate and unaltered After Action Review could provide keen insight into what went right and what went wrong from a military standpoint. It could shed light on which public claims are correct and which are faulty.
The Benghazi After Action Reports were not even shared with the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) which nonetheless concluded, “The interagency response was both timely and appropriate but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”
The ARB’s conclusion differs with other official accounts and analyses. It also doesn’t explain how the military could supposedly know there was no point in launching assets because “they wouldn’t get there in time,” when it had no idea how long the assaults would last or whether there would be further attacks in the region on the anniversary of Sept. 11.
When pressed during Congressional testimony as to why he did not personally review any After Action Reports, ARB co-chairman Admiral Mike Mullen stated that he was “read a summary” of an After Action Report and was satisfied with the information. He didn’t elaborate on why—as a lead investigator into what really happened—he wouldn’t have sought a firsthand review of these key, comprehensive documents.
An After Action Review is “a professional discussion of an event, focused on performance standards, that enables soldiers to discover for themselves what happened, why it happened, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses. It is a tool leaders and units can use to get maximum benefit from every mission or task.”
What specifics could a Benghazi After Action Review provide?
Read a Sample After Action Review
According to the military, an After Action Review provides:
- Candid insights into specific soldier, leader, and unit strengths and weaknesses from various perspectives.
- Feedback and insight critical to battle-focused training.
- Details often lacking in evaluation reports alone.
U.S. Military on After Action Reviews:
“Evaluation is the basis for the commander’s unit-training assessment. No commander, no matter how skilled, will see as much as the individual soldiers and leaders who actually conduct the training. Leaders can better correct deficiencies and sustain strengths by carefully evaluating and comparing soldier, leader, and unit performance against the standard. The AAR is the keystone of the evaluation process.”
White House photographer Pete Souza is often on hand to record photographs of President Obama in action. According to the New Yorker, Souza takes an average of 20,000 photos of President Obama per month. Photographs captured the night of the Benghazi attacks–likely hundreds of them–would reveal much information about the executive branch’s actions.
Several weeks after the attacks, when it became clear that the White House was withholding information on the President’s actions and whereabouts, my CBS News producer and I requested copies of any photos taken that night. The White House photo office promised a prompt response, likely by day’s end.
However, release of the photos was apparently blocked by the White House press office. The White House photo office told us that, in this instance, their release would have to be approved by Josh Earnest. Earnest was then a deputy White House press secretary. He has since been promoted to White House press secretary.
We contacted Earnest through the White House press office but he would not return our calls. We attempted this process for days, weeks, and then months, but Earnest would not respond. We asked the photo office to provide an alternate means for us to obtain the photos since the method they required, contacting Earnest, was a dead end. But they simply kept referring us back to Earnest.
According to the White House: “Pete Souza, Chief Official White House Photographer and Director of the White House Photography Office, has access unlike any other. Camera in tow, Souza travels alongside President Obama to visually document each meeting, trip and encounter for historical record. Check out his work on the White House Flickr photo stream and in the photo galleries on WhiteHouse.gov.”
The “most transparent administration in history” should release the Benghazi night photos. The media and Congress should demand them. Earnest and Souza—both paid by tax dollars and working in offices funded by tax dollars and supposedly working on behalf of the public—should be asked about the photos and what they observed that night.
The White House photo office is meant to record historical photos of the President. Yet a number of major news organizations allege it has been turned into a propaganda arm of the administration. In November of last year, more than 30 major news and media organizations, national newspapers and television networks wrote a letter protesting the Obama administration’s unprecedented limits on photo access. The news outlets include ABC, FOX, CBS, CNN, NBC,Bloomberg and the New York Times.
According to the letter:
“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the President while he is performing his official duties. As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”
At the time, Earnest told reporters, “We’ve taken advantage of new technology to give the American public even greater access to behind-the-scenes footage or photographs of the president doing his job…I understand why that is a source of some consternation to the people in this room, but to the American public, that is a clear win.”
Read the journalists’ letter of protest to the White House
Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who has covered the White House since the Reagan administration complained to then-White House press secretary Jay Carney that the “most transparent administration” in history was actually behaving more like the Soviet Union.
“I said, ‘Jay, this is just like Tass,’ Mills said in an interview. “It’s like government-controlled use of the public image of the president.”
In fall of 2012, U.S. officials promised to publicly release a declassified version of surveillance video taken by multiple cameras at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, as well as video recorded by an overhead drone. At one point, officials on behalf of the Director of National Intelligence told the news media the video would be released on or about Thanksgiving of 2012. However, the video was never released and, more than two years later, no explanation for the reversal in plans has been provided.
The maker of “Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula Nakoula, describes himself as an Egyptian Christian. He says he made the film about radical extremists who seek to destroy the American culture and way of life. After his film was incorrectly blamed for the Sept. 11, 2012 violence, Nakoula was arrested for violating terms of his probation set after a bank fraud conviction for which he had served one year in jail. The content of film itself broke no U.S. laws.
In the days and weeks after the attacks, top U.S. officials steered fault for the attacks toward the video, though we now know from internal documents that they had almost immediately privately concluded the terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame. The State Department had sent a message to Libyan officials saying so–even as U.S. officials claimed otherwise to the American public.
With whom did Mrs. Clinton and other officials consult before sending the message that the maker of the video would be prosecuted? What crimes did they mistakenly believe had been committed through Nakoula’s free speech act? In asking that the video be withdrawn from YouTube, has the administration set a precedent that dictates any video offensive to some Muslims should not be posted on the Internet? Does that policy extend to videos that offend some Christians or those belonging to other religions — or to no religion? Under what legal basis and on whose specific advice did U.S. officials follow this course of action?
Below is the first article in this series published Dec. 26, 2014
More than two years after the fact, President Obama’s decisions and actions during the Benghazi attacks remain secret with little justification as to why they should be so shrouded. Members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi plan to seek the information. The committee is led by Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. The lead Democrat on the committee is Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland.
The information blackout is in stark contrast to the aftermath of the successful 2011 raid to capture Osama bin Laden when detailed accounts, including a timeline of the President’s briefings, were released to the New York Times and other news media. Then, Obama and his top advisers did not hesitate to reveal details such as:
• The President had received divided advice on whether to move forward with the bin Laden raid.
• President Obama walked into a room adjacent to the Situation Room, said “I need to watch this,” and sat next to Brigadier General Marshall “Brad” Webb, assistant commanding general of Joint Special Operations Command.
• The President said, “We got him,” referring to bin Laden.
• After the raid, the first person the President called was former President George W. Bush. He also called former President Bill Clinton that evening.
In fact, the President’s supposed hands-off approach to the Sept. 11, 2012 Mideast attacks is a divergence from the level of involvement described during the bin Laden raid. By Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s account, Obama told him to “do what he needed to do” to handle Benghazi, then “left [specifics] up to us.” The President reportedly had no further contact with Panetta or Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey during the long night of attacks, deaths and evacuations.
Note: This is the first in a series of articles that will list and examine unanswered questions about the Benghazi terrorist attacks.
Centinel2012 