Editor’s Note – Not surprising the Obama Administration choose to release this information on Christmas Eve. In a Politico article, they report;
Thursday’s document dump, put out by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in compliance with a Freedom of Information request, includes correspondence sent from American intelligence officials in 2011 and 2012.
The emails — edited to conceal what is considered to be sensitive information — provide few new details about the lethal September 2012 terrorist attack on the diplomatic mission in Libya or American-born Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki.
In the first email, only two of 17 lines of text were not blacked out.
Another email consists of the text “Attached it the final draft; we need comment/coordination by 1000, Friday (tomorrow) 19 October 2012,” followed completely by blacked-out text.
Other emails consist of the text of news clippings from Reuters, the Washington Post and other organizations.
We at SUA must ask, ‘At this point, what difference does it make?’ Answer; it makes a lot of difference, we want to know what is being hidden?
Obama Administration Delivers Benghazi Document Dump for Christmas
The Obama administration dumped 16 pages of emails related to Benghazi on Christmas Eve, but the documents are heavily edited to conceal what was considered as sensitive information, so few new details have been revealed about the Benghazi attacks or al-Qaida recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki.
The documents were released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, reports Politico, and include intelligence officials’ communications from 2011 and 2012.
But only a few lines are visible in some of the emails. In one, just two of 17 lines of text were not redacted and in another, just the text “Attached it the final draft; we need comment/coordination by 1000, Friday (tomorrow) 19 October 2012,” is visible.
Further emails share news clippings, one February email in 2011 was sent to respond to a State Department in regard to al-Awlaki’s passport being revoked.
Al-Awlaki was killed later that year, in September, during a drone strike in Yemen.
It wasn’t until the next year that it was reported that the State Department reported revoking his passport. There were also memos in Thursday’s dump that include details about using existing protocol to protect intelligence.
The Obama administration has also released such information during the holidays including in May, when it released a trove of 296 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server.
Editor’s Note – Last night we heard that the FBI was able to recover emails from Hillary Clinton’s server and now some on the left are calling for her head and noted columnist and talking head Ron Fournier lists the reason below.
In addition, even the State Department is challenging Hillary’s many excuses, most notably on the chain of events leading to her turning over the so-called non-private ones. Her story is so frought with lies and distractions it makes the head spin:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.
“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”
But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general record-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.
It’s not just why and when they were turned over, it is also how. Remember, she had them printed out, thus hiding the meta-data and slowing down the search process. In any other criminal case, that is clearly obstruction of justice – 30,000 times. But we want to take Ron Fournier’s article one step further, like prison further.
If the Democratic Party cares to salvage a sliver of moral authority, its leaders and early state voters need to send Hillary Rodham Clinton an urgent message: Come clean or get out. Stop lying and deflecting about how and why you stashed State Department email on a secret server—or stop running.
Tell her: We can’t have another day like this:
Story 1: The State Department confirmed that Clinton turned over her email only after Congress discovered that she had exclusively used a private email system. According to TheWashington Post, the department first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their emails.
The story undercuts Clinton’s claim that her decision to turn over self-selected email was a response to a routine-sounding records request. She hasn’t been telling the truth.
Story 2: A federal court has helped uncover more emails related to the Benghazi raid that were withheld from congressional investigators. Clinton has insisted she turned over all her work-related email and complied with congressional subpoenas.
Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth.
Story 3: The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from her private server, raising the possibility that the deleted information becomes public. “The FBI is investigating how and why classified information ended up on Clinton’s server,” Bloomberg reported.
While the Democratic front-runner still insists there was no classified information on the unsecured server, the FBI has moved beyond whether U.S. secrets were involved to how and why. In the language of law enforcement, the FBI is investigating her motive.
On Sunday, Clinton told Face the Nation host John Dickerson: “What I did was allowed. It was fully above board,” and “I tried to be fully transparent.” Both claims are objectively and indisputably false.
From the moment this story broke in March, senior Democrats told me they were worried about where the questions would lead. Several said they feared what the emails might show about the intersection of Clinton’s work at the State Department and the family’s private foundation.
One Clinton loyalist, a credible source who I’ve known for years, told me, “The emails are a related but secondary scandal. Follow the foundation money.”
That is still speculation. But months of dishonesty and deception took their toll: A majority of Americans don’t trust her, and the Democratic nomination fight has shifted from a coronation to a competition. A poll released today by Bloombergshows Clinton barely leading socialist Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden, who’s not even in the race.
For Democrats, this is an opportunity wasted. A crowded GOP field has been taken hostage by a celebrity billionaire with a history of bankruptcies, sexist behavior, and racially offensive statements. Lacking a firm grip on policy or the truth, Donald Trump is the GOP front-runner.
His closest competition, Dr. Ben Carson, said Sunday he didn’t think a Muslim should be president, and his efforts to clean up the controversy have been as ham-handed as they are dishonest.
Which brings me back to Clinton. Loyalists argue that her policy agenda speaks to America’s new demography and addresses 21st-century challenges. Even if they’re right, the Clinton team has underestimated the value that voters place on a candidate’s character. One top Clinton adviser told me in the spring, “Trust doesn’t matter.”
Oft-burned Americans understand that a policy agenda is a collection of promises. If they can’t count on Clinton to be honest, they can’t count on her to keep her word about income inequality, jobs, health care, and the environment.
She announced a plan Tuesday to reduce prescription-drug costs, promising to cap monthly out-of-pocket expenses at $250 without curbing profits that fund research into life-saving drugs. Can you believe her?
Overshadowing that news was her long-awaited decision on the Keystone pipeline: Clinton now opposes a project she was once inclined to support at the State Department, a flip-flop that she justified with a rhetorical wave of the hand. “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is—a distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change.”
A distraction from the important work. That could be her campaign slogan.
But remember what she said at the UN; “there is no classified material… I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” Oh, the sheer volume of the moving parts…that thumb drive!
She lied, broke the rules repeatedly, stalled, obfuscated, and the story changes almost daily while the State Department barely meets the court ordered release requirements.
“It says the process is slower because of intense scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies to ensure that emails from her private server don’t contain any sensitive or classified government secrets…2,206 pages of emails, roughly 12 percent of the 55,000 pages” were released.
Maybe if they had the electronic version it would be a wee bit faster. Again, a lot of noise, a lot of shiny objects, all piece meal, but definitely at a classified level or it wouldn’t take so long.
However, if we look at this from a 40,000 foot macro perspective, we can clearly see that Clinton should be the subject of an investigation either by the FBI or a Select Committee from Congress at a minimum, and for more than just the email scandal.
Hoping another shiny object would distract us, her campaign released tax records at almost the same moment, timed to do just that and today they released more medical records. With so many moving parts in this saga, it is easy to get lost in the details; look, a squirrel.
So let’s begin with a macro question; at what time is any communication transmitted by the Secretary of State of the United States of America not of interest to foreign powers?
For that matter, what about political adversaries, or even the proverbial hacker in his basement on a joy ride to see what he can get into on the net? The answer of course is never, ask Sydney Blumenthal.
All members of a President’s cabinet are by definition some of the most powerful people in the world; all are targets, all the time. That is why we have rules and laws in place to preserve the safety of the information each deals with 24/7; it is called national security.
When it comes to the Secretary of State, the most important cabinet level position and the number four slot for Presidential succession, it is clear that all communications he or she engages in are de facto important and sensitive in nature, even if it’s just about what she wants to eat that day. When does something actually get classified? Is it not often after the fact anyway as we now see?
When considering whether or not a coded stamp is placed on any transmission designating it to be classified at some level is beside the point, and it is folly to split hairs about whether or not Hillary Clinton knew they were or were not.
All her correspondence is important to some enemy. Any responsible person, especially somebody who once resided in the White House knows this and is required to act accordingly, that is, unless you are a Clinton. Her denials are an insult to our intelligence.
What is worse, and we have to keep repeating this point, at no time ever, did Hillary Clinton have any right of ownership of her email as Secretary of State. None, not even “personal” ones! Each and every transmission she made after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution were automatically the property of the people – case closed!
The proof in just how important her communications are or were, is in the data dump we received yesterday where large portions of her transmissions were heavily redacted and many were classified after the fact as too sensitive to be released to the public. Not only is it a fact that she did not own them, she also harbored them outside the purview of federal security, a crime. Who cares what was in the headline at the NY Times.
Then there is the case of the personal lawyer and others with whom she gave access to view all of her transmissions, and that pesky thumb drive. When did she become the arbiter of who had clearance to view what is now confirmed to be sensitive intelligence? And, what about all those gaps?
The Clinton camp assures us that her personal attorney holds proper clearance, but he is not a State Department employee and has no right to harbor sensitive material let alone even seeing it, especially in a private setting, ask David Petraeus. And why has no one from the State Department sent security agents to secure that thumb drive from David Kendall?
“This raises very serious questions and concerns if a private citizen is somehow retaining classified information,” Grassley’s said in a letter sent late last week. He asked for more information on Kendall’s clearance and whether the lawyer was authorized to “be the custodian of classified national security information.” The FBI has not yet responded. (Politico)
Then there is the curious case of Huma Abedin, another Grassley letter to State:
“The letter sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.”
How was it that Abedin was given such status, apparently over paid at that, and once again clearly brings the Clinton Foundation and all its moving parts back into the picture?
Everything the Clintons touch is part of a racket, pure and simple, and a personal ATM. From 40,000 feet it all forms a clear picture – Hillary Clinton is not only a dismal campaigner and speaker, she is as corrupt and untrustworthy as any has ever been.
The Clinton campaign worries about the damage that cannot be “unwound” that the NY Times caused in their opinion, but maybe they should worry more about the law and Judge Sullivan who on Friday turned up the heat a bit more:
A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called “special government employee.”
At such a hearing on Friday, Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they’ve produced all records related to Abedin’s employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems.
“As related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department,” Sullivan wrote in an order issued Friday afternoon.
“If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.” (Read the rest here at Politico.)
We should turn up the heat as well, and avoid being sucked into the maelstrom they want us to focus upon instead. Our attention must be maintained and we should read more about the “law and the Secretary of State”:
Wait for it though, rumors of another “bimbo eruption” will be sure to confuse and distract us from what we believe makes Hillary Clinton a criminal and unfit to hold any office in America… other than one in a prison cell.
A reprise of the following is warranted here:
THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON – Bill Whittle
At a time when the very fabric of many parts of the globe is being torn apart, what does Obama and John Kerry focus upon? Climate change. In fact, John Kerry, in a speech on Sunday in Indonesia, he called climate change the world’s “most fearsome” destructive weapon and compared deniers as “people who insist the Earth is flat.”
In a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials, Kerry tore into climate change skeptics. He accused them of using shoddy science and scientists to delay steps needed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the risk of imperiling the planet.
A day earlier, the U.S. and China announced an agreement to cooperate more closely on combating climate change. American officials hope that will help encourage others, including developing countries like Indonesia and India, to follow suit.
China and the United States are the biggest sources of emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that cause the atmosphere to trap solar heat and alter the climate. Scientists say such changes are leading to drought, wildfires, rising sea levels, melting polar ice, plant and animal extinctions and other extreme conditions. (Read the rest here at Yahoo.)
Meanwhile, 140,000 plus people have died in Syria, the chemicals weapons there have barely been touched despite agreements, Egypt is being propped up by Saudi Arabia, your Israel/Palestinian efforts were an abject failure, Hamid Karzai says it is of no concern to the US and NATO that terrorists were released at Bagram, and North Korea is of major concern, and that does not even include all the failures here at home.
At the very same time, the Iranians are making new threats to our bases, our allies, Israel and more if attacked. What deal did you actually strike with Iran? What again is your job title, and when did the climate trump the safety, security, economic prosperity, health care and insurance, and jobs/careers of our citizens here in America?
Iran: We’re ready for ‘decisive battle’ with Israel, US
Chief of staff warns Tehran’s enemies and regional states against military action, calling American threats ‘political bluff’
In the latest in a series of warnings against the US, Iran’s chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi warned the Islamic republic’s foes that Iran is prepared for a “decisive battle” if attacked.
“We are ready for the decisive battle with America and the Zionist regime (Israel),” Fars news agency quoted Firouzabadi as saying Wednesday. He also warned neighboring nations not to allow any attack to be launched on Iran from their soil.
“We do not have any hostility toward regional states, but if we are ever attacked from the American bases in the region we will strike that area back,” he said.
Washington has many military bases in the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said late last month that if diplomacy with Iran fails, “the military option of the United States is ready and prepared to do what it would have to do.”
But Firouzabadi accused the US of bluffing.
“Over the past decade, they brought their forces but came to the conclusion that they can’t attack us, and left,” he said, dismissing the US military threat as nothing but a “political bluff.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday that the West should not have any delusions about using a military option.
“I say explicitly, if some have delusions of having any threats against Iran on their tables, they need to wear new glasses. There is no military option against Iran on any table in the world,” he said.
On Sunday, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Ali Fadavi said the US knows that its aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf would be sunk if it launched a military strike on Iran.
“The Americans can sense by all means how their warships will be sunk with 5,000 crews and forces in combat against Iran and how they should find its hulk in the depths of the sea,” said Fadavi, according to Fars news agency.
“They cannot hide themselves in the sea since the entire Middle East region, Western Europe, the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz are monitored by us and there is no place for them to hide.”
Also Sunday, Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan touted the Iranian military’s ability to respond to an American attack, Fars reported.
“The Iranian Armed Forces are an intertwined and coherent complex that can give a decisive response to any threat at any level and any place under the command of the commander-in-chief,” Dehqan said in a ceremony marking the 35th anniversary of the revolution that brought the current Islamic regime to power.
“The enemy can never assess and think of the range of the response given by the powerful and mighty Armed Forces of the Islamic Iran,” he added.
The bellicose rhetoric follows Saturday’s announcement by an Iranian admiral that Iran had dispatched warships to the North Atlantic, while Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the Americans as liars who, while professing to be friends of Tehran, would bring down his regime if they could. He also said it was “amusing” that the US thought Iran would reduce its “defensive capabilities.”
On Friday, Iranian state TV ran a documentary featuring a computerized video of Iran’s drones and missiles bombing Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ben-Gurion Airport and the Dimona nuclear reactor in a simulated retaliation for a hypothetical Israeli or American strike on the Islamic Republic.
Iran is due to resume talks on Monday in Vienna with the P5+1 — Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China plus Germany — aimed at reaching a comprehensive nuclear accord following a landmark interim agreement struck in November.
Western nations have long suspected Iran of covertly pursuing nuclear weapons alongside its civilian program, allegations denied by Tehran, which insists its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful.
Neither the United States nor Israel has ruled out military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, if diplomacy fails.
Editor’s Note – The report is out and America is supposed to be happy – we finally know! Or do we? Of course not – this report is not worth the paper it is printed on – the cover-up continues. Yet, three people just resigned over its release, guess who:
The State Department’s security chief and two others are resigning after an independent review of the U.S. Consulate attacks in Benghazi, Libya blasted “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies,” in the department, an official told the Associated Press on Wednesday.
The AP reports that Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, and his deputy Charlene Lamb, who was responsible for embassy security, have resigned. A third unnamed official from the Middle East bureau also stepped down. The resignations came “under pressure,” according to the AP, after the report’s release. (Read more here at Slate.)
From day one of the original hearings, it was easy to see who was going to take the fall. Read the report here.
But we need $1.6 Billion to fix it? Fix what exactly? The void in decision making, the void in lying about a video, the lying about no one said ‘not to rescue Americans’? Just what are we fixing? Does that mean there is pork in that money request and are we going to stay in Libya?
Really folks? We are supposed to believe this “independent” tripe? As usual, Diana West has broken it down into bite size chunks so you do not have to choke on it all at once:
The “independent” Benghazi Report has concluded the White House remained in the dark.
The Benghazi Report is out and it’s official: President Obama, SecState Hillary Clinton, CIA Director Petraeus all had nothing to do with the US government response to the attack on the US mission in Benghazi. Indeed, the names Obama, Clinton, Petraeus, Panetta, Rice do not appear anywhere in its 39 pages. DoD — Panetta? — however, is singled out for having deployed unarmed drones that, for example, “provided visual surveillance during the evacuation.”
The red flags didn’t go up over this so-called investigation for nothing. The White House isn’t just whitewashed in the report, it’s whited-out.
Here, for example, is how the report on Benghazi sums up the US government response.
Upon notification of the attack from the TDY RSO (temporary regional security officer in Benghazi) around 2145 local (9:45 pm) , Embassy Tripoli set up a command center and notified Washington.
What “Washington” said or did next we never find out.
About 2150 local (9:50 pm), the DCM (deputy chief of mission) was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who briefly reported that the SMC (mission) was under attack before the call cut off. The Embassy notified Benina Airbase in Benghazi of a potential need for logistic support and aircraft for extraction and received full cooperation. The DCM (deputy chief of mission) contacted the Libyan Presidentand Prime Minister’s offices to urge them to mobilize a rescue effort, and kept Washington apprised of post’s efforts.
The Embassy also reached out to Libyan Air Force and Armed Forces contacts, February 17 leadership, and UN and third country embassies, among others.
Isn’t it just too bad that “Washington” had no armed forces “contacts” of its own and thus had to rely on the Embassy “reaching out” to Libyan shadow-government forces and jihadists for assistance? Meanwhile, it would be helpful to know what, if anything, the Embassy asked of the UN and “third country embassies” in “reaching out” — so, naturally, the report doesn’t include that information, either. One tiny bit of news to chew on is that about a half an hour after the 19:40 departure of the Turkish diplomat (Ali Akin) — which jibes with the Turkish timeline, if not the initial State Department timeline — a British security team stopped by the US mission.
Between 2010 and 2030 local, a UK security team supporting a day visit by British diplomats dropped off vehicles and equipment at the SMC (per arrangements made after the UK diplomatic office in Benghazi suspended operations in June 2012).When the UK security team departed via the C1 gate at about 2030 local, there were no signs of anything unusual, including no roadblocks outside of the c ompound, and traffic flowed normally. …
Another item previously unnoted is that on the afternoon of September 10, Ambassador Stevens went to the Annex — never i.d.’d in the report as a CIA installation — for a briefing.
Back to the US response to the attack under way. The report correctly defines this response as “Embassy Tripoli Response” since “Washington” had nothing to do with anything.
Within hours, Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a seven-person security team, which included two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi.
No mention of take-off time.
At the direction of the U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), DoD moved a remotely piloted, unarmed surveillance aircraft which arrived over the SMC shortly before the DS (diplomatic security) team departed (for the Annex). A second remotely piloted, unarmed surveillance aircraft relieved the first, and monitored the eventual evacuation of personnel from the Annex to Benghazi airport later on the morning of September 12.
End of US government response to the attack itself. That’s it. Nonetheless, it isLibya that the report finds fault with. In its findings section, the report says:
The Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers.The Board found the responses by both the BML (Blue Mountain contractors) guards and February 17 to be inadequate. The Board’s inquiry found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense of the SMC (mission), or succeeded in summoning a February 17 militia presence to assist expeditiously.
There is no discussion of why this could be — the jihadist culture in which “February 17” and, indeed, all of Benghazi and eastern Libya more generally is steeped — no comprehension such a culture could be at odds with U.S. interests.
The Board found the Libyan government’s response to be profoundly lackingon the night of the attacks …
But not the US government’s response.
The board also takes a whack at intelligence, an easy shot with the publicly disgraced Petraeus already past expendable.
The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific warning of the September 11 attack.
That Zawaheri video on 9/9 and 9/10 calling on Libyans to avenge the US killing of a Libyan Al Qaeda leader was not on intelligence’s radar. Why not? No answer. Come to think of it, no question, either.
Then this tortured apology for jihad-denial in intelligence and everywhere in the US government:
Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.
Herein lies a rich vein for investigation, of course, which makes it radioactive for any “independent” investigation. But keep in it mind on reading through the report’s section called “Attack on the Annex.”
Just before midnight, shortly after the DS and Annex security teams arrived from the SMC (US mission), the Annex began to be targeted by gunfire and RPGs, which continued intermittently for an hour. Annex security personnel engaged from their defensive positions, which were reinforced by DS agents. Other personnel remained in contact with Embassy Tripoli from the Annex.
The seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli arrived in Benghazi to lend support.
What time was that? The report doesn’t say. We know from press reports that they were met at the airport by members of the Libya Shield militia, which is led by jihadist Wissam bin Hamid (not mentioned, of course). He is a poster boy for “known gaps” in the US government’s understanding of threats to U.S. interests.
The response team then spent precious time (hours) wrangling with Libya Shield over their conduct into Benghazi. From the CIA timeline, we know that the ragtag team did not go to the hospital to recover Amb. Stevens’ body specifically because “it was surrounded by the Al Qaeda linked Ansar-al Sharia militia that mounted the attack.” That decision is pegged to 1:15 am.
Back to the report:
It (that seven-“person” response team) arrived at the Annex about 0500 local.
Almost 4 hours later. Not a word on what held them up for all that time.
Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds.
Could our Libya Shield “allies” have had anything to do with the timing or accuracy of the attack? Not considered (mentioned) in the report.
Three rounds hit the roof of an Annex building, killing security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
The attack also severely injured one ARSO and one Annex security team member. Annex, Tripoli, and ARSO security team members at other locations moved rapidly to provide combat first aid to the injured.
At approximately 0630 local, all U.S. government personnel evacuated with support from a quasi-governmental Libyan militia.
All of a sudden, it’s 6:30 am. Was fighting continuous?
They arrived at the airportwithout incident. The DoD unarmed surveillance aircraft provided visual oversight during the evacuation.
All hail the American drone.
Embassy Tripoli lost communication with the convoy atone point during transit, but quickly regained it. Evacuees, including all wounded personnel, departed Benghazi on thechartered jet at approximately 0730 local.
Embassy Tripoli staff, including the Embassy nurse, met the first evacuation flight at Tripoli International Airport.Wounded personnel were transferred to a local hospital, in exemplary coordination that helped save the lives of two severely injured Americans.
Embassy Tripoli worked with the Libyan government to have a Libyan Air Force C-130 take the remaining U.S. government personnel from Benghazi toTripoli. Two American citizen State Department contractors traveled to the airport and linked up with the remaining U.S. government personnel.
While awaiting transport, the TDY RSO and Annex personnel continued to reach out to Libyan contacts to coordinate the transport of the presumed remains of AmbassadorStevens to the airport. The body was brought to the airport in what appeared to be a local ambulance at 0825 local, and the TDY RSO verified Ambassador Stevens’identity.
So, Americans didn’t retrieve Stevens’ body, even on the morning after.
At 1130 local, September 12, 2012, the Libyan government-provided C-130 evacuation flight landed in Tripoli with the last U.S. government personnel from Benghazi and the remains of the four Americans killed, who were transported to a local hospital. In coordination with the State Department and Embassy Tripoli, the Department of Defense sent two U.S. Air Force planes (a C-17 and a C-130) from Germany to Tripoli to provide medical evacuation support for the wounded.
At 1915 local (7:15 pm) on September 12, Embassy Tripoli evacuees, Benghazi personnel, and those wounded in the attacks departed Tripoli on the C-17 aircraft, with military doctors and nurses aboard providing en route medical care to the injured.
Still no word on numbers of wounded.
The aircraft arrived at Ramstein Air Force Base at approximately 2230 (Tripoli time) (10:30 pm) on September 12, just over 24 hours after the attacks in Benghazi had commenced.
Is there just a tremor of triumphalism in that last “just over 24 hours” comment? If so, it is misplaced, to say the least, in a report so narrowly focused as to avert any notice of the real Benghazi scandal that took place that night in Washington.
Meanwhile, something else is missing from the report. The Youtube video. “Innocence of Muslims.” The Benghazi “protest” over the video that the President harped on as a “natural” reaction for two weeks up to and including his anti-Islamic blasphemy UN address on September 25.
“The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks.”
The unasked $64,000 question remains: Why did the Obama administration — Obama, Hillary, Petraeus, Rice — lie to the American people and the world (and, in Petraeus’ case, to Congress) that it was free speech about Islam that led to “protests” that led to the attack?
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.