Ask Me Help Desk - Benghazi the White Wash

Benghazi the White Wash

From the "independent panel "commissioned by the State Dept.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
(unclassified version)
What it does confirm is that there was no protest over a Youtube video before the attack.
The report finds many failures but affixes no blame to anyone in the government . All the blame goes to the jihadists who attacked the 'mission' (yes there is no 'consulate ' ) .
"Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the panel said.
Despite those deficiencies, the board determined that no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action. But it also said poor performance by senior managers should be grounds for disciplinary recommendations in the future.
“The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders,” it said. To the contrary, the report said the evacuation of the dead and wounded 12 hours after the initial attack was due to “exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response” that helped save the lives of two seriously wounded Americans.
News from The Associated Press
Umm... then why did commanding Generals and Admirals lose their jobs in the aftermath ?

Missing from the report is the purpose of the "Special Mission" .
(unless you believe this throwaway line on page 2...
The U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, established in November 2011, was the successor to his highly successful endeavor as Special Envoy to the rebel-led government that eventually toppled Muammar Qaddafi in fall 2011. The Special Mission bolstered U.S. support for Libya’s democratic transition through engagement with eastern Libya, the birthplace of the revolt against Qaddafi and a regional power center. )

Missing from the report is the circumstances that brought Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi ;lightly guarded ,on a day that the US takes for granted as a day for a hightened level of security alert . Instead the report blames Stevens for the decision to travel there .(page 6) It also blames the Ambassador for the security level there . Evidently he didn't scream loud enough .

Most Democrats don't believe Benghazi happened... just like they believe the Moon landing was a Hoax... yet believe in spirits and ghosts.

Quote:

Most Democrats don't believe Benghazi happened... just like they believe the Moon landing was a Hoax... yet believe in spirits and ghosts.

The things you believe are both funny and disturbing at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

The things you believe are both funny and disturbing at the same time.

YOU are one of those arguing when it happened that it was a protest... not a terrorist attack... so that goes to show whoes beliefs are the most disturbing... at least mine have a basis in fact.

Generals and admirals lost their jobs, but not those in "senior levels" at State responsible for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies?"

And one of them that didn't lose their job is named Patrick F. Kennedy;Under Secretary of State for Management .He is responsible for the people, resources, budget, facilities, technology, financial operations, consular affairs, logistics, contracting, and security for Department of State operations.
One of the review board's tasks was to investigate why the office of Patrick Kennedy, rejected requests for more diplomatic security in Libya in the weeks leading up to the terrorist attack.
And who was it in the State Dept who signed off on the review board ? You guessed it .Patrick Kennedy .He also selected the members of the board .

Well, Kennedy apparently isn't going to fall on his sword.

AP: Three State Dept. officials resign

The fallout from this goes all the way to the top, but there has beeen no falling on swords just disappearing with a quiet wimp-er

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Generals and admirals lost their jobs, but not those in "senior levels" at State responsible for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies?"

Turns out the sacrificial lambs were a ruse, too.

Quote:

Benghazi penalties are bogus

The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned.

The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.

The four were made out to be sacrificial lambs in the wake of a scathing report issued last week that found that the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, was left vulnerable to attack because of “grossly inadequate” security.

State Department leaders “didn’t come clean about Benghazi and now they’re not coming clean about these staff changes,” a source close to the situation told The Post. adding, the “public would be outraged over this.”

So much for accountability, transparency and honesty in this administration... again. Say, anyone seen Hillary lately?

That's because the State Dept is not the problem. Evita doesn't want to testify because if she did ;she'd have to tell the truth about what she knows... that the 'Special Mission' (identified as such in the Pickering report ) was not a State Dept op. for if it were ,it would be a complete violation of international law (specifically the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations). She doesn't want to have to tell the world that the State Dept had no decision making authority as to the staffing or the security of the arrangement.

According to the report :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....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).
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf (pg.30 )

Article 2 of the Vienna Convention makes it clear that the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil.
To treat Benghazi as a "temporary, residential facility",even though it was also a full-time office facility,was clearly a way to skirt that requirement .
Articles 12 of the Vienna Convention says that 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.

So clearly if Benghazi was a State Dept. "mission" (it never was a consulate ) ,then it violated International Law.

All you have to do is see that the CIA was involved to complicate things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

So clearly if Benghazi was a State Dept. "mission" (it never was a consulate ) ,then it violated International Law.

When was violating international law, or anyoneelse's law for that matter, ever a problem for a US administration?

Frankly that part of it doesn't bother me too much . I am not fond of the mission. I think it's folly and against US law possibly.

Hello:

Yawn... Yeah, we KNEW somebody screwed up. Four guys died. But, I want to learn about the COVERUP. Where is the COVERUP? What happened to the COVERUP? You guys DID say it was a COVERUP, didn't you??

I'm waiting...

excon

Maybe you should read my responses. The cover up is in the activities of the Benghazi 'special mission' .That's what they don't want revealed . Still waiting for an interview from one of the 30 people rescued . Don't you think it's strange that we still don't even know even one of their names ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Yawn.... Yeah, we KNEW somebody screwed up. Four guys died. But, I wanna learn about the COVERUP. Where is the COVERUP? What happened to the COVERUP?? You guys DID say it was a COVERUP, didn't you???

I'm waiting...

excon

I can guess how you would react if this were the Bush administration.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

The cover up is in the activities of the Benghazi 'special mission' .

What you call a coverup, I call keeping state secrets.

Excon

So did Nixon

There are always state secrets, undercover ops, black ops, and you can expect snafu now and again. The issue is you have these public hearings, rather than have the committees briefed in secret, how do you expect all the details in such an environment. It is porbable that someone was doing something that to reveal the details would compromise the mission. Al Qaeda weren't attacking that place because it was a target of opportunity, they had a reason and 9/11 was a convenient excuse and a protest another convenient excuse. Put it down to Evita's poor judgement and get on with life

Ask Ex as a Vietnam war vet what he thought of the secret incursions into Cambodia. Ask about the 'secret 'operation run out of the White House where weapons were diverted for cash to the Iranian skunks ;so the cash could then be turned over to the Contras. Yes there are always ops . That's why I said it was the specific op that I oppose . It is the op that they are trying to cover up. But they also got themselves tied into a corner by all the boasting about taking out AQ during the election cycle.

This isn't the Vietnam war, it isn't any war except Bush's farcicle War on Terror. You had covert operations on someoneelse's soil and you got caught out by the target, very inconvenient, but then you haven't learned yet not to trust Muslims.

I agree it was stupid to lie about it and use convenient excuses and I think it is obvious that the chief perpetrators have moved on. You will have the unfortunate experience of having to decide whether you can trust another Clinton in four years or BO for further four years. You must resign yourself to never being sure you know the truth about anything

Quote:

I agree it was stupid to lie about it and use convenient excuses and I think it is obvious that the chief perpetrators have moved on.

In other words ;a cover up

With yesterday's revelation that the State Dept did a sleigh of hand with the dismissals(they just played musical chairs ) ;the only person who has been held accountable for the Benghazi attacks is Youtube video maker Mark Basseley Youssef ;who we know had nothing to do with the attacks .

Well the ending is traditional after all blame someone who isn't guilty

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMcl...-IBD-C.jpg.cms

Madam Secretary ---- What did you know and when did you know it!

Funny a Democrat would try and argue... what difference does it make...

Benghazzi - 4 Americans died.

Watergate - nobody died.

Remember the whining over that witch Valerie Plame? Nobody died there either...

It's also the difference between "taking responsibility " and accountability .

Hello again:

The Benghazi chapter is CLOSED.. Yes, you're pissed about what the Democrats did, or what you THINK they did. So what? You TRIED to wound somebody.. You DIDN'T lay a glove on ANYBODY. In fact, it's arguable that both Obama and Clinton emerged from this episode even stronger than before.

It's DONE.. There's no more hearings. There's NOTHING. There's only Hannity and O'Reilly screaming about it, and we're used to that.

excon

Yes the cover-up is complete. Don't you think it strange that almost 30 people were evacuated and nobody even knows their names.. let alone interview them..

Complete coverup... but its not closed until WE decide its closed.

Those repubs who wanted answers to Benghazi were the same ones who didn't attend the meeting they had with the intelligence community to review the film and conclusion they had gathered, including John McCain who was obusy with Fox news.

If they had questions and wanted answers wouldn't they make time to go to where they could availed themselves of both? Kerry was there, why wasn't Paul, Johnson, and McCain.

Using the death of the ambassador to sling mud is as disgusting as it gets. But par for the course from the guys who take every chance to throw rocks instead of doing homework, or their real jobs. But that's what happens when you get your intel from Fox news and the right wing lame stream media.

Funny how Nixon didn't get to decide when Watergate was closed... where nobody died...

But now the dems seem to think Hillary gets to decide when LibyaGate is over... thats not how it works...

I want answers . Your comment about the Repubics is a deflection. I'm the 1st to admit that the idiots dropped the ball in their Q&A with Evita . Everyone says Meryl Streep should play her in a bio pix... I say Evita would perform just as well playing Meryl Streep . WHAT A PERFORMANCE!! Bravo... loved the fake tears .

Quote:

Funny how Nixon didn't get to decide when Watergate was closed... where nobody died...

Well if we forget about Martha Mitchell .

Hello smoothy:

Quote:

But now the dems seem to think Hillary gets to decide when LibyaGate is over... thats not how it works...

Well, you're free to put your version of Woodward & Bernstein on the case. How about the crack reporters at FOX News?

Bwa, ha ha ha.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Those repubs who wanted answers to Benghazi were the same ones who didn't attend the meeting they had with the intelligence community to review the film and conclusion they had gathered, including John McCain who was obusy with Fox news.

If they had questions and wanted answers wouldn't they make time to go to where they could availed themselves of both? Kerry was there, why wasn't Paul, Johnson, and McCain.

Using the death of the ambassador to sling mud is as disgusting as it gets. But par for the course from the guys who take every chance to throw rocks instead of doing homework, or their real jobs. But thats what happens when you get your intel from Fox news and the right wing lame stream media.

Whitewashing the death of the ambassador so as not to tarnish your re-election chances is as disgusting as it gets.

That's what they say on Fox too, but Fox didn't cover the meeting either, or read the reports the investigators did.

Obviously none on the right did.

Hillary Lied...

Embassies have security cameras feeding live video back to DC... they aren't on local VHS tapes...

They have cameras pointing other places than just the women's toilets... they aren't the New York Times where that's a common practice.

THey knew it wasn't a protest WHILE it was happening.

Hello smoothy:

Quote:

Hillary lied

She MAY have. I'd send Steve Doocy over there to get the REAL story.. Or, that crack investigator Bill O'Reiley has... What's his name? Brietbart ought to be able to uncover the coverup, no?

Bwa, ha ha ha...

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thats what they say on Fox too, but Fox didn't cover the meeting either, or read the reports the investigators did.

Obviously none on the right did.

Nothing new about you guys missing the point, at least Fox reported on it. The others? Dead Americans were no more a concern to them than they were to you.