New evidence reveals the Obama administration’s version of the events that took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was based on a tissue of lies. The Weekly Standard’s Steven Hayes has obtained a timeline and a series of emails revealing the self-serving efforts made by administration officials, who heavily edited CIA talking points about the attack that cost four Americans, including ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, their lives.Also revealed is who made the changes and why they made them.
The revelations are part of a reportpublished by the five Republican Committee chairmen that has been largely dismissed by a calculatingly indifferent media, despite the reality that it includes direct quotes from administration officials, along with footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. Although the names of some officials have been omitted in some places, the Weekly Standard has confirmed the identity of two administration officials who authored two critical emails: one illuminating the reason for the editing itself and the other announcing a September 15 meeting of top administration officials, where the ultimate draft of the talking points would be finalized.
What they sought to obscure is the reality that while the initial attack was still taking place, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts, at 4:05 p.m and 6:08 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The former indicated an attack was taking place. The latter alert revealed that an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, was claiming credit for it. According to the House report, these alerts were widely circulated among administration officials, including those at the highest levels of government. Another cable sent by the CIA station chief in Libya the following day reveals that eyewitnesses confirmed that a terrorist attack involving the participation of Islamic jihadists had occurred.
It was exactly that reality the administration sought to obscure.
The Standard reveals the three versionsof the edited talking points.Version 1 was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14. Key points include:
–The initial theory that the Benghazi attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo”;
–”Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida participated”;
–Members of Ansar al Sharia “were involved”;
–”Wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks”;
–”Five other attacks against foreign interests” had taken place since April, leading to the possibility that the consulate had been “previously surveilled”;
–The U.S. is “working w/Libyan authorities and intelligence partners” to bring those responsible to justice.
After this draft’s initial distribution, the CIA amended it, adding two more points. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” and “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” They also changed two talking points: the reference to “al Qa’ida” was removed, and Benghazi “attacks” became “demonstrations.”
An hour into the vetting process, the official confirmed by the Standard to be Victoria Nuland raised “serious concerns”–about the political impact, fearing that Congress would hammer the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”Minor revisions followed, but they weren’t good enoughfor Nuland, who said the changes did not“resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” further warning that State Department officials would directly contact National Security Council (NSC) officials as a result. In a matter of moments, the House report noted, that “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” It was then that Ben Rhodes notified the various groups working on the pointsthat a meeting would take place on September 15 to resolve their issues.
Version two of the report was put together at 9:45 a.m. on Saturday. According to officials with knowledge of what occurred at this meeting of the Deputies Committee, CIA deputy director Mike Morrel heavily edited this version, removing 148 of its 248 words.The entirety of the previous report was reduced to the “spontaneous attack” theory, followed by the idea that “this assessment may change as additional information is made available,” and that the “investigation is ongoing to help bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”
Less than two hours later, those three points became the bullet points in Version three, which became the final version of the administration’s talking points.
On Sunday, September 16, UN Ambassador Susan Ricewas sent out by the administration to pitch the Muslim video canard. The following day, Nuland rose to Rice’s defense. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”
Yet even the redacted version of the talking points never mentioned anything about a video.Despite that reality, the administration, led by Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,continued to pitch that mendacious version of the events, inaugurating the Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to mislead the American public in the weeks leading up to the presidential election— weeks during which we were assured that al Qa’ida and terror were “on the run.”
At a press briefing last Friday, State Department spokesperson Patrick Ventrell declined to comment regarding Nuland’s involvement, and why critical details were edited out of the final draft. “We regularly discuss our public messaging with our interagency counterparts, that’s part of what happens in the interagency,” said Ventrell. “ We’re not going to get into the details…of our internal deliberative process on these. We continue to be transparent with the congress, and have been, and shared thousands of documents. Talking points is something that they’ve looked into.”
Yet the “most transparent administration in history” provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on the stipulation that they would only be available for a limited time, and not turned over to the committees. That agreement was part of a political deal whereby Senate Republicans would not hold up the nomination of current CIA Director John Brennan.
As damning as these revelations are, they are far from the only problems the Obama administration faces in a scandal that can no longer be contained. Last Thursday, it was revealed that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General will be conducting an investigation of the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) report, an outrageous whitewash whose central conclusion was the idea that “the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.” According to well-placed sources, the IG wants to determine if the ARB declined to interview critical witnesses,who wanted to provide their accounts of Benghazi to the panel whose conclusions insulated top officials–including Hillary Clinton–for the “inadequate security” at the consulate.
Two of those whistleblowers, now revealed to be Gregory Hicks, Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya, and Mark Thompson, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, are being represented by Washington attorneys Victoria Toensing and her husband Joseph DiGenova, respectively. Appearing on “Geraldo” Saturday night, Toensing told Rivera that “the things that her client will be saying will be contradictory to what the administration’s scenario was.” DiGenova promised that “what will come out of the hearing is that the Accountability Review Board conducted by General Pickering and Admiral Mullen will be proven to have been a cover-up–one of the worst jobs ever done in the history of governmental reporting…”
DiGenova further noted that neither Pickering or Mullen ever interviewed Hillary Clinton during their investigation, and that when Pickering was told he would have to deal with it, he became physically ill.
The third witness expected to testify is Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya. Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until two months before the attack, is the security officer who twice requested additional security in Benghazi before the attack. Nordstrom cited a chronology that included 200 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, including 48 that occurred in Benghazi.
An equally explosive revelation emerged a week ago,when an anonymous U.S. special operatortold Fox News the administration’s contention that no forces were available to get to Benghazi in time was also a lie.“I know for a fact that C 110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise, not in the region of northern Africa, but in Europe. And they had the ability to react and respond,” he contended. The C 110 is a 40-man special ops force reportedly capable of conducting rapid response and deployment. They were located only three-and-a-half hours away in Croatia on Sept. 11.
The operator revealed there were other members of special ops and other officials aware and involved, but that they would be “decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high-level commanders.”The Fox source added that members of the special ops community feel betrayed, and believe that betrayal goes to the highest levels of the administration.
The administration apparently couldn’t care less. Last Tuesday at his press conference, President Obama claimed he was “unaware” of any effort to prevent whistleblowers from testifying. On the same day, Secretary of State John Kerry contended that there is “an enormous amount of misinformation out there.” ”We have to demythologize this issue and certainly depoliticize it,” Kerry told reporters at the State Department. “The American people deserve answers. I’m determined that this will be an accountable and open State Department as it has been in the past, and we will continue to do that, and we will provide answers.”
Kerry had previously expressed frustration with Republicans for refusing to accept the conclusions of the ARB. “Let’s get this done with, folks,” Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in testimony last month. “Let’s figure out what it is that’s missing, if it’s legitimate or isn’t. I don’t think anybody lied to anybody. And let’s find out exactly, together, what happened, because we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.”
Last Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney echoed Kerry’s indifference. “Let’s be clear,” he said. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appearbefore Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”
On Saturday, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, praised the State Department officials who have agreed to testify at the hearings. “They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points [from the administration,]” Issa said in a statement. “Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify,” he added. “In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers,” Issa said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell took issue with that characterization. “The State Department would never tolerate or sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue, including this one,” Ventrell contended. “That’s an obligation we take very seriously, full stop.”
The country will find out exactly how seriously beginning Wednesday,when the House Oversight Committee resumes its hearings. It remains to be seen how mainstream media outlets, many of which have been more than willingto dismiss the investigation into the deaths of four Americans as a Republican conspiracy theory, will handle what is likely to be some of the most explosive testimony on the attack to date history. Benghazi may have happened “a long time ago,”but it is not going away anytime soon.
An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in his Speeches
THE EVIDENCE IS HERE: This document contains over 60 pages of evidenc and analysis proving Barack Obama’s use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of “hack” hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.
Barack Obama’s speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a form of “conversational” hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients without their knowledge for therapy purposes. Obama’s speeches intentionally contain:
Obama’s techniques are the height of deception and psychological manipulation, remaining hidden because one must understand the science behind the language patterns in order to spot them. This document examines Obama’s speeches word by word, hand gesture by hand gesture, tone, pauses, body language, and proves his use of covert hypnosis intended only for licensed therapists on consenting patients. Obama’s mesmerized, cult-like, grade-school-crush-like worship by millions is not because “Obama is the greatest leader of a generation” who simply hasn’t accomplished anything, who magically “inspires” by giving speeches. Obama is committing perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American history.
Obama is not just using subliminal messages, but textbook covert hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming techniques on audiences that are intentionally designed to sideline rational judgment and implant subconscious commands to think he is wonderful and elect him President.Obama is eloquent. However, Obama’s subconscious techniques are shown to elicit powerful emotion from his audience and then transfer those emotions onto him, to sideline rational judgment, and implant hypnotic commands that we are unaware of and can’t even consciously question. The polls are misleading because some of Obama’s commands are designed to be triggered only in the voting booth on November 4th. Obama is immune to logical arguments like Wright, Ayers, shifting every position, character, and inexperience, because hypnosis affects us on an unconscious and emotional level. To many people who see this unaccomplished man’s unnatural and irrational rise to the highest office in the world as suspicious and frightening and to those who welcome it, this document uncovers, explains, and proves the deceptive tactics behind true “Obama Phenomenon” including why younger people are more easily affected.
- Trance Inductions
- Hypnotic Anchoring
- Pacing and Leading
- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization
- Critical Factor Bypass
- Stacking Language Patterns
- Preprogrammed Response Adaptation
- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges
- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded Suggestions
- Emotion Transfer
- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming
AN EXAMINATION OF OBAMA’S USE OF HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES IN HIS SPEECHES EXPOSING OBAMA’S DECEPTION MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY
READ THIS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Skeptics will surely doubt the information provided in this document with four specific oppositions – each of which this document disproves.
Two separate definitions of “hypnosis.
The origins of “covert hypnosis” and “conversational hypnosis” aka “black ops” hypnosis.
Bypassing the dominant hemisphere’s rational judgment (“critical factor”).
PART 2 – WHAT OBAMA IS ACTUALLY DOING
Obama’s actions are far more deceptive than simply lying.
The study of the effects of mass hypnosis. Illegality of Obama’s use of hypnosis .
The hypnosis technique of “pacing and leading” to sideline rational judgment.
How pacing is done:.
Specific examples of Obama using 14 separate hypnotic pacing statements in his Denver 2008
Embedded and hidden meanings – “deep structure” of language vs “surface structure”.
How Ericksonian “linking statements” mimic the way the brain accepts information .
Basics of Obama’s pacing and leading: The “because we need change, that is why I should be your next president”argument .
Obama’s speeches as one big hypnotic trance induction using extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities,
vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion .
The use of Ericksnian “vagueness” in speech as a linguistic induction tool: “Change” and “Yes we can.”
Use of visual imagery and imagination as an induction tool.
The stacking of hypnotic language patterns in 40+ minute long speeches.
Obama’s unusual use of hand gestures as subconscious programming and hypnotic anchoring designed to be triggered in the voting booth on November 4th.
*Obama’s hypnotic command that “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack’”.
An example of Obama using both of these hypnotic hand gestures, hypnotic programming followed by hypnotic anchor back to back, in a way that can be nothing other than hypnosis. Undeniable evidence that this is hypnosis: Obama hypnotically anchoring the statement about a light shining down and an internal voice saying “I have to vote for Barack.
Convincing without logic: “The Fierce! Urgency! of Now!” argument (Obama caught anchoring) .
Obama caught in subconscious hand gesture linking McCain to Bush.
Obama caught using one-finger subconscious hand gesture regarding Hillary.
Obama caught in another undeniable subconscious hand gesture regarding McCain.
PART 3 – WHAT OBAMA IS EXACTLY DOING – SPECIFIC SPEECHES “PLAY BY PLAY”.
Obama’s California Democratic Convention speech 2007 – a “play by play” of his undeniable use of
embedded commands, hypnotic induction, and hypnotic storytelling.Obama performs an undeniable Ericksonian hypnotic induction: Obama’s “Turn the Page” Speech at
the California Democratic Convention in 2007.
Obama caught intentionally controlling pace in obvious attempt to maintain trance.
Obama’s speech Tuesday after primaries ended June 3, 2008 – undeniable evidence of Obama’s use of
hypnotic principles of anchoring, deletion, distraction, and leading.
Obama caught delivering another powerful hypnotic command.
Obama caught pacing and leading again .
Obama’s 2007 California Democratic Convention “turn the page” speech – further analysis.
Obama using “turn the page” as a preprogrammed response.
Obama using “turn the page” as a hypnotic anchor:.
Obama’s Democratic Convention speech 2008 – A “play by play” of his undeniable and extensive
anchoring, pacing, leading, and delivery of subconscious commands .
Obama’s typical pacing, leading, storytelling, and hidden meanings induction.
Obama caught stacking language patterns.
*Obama caught clarifying his hand gesture as unmistakable hypnotic anchor of writing with pen
Obama caught giving the primary hypnotic command of the speech.
Obama’s aggressive pointing- the subconscious signal of giving commands:.
Obama caught in another hypnotic command, anchor, and a strategic pause.
Obama caught hypnotically linking himself with John F. Kennedy:.
Obama again pacing and leading .
PART 4 – ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF OBAMA’S HYPNOSIS.
Obama’s technique of head turned to the right side in interviews described by body language expert as one of the most powerful subconscious manipulation techniques possible by a speaker’s body language .
Interview of Professor of Psychiatry on CNN in which Dr. comes close to hinting of her suspicion that
Obama is using covert subconscious techniques throughout his campaign.
Hypnosis/NLP expert discusses Obama’s use of mind control techniques on radio.
Website analyzes Obama’s use of hypnosis in speeches .
Obama uses hypnotic command to dismiss the Rev Wright questions.
Obama’s speech on race March 18, 2008 Philadelphia – hypnotic storytelling throughout.
Obama’s hypnotic logo.
Obama’s strange hand gesture & hand-holding conversation with Senator Lieberman.
Obama’s use of a fake presidential seal.
Assorted other points.
PART 5 – THE VISIBLE EFFECTS OF OBAMA’S HYPNOSIS.
The effects of his hypnosis are undeniable.
Obama’s perceived greatness.
The effects of Obama’s hypnosis on young people, and more educated people.
Conclusion and commentary.
Skeptics will surely doubt the information provided in this document with four specific oppositions – each of which this document disproves. These certain oppositions answered in this document are:
1. Hypnosis isn’t real – hypnosis wouldn’t / doesn’t work on me Trance states of mind and enhanced suggestibility happen to everyone every day; driving in your car, in the elevator, watching T.V., or listening to music. This mild hypnotic state is all that is needed for Ericksonian techniques to implant hypnotic commands you are unaware of.
2. Obama isn’t intentionally using mass hypnosis
This document contains over a hundred examples of Obama’s specific language patterns and hypnosis techniques that follow textbook Ericksonian principles and characteristics too much to be coincidence.
3. Obama’s popularity is not attributable to his use of hypnosis
Young people and more educated people actually have lower hypnotic subconscious suggestibility
thresholds for scientific reasons explained. Popular perceptions of Obama are provable as inconsistent with his accomplishments, history, background, and even what is heard from him consciously – however, they match perfectly with the messages he is caught sending intending to be received only subconsciously. People are admittedly mesmerized by him. The irrational rise to power of and uncanny passionate support for a logically unaccomplished and questionable man based on his speaking alone like the “Obama phenomenon” is widely accepted – only the rational explanation for it is missing. Finally, he would not continue to use these deceptive techniques if he did not believe they work.
4. There is nothing unethical about Obama’s use of hypnosis
The techniques used by Obama are the most deceptive forms of communication known to man. They
sideline rational judgment and implant subconscious commands that change how people feel and behave without any awareness of the manipulation. Obama’s techniques overcome the will without convincing the judgment through trickery. Obama often says one message that you are aware of, meanwhile implants a different message hypnotically with double or hidden meanings. He conjures up emotions by talking about your children, and JFK, and then is caught transferring those feelings onto him with hidden hand gestures. He hides what he is doing and brazenly uses these techniques in front of millions of people over and over. Once explained, Obama’s actions can be shown to be the height of manipulation and deception.
IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU READ THIS
DOCUMENT IN ORDER, FROM BEGINNING TO END, AS
DEFINITIONS ARE BUILT ON TOP OF ONE-ANOTHER, AND
UNDERSTANDING OF THESE DEFINITIONS IS NECESSARY.
Foreword and commentary
The level of deception involved in Obama’s use of covert hypnosis, and his presumption that he has the right to use hypnosis on us to gain votes is just unconscionable. It is not a connection to another person that he can deny. It is Obama’s own highly deceptive actions, provable once explained, on video, playable over and over. Obama is sidelining rational judgment and using undue influence to win over voters applying psychological subconscious manipulation like never before in American history.
No other argument against Obama can fundamentally change the way people feel about him deep down inside, EXCEPT, proof that precisely the way they feel about him deep down inside is because of Obama’s own deception and use of hidden hypnosis. This is because exposing Obama’s use of hypnosis takes the people who are entranced by him subconsciously and emotionally, and puts the issue of why they feel that way on a conscious rational level where they can analyze it. It is the one thing that can fundamentally change the game, and shatter Obama’s magical immunity to all of his other faults, logical disqualifications, and deceptions. This can include the media changing their mind about Obama once they see who he really is and also helping to expose what Obama is doing in the interests of democracy. Many people do wake up from the effects of hypnosis once you tell them they have been hypnotized and explain what has happened to them. To a lot of people, it is just a missing piece of the puzzle that makes everything else make sense – almost as if it were the missing piece they were somehow even looking for on some level.
who asked not to be made public 52 photos. The CIA and the government refuse to do so for reasons of national security. The Court’s decision and ‘expected soon, but not’ known the exact date.
(****of course they don’t want to reveal the truth that Bin Laden was dead FOR FOUR YEARS OF NATURAL DEATH they had to kill him so the POOR IDIOT AMERICANS WOULD FILL WITH PRIDE THAT THEY GOT THE BAD GUY! BUT THE BAD GUY ISN’T BIN LADEN!!! IT’S THE AMERICAN/ISRAEL GOVERNMENT WHICH IS JOINT ON THE HIP! WAKE UP PEOPLE!)))
“She is 100 percent committed to having the smoothest possible transition, to helping him as much as possible, and she’ll be available as much as he needs her,”Mrs. Nulandsaid, adding that whenMrs. Clintonwill testifyon Benghazi is being arranged as the newly elected113thCongressis just gearing up.
She said thecommitteewould not return to session until after President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies on Jan. 21.
Mrs. Clintonwas discharged last week from New York-Presbyterian Hospital, where she spent four days under treatment for a blood clot inside her skull, discovered after a fall at her New York home. Doctors have said that the clot did not result in a stroke or neurological damage and that they expect her to recover fully.
The Benghazi testimony announcement came on the dayMrs. Clinton officially returned to work at theState Departmentafter a month away todealwith a string of medical issues.
She was also given a blue football jersey with “Clinton” and the number 112 — the record-breaking number of countries she has visited since becoming secretary of state — printed on the back.
Mrs. Clintonwas slated to testify on Capitol Hill in late December after the release of an internal State Departmentreport on the Benghazi attack that concluded senior department officials ignored intelligence and security warnings that might have prevented the attack.
She canceled the testimony after dehydration from a stomach virus, the virus that caused her to faint and hit her head, which subsequently led to the blood clot.
Mrs. Clintonhas accepted blame for failures regarding the Benghazi attack, but the report prompted several Republican lawmakers to demand that she reschedule her testimony and answer more questions.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens,State Departmentofficial Sean Smith and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attack.
At Monday’s staff meeting,Mrs. Clintonstressed the need for theState Departmentto implement a review board’s recommendations for improving the security at high-threat diplomatic posts.Mrs. Clintonsaid she wanted to see all 29 of the recommendations from the independent Accountability Review Board in place by the time her successor takes over.
• This article was based in part on wire service reports.
TheState Department issued a new travel warning forLibyaon Wednesday, citing “ongoing instability and violence” and strongly advising against all travel to the eastern city of Benghazi, where the U.S. Consulatewas attacked by terrorists Sept. 11.
“The security situation inLibyaremains unpredictable,” the new warning states. “Sporadic episodes of civil unrest have occurred throughout the country. U.S. citizens should avoid areas of demonstrations and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings, protests, or demonstrations, as even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence.”
Mrs. Clintonhad been slated to testify in late December after the release of an internal State Departmentreport on the Benghazi attack concluded that senior department officials ignored intelligence and security warnings that might have prevented the attack.
She canceled the testimony after dehydration from a stomach virus caused her to faint and hit her head, which subsequently led to the blood clot.
Meanwhile, theState Department’s latest travel warning comes after a month that saw several clashes between Libyan authorities and armed militant groups.
According to a report by the Reuters news agency citing security sources, four people were killed Dec. 20, when Libyan government forces clashed with armed demonstrators outside a police station in Benghazi.
The sources said the violence is believed to be linked to the recent detention of two men suspected of being involved in several assassinations of security officials in Benghazi.
TheState Departmentordered all non-emergency U.S. government personnel to depart Libyafollowing the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomat post in the city.
Wednesday’s warning advised against all but essential travel to the Libyan capital of Tripoli, and all travel to southernLibya, Benghazi and Bani Walid, a town outside Tripoli.
The warning also follows a scathing report released Monday by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that asserts that theState Departmentshould have closed theU.S. Consulatein Benghazi before the Sept. 11 attack because it knew that local authorities could not protect the facility and that the city is a hotbed of extremism.
Titled“Flashing Red:A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,”the bipartisan report concludes that there were no contingency plans to get military help to Benghazi in the event of an attack against U.S. facilities.
The report adds to an already tense political situation surrounding the handling of the Benghazi incident by the Obama administration,which was slowto characterize the incident as the work of terrorists.
Control of the preferred narrative is essential in today’s instant-news political culture. This has been particularly true since 9/11, as the United States government and the cooperative media have worked together to make sure that a series of enemies are identified and then attacked as a response to what has been shaped as a global terrorist threat. Narrative-shifting also protects against failure, by making it more difficult to advance any actual inquiry either to learn what motivates terrorists or to explore the apparent inability of the federal government to respond effectively. The best known attempt to shift the blame and thereby redirect the narrative was President George W. Bush’s famous assertionthat “those evildoers” of 9/11 “hate us because of our freedom.” Other, more plausible motives need not apply.
Later this year PBS will release to its affiliates adocumentary film that it co-produced called “Valentino’s Ghost.” I recently watched a preview copy. In its full version it is 95 minutes long, and it lays out a roughly chronological account of how Muslims, particularly Arabs, have been perceived in the West since the 1920s. Written and directed by Michael Singh, it includes interviews with a number of well-known authorities on the Middle East, including Robert Fisk, Niall Ferguson, John Mearsheimer, and the late Anthony Shadid, the New York Times journalist killed in Syria last February. The film explores the political and cultural forces behind the images, contending that the depiction of Arabs as “The Other” roughly parallels the foreign policies of Europe and America vis-à-vis the Middle East region. The title of the film is taken from the first great cinematic “Arab,” Italian Rudolph Valentino, who starred in the 1922 silent film “The Sheik.” When asked regarding the plausibility of the script, in which English aristocrat Lady Diana falls for the “savage” Sheik, Valentinoresponded“People are not savages because they have dark skins. The Arabian civilization is one of the oldest in the world…the Arabs are dignified and keen brained.”
Valentino’s cinematic triumph was followed by other films extolling Arabian exoticism, including 1924’s “The Thief of Baghdad,” starring Douglas Fairbanks. But the cinematic love affair with Arabia did not last long.The 1920s also witnessed Anglo-French moves to divide up the Arab provinces of the defunct Ottoman Empire and to gain control of Iran’s oil supply.The Arabs, not surprisingly, resisted,which forced a rethink of who they were and what they represented as reflected in Eurocentric movies made in the 1930s, including “Beau Geste,” “The Lost Patrol,” and “Under Two Flags.”
Arabs were increasingly depicted in the cinema as lawless savages who mindlessly opposed the advanced civilizations of Europe, not unlike the American Indians who had stood in the way of manifest destiny. The possible motives for their savagery were strictly off-limits, as they were in the American historical narrative. The good Arabs were the ones who were “obedient” and sought accommodation with the French and British. The bad Arabs were the “disobedient”who sought to maintain their traditional ways of life.
The rise of the Zionist movement and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, with its forced relocation of most Palestinians — which Mearsheimer describes as “ethnic cleansing” — made further shifts in the narrative essential, particularly to demonstrate that Jews had a historic right to the land of Palestine and that the creation of the Jewish state was humanely carried out in a land that did not existpolitically and was largely empty and undeveloped. Movies like “Exodus” and “Lawrence of Arabia” appeared, with the former omitting the Zionist terrorism that had led to the creation of Israel while also emphasizing historic Jewish claimsto the land. The latter film expressed some sympathy for Arab nationalism but also demonstrated that savage and undisciplined Arabscould only triumph militarily under European leadership. The two films together largely completed the process of defining the Arab in Western popular culture. In “Lawrence of Arabia,” Peter O’Toole, playing Lawrence, described Arabs as“a little people, a silly people. Greedy, barbarous and cruel.” Nothing more need be said.
The Six-Day War further added to the denigration of Arabs in general. Israel’s surprise-attack triumph over its neighbors, in which it was able to exploit superior military resources, was seen as a victory of good over evil in the U.S. media. Walter Cronkite announced on the evening news that “Jerusalem has been liberated.” Footage of long columns of Palestinian refugees appeared briefly on television but then disappeared completely. Mearsheimer describes the post-1967 unwillingness to discuss either the Palestinians’ plight or the nature of the Israeli relationship with Washington as “The Great Silence” fueled by “The Great Silencer,” namely the charge of anti-Semitism or Jewish self-hating inevitably leveled against any critic of Israel. The circle of immunity from scrutiny for Israel also extends to the principal Israel lobby AIPAC, which was last featured on an investigative report on U.S. television in 1977.
The Israeli occupation triggered a wave of terrorism, and the Palestinians sought to have their story told. Limited media attempts to understand the Arab point of view perhaps understandingly vanished completely in 1972 after 11 Israeli athletes were murdered in Munich.(***where they murdered by Palestinians? or by Mossad killers and then set up that the Palestinians did it! it will not be the first time?) When Arabs subsequently sought to use an economic boycott to force the West to stop Israeli expansion on the West Bank, the U.S. media depicted the action as an affront engineered by greedy oil Sheiks.
The increasingly harsh political environment, soon to be framed as a clash of civilizations, corresponded with a rise to prominence of evangelicals in the U.S., together with the popularity of end-times narratives in books and other media, including Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. Evangelical pastors such as John Hagee conflated the return of the Jews to Israel with the Second Coming of Christ, leading to unlimited political support for Israeland identification of its Arab neighbors as the enemy that would have to be confronted and destroyed at Armageddon.
The Iranian Embassy hostage crisis further hardened views of Islam, with Ayatollah Khomeini lampooned on American television and ABC News featuring a one-hour block each night on “America Held Hostage,” more intensive coverage than the network had given to the Vietnam War. Ronald Reagan referred to the Iranians as “barbarians,” and there was little effort made to learn if there might be some legitimate grievances (there were, dating back to the ouster of Mohamed Mossadeq and the installation of the Shah in 1953).
In 1992 the Disney animated movie “Aladdin”featured a songduring the opening credits that referred to Arabia as a land “where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face, it’s barbaric.”Other major Hollywood movies produced in the 1990s routinely depicting Arabs as terrorists, even if an “obedient” Arab frequently appears among the good guys, included “Rules of Engagement,”“True Lies,” and “The Siege.” 9/11 converted the disturbing or sometimes vaguely amusing Arab into the Arab as attacker, as an existential threat — witness the success of the recent television series “24″ and “Homeland.”The denigration of Arabs in the media has real-world consequences: it is unlikely that Madeleine Albright would have said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it or that Rush Limbaugh would have described Abu Ghraib as a “college fraternity prank” if one had been speaking of European or American victims.
Niall Ferguson notes that the justification provided through the hyping of a dark and fearful external threat in support of a burgeoning overseas empire inevitably leads to a suspension of the rule of law back at home. Robert Fisk observes that the shifts in language and metaphor make the entire Middle East unintelligible to most Americans, even to those who claim to be well-informed.Colin Powell, while secretary of state, stopped referring to the West Bank as occupied by Israel– he instead referred to the area as “disputed,” a practice that continues to this dayin the mainstream media. That went along with Jewish settlements being referred to in the media as “neighborhoods” and the border wall being called a “security fence.”Why would those disgruntled Arabs want to fight over something that is only disputed or object so strongly to a neighborhood or a fence?
One of the more interesting vignettes in the film takes place near the end, with Hillary Clinton saying in March 2011 that many Americans are viewing Qatar-owned television channel Al-Jazeera for “real news” because U.S. news programs have become so devoid of content. Would that it were so. Al-Jazeera is onlyavailablein New York; Washington, D.C.; Burlington, Vermont; Toledo, Ohio; and Bristol, Rhode Island — and only intermittently in many of those locations, due to political objections over its “Arab” and “anti-American” point of view.
If I have a problem with “Valentino’s Ghost” it is that it tries to do too much. It takes on many issues too superficially given the film’s technical constraints and time limitations. I have been informed that over the objections of the producer the original 95-minute version has been edited down considerably for the version that will be released to PBS affiliates.PBS indicated that it would not use the film without considerable changes. Much of the excising relates to segments critical of Israeland its policies, as well as its U.S. lobby, AIPAC. The affiliates themselves can choose whether or not to air the film, so there will probably be pressure coming from donors and local programming boards not to show it. This would be a shame, as “Valentino’s Ghost” exposes widespread bigotry and the deliberate shaping of a narrative against Arabs while also providing considerable insights into why American foreign policy continues to fail in an important part of the world.One has to wonder what the reaction would be if the film were to be viewed in the White House.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
U.S. Lies Weapons of mass destruction and “uprisings”: Five invasions, three continents, deceit identical
“I do not understand this prudishness about using gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favor of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare … I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. “
While increases aggression against Syria, as well as increasingly risky claims and double standards, and wave, plotting and terrorist financing (sorry: “help legitimate opposition”), it is instructive to consider the justifications provided by the U.S. government . States. in other murderous raids in recent history.
This month marks the twenty-third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989, while the Panamanians prepared their Christmas celebrations. A quick reminder that the late Philip Agee recalled that President George HW Bush told the American people that the threat of Panama (population: 3571185-2011) was so great that “our way of life is at stake.” Agee referred to this in his lecture aptly named “Producing the appropriate crisis” . Rightly then as now. Nothing changes.
The aim of the invasion was to capture the country’s leader, General Manuel Noriega and, of course, “establish a democratic government.” Regime change.
With the upcoming transfer of control of the Panama Canal to Panama (originally scheduled for January 1, 1990) after a century of American colonial administration, U.S. wanted to make sure it was in the hands of docile allies.
Noriega, a CIA asset since 1967  who had also attended the notorious School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, came to power with U.S. backing, but apparently their support for U.S. . weakened.To cut a long story, USA kidnapped him and sentenced him to forty years in prison.
The invasion plan called “Operation Prayer”. He was later renamed “Operation Just Cause”, and General Colin Powell said it was a nickname he adopted since “Even our harshest critics would have to say” just cause “to attack us.” (Colin Powell, with Joseph E. Persico: My American Journey, 1995.)
All military plunder should be called simply: “Operation Stupid Name 1, then 2, 3, 4, etc.., Until they ran out of numbers.
27,000 U.S. troops backed by Apache helicopters decimated much of the small country, with a defense force of only 3,000. George Bush senior, said it was to overthrow an evil dictator who was abusing his own people (sound familiar?) And that action was needed to “protect American lives.” It was also about “defending democracy and human rights in Panama” and “protect the Canal.” What a surprise! Right?
Manuel Noriega was released from the U.S. prison in 2007, extradited to France, which had been awarded the country’s highest honor, the Legion d’honneur in 1987. He remained in jail in France until December 2011, and was returned to Panama, where he is still in jail.
In the almost forgotten tithes of Panama (unless it is Panamanian) the densely populated, impoverished village of El Chorrillo was incinerated by U.S. actions to an extent that was called “Little Hiroshima”.
A woman accused that “Americans began burning El Chorrillo near 6.30 in the morning. They threw a small devices to a house and caught fire, then went to another, burning of a street to the next, coordinating fires with radio handsets. “
Reportedly a U.S. soldier said: “We ask that you surrender… if you do not, we are willing to wipe each and every one of the buildings.”
“They were shooting at everything that moved,” said a resident of the city.
The dead were sent to mass graves and witnesses said U.S. troops used flamethrowers against the dead, and noted that the bodies writhing in fire. Others were leveled by bulldozers .
There are worse things. While current Pharisaic statements, even contradictory, Washington and Whitehall flow of chemical weapons Syria unsubstantiated,the proven facts relate to the U.S.
“From the forties to the nineties, USA used various parts of Panama as a testing ground of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, VX, sarin, hydrogen cyanide and other nerve gases … in mines, rockets and shells, perhaps tens of thousands of chemical munitions. “ (William Blum: Rogue State, 2002).
Moreover, from Panama in late 1999 left “many sites containing chemical weapons. They had also “secret tested Agent Orange in Panama …” In the 1989 invasion, the village of Pacora, near Panama City, “was bombarded with (chemicals) for helicopters and U.S. Southern Command ., with substances that burn the skin, causing intense pain and diarrhea. “
Many analysts thought that Panama was the proving ground for Iraq.
Nine months after the poisoning of Panama in Hiroshima Day 1990, the United Nations imposed the embargo against Iraq choke driven by the U.S.,once the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, gave the green light to Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, after considerable provocation and destabilization of financial and geographical Kuwait .
Sensationalism and other chemical weapons were fired, leading to Saddam Hussein to comment: “I fear that one day you will say we produce wheat using gunpowder.”
Thirteen months after Panama, USA led a coalition of 31 countries to “reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial era.” The only chemicals released in Iraq were the toxic mix of pharmaceutical bombed factories and fertilizer plants producing cars and factories across Iraq’s industrial base, including complex chemical and biological medicines, sold Iraq by U.S., UK, Germany and other previous decades, ironically sales, continued while the attack took place .
However, were introduced highly toxic, radioactive substances in Iraq, in the form of up to seven hundred fifty tons of depleted uranium munitions chemically toxic and radioactive with a “half-life” toxic than 4,500 million years. The endless list of deformed babies, stillborn, aborted, children born with cancers, small tombs, is a silent witness of weapons of mass destruction singular perversity. Iraq was bombed for 42 days and nights.
The overly publicized allegedly manufactured chemical weapons by Iraq, of course never met.
On 24 March 1999, NATO began to liberate Kosovo from Serbia. (The stupid name given by U.S.: Operation Noble Anvil) estimated that Kosovo was “inexhaustible” minerals for an estimated ten trillion (million & million) dollars in Trebca mines.
The “liberation” consisted of 78 days of continuous bombardment, including the use of depleted uranium weaponry. Was 20,000 tons of bombs dropped. Systematically destroyed communication facilities, fuel depots, airports, communications traffic, trains, markets, the Chinese Embassy, which opposed the attack. NATO, unconvincingly, said he had the wrong map. And, indeed, the center of the media. The killing of journalists is now another routine, a war crime for which there is no accountability.
Before the attack, the Pentagon said the Yugoslav Army had at least two types of toxic gases, with facilities to produce them. The U.S. Department of Defense warned Slobodan Milosevic and the Yugoslav Army General Staff: “If Belgrade uses toxic gases sarin and mustard against NATO, the response of the Organization North Atlantic Treaty will be devastating.”
Interestingly, after the start of air strikes, NATO did not mention once that was attacking the productive capacity of Serbia declared chemical weapons by the U.S. (Zagreb Globus, April 16, 1999, pages 18-19.)
The massive scale destruction, however, did not affect Trebca mines.
On August 14, 2000, nine heavily armed British soldiers, French, Italian, Pakistani and KFOR helicopters landed in the mines. Managers and workers tried to resist and were beaten, attacked with tear gas and plastic bullets. Resistant staff was arrested.
The UN documents describing the action as “… induction of democratization in Kosovo”. The attack, in fact, paved the way for the sale of the mines with content “unquenchable” of about 77,302,000 tons of coal, copper, zinc, lead, nickel, gold, silver, marble, manganese, iron ore, asbestos and limestone “to name a few” foreign private groups(news reports, websites.)
The “Kosovo Liberation Army” had been: “… trained and supported for years with millions of U.S. dollars and German marks … through the CIA and the BND (German intelligence service) for this war, civil war misleadingly called”  by government spokespersons and NATO governments.
Chemical and radiological properties of DU also rained down on the former Yugoslavia. In 2001, doctors at the hospital run by Serbs Kosovo Mitrovica stated that the number of patients suffering from malignant diseases had increased by 200% from a 1998 study.
A 2003 study by the United Nations Program for Environment (UNEP) found samples contaminated water and air in Bosnia Herzegovina. There was, of course, ’cause for alarm. “ Pekka Haavisto, former Minister of the Environment of Finland, head of UNEP, called for a comprehensive and exhaustive research to establish the true extent and dangers of pollution. U.S. -Cited as the only country to use depleted uranium weapons in that conflict-blocked the application .
However, there was alarm in Europe when peacekeepers Italian, Portuguese, Belgian and French developed cancers in the region, in a matter of months, a high proportion of those diagnosed died.Norwegian peacekeepers refused to be involved .
“Less than a month after the end of the war in Yugoslavia in 1999, the National Council on Radiation Protection British Britons warned of the dangers of remaining in Kosovo due to contamination of their territory by DU weapons.”
The peacekeepers, incidentally, were in Kosovo for weeks or months, people in the region live there, and the plight of their health and that of future generations was ignored and forgotten by their “liberators”.They had other “tyrants” to overthrow, to fight other people in their lives, limbs and livelihoods.
Iraq had again been bombed by U.S. and the UK during the Christmas season of 1998, four months before the attack on Yugoslavia and returned to radar since the invasion. The lies were familiar, and incessant, a currently topical example, one of many:
“September 2, 2002: Expert: Iraq has tons of chemical weapons.
“While some in the Bush administration pushing for a preemptive strike against Iraq, weapons experts say there is growing evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has amassed large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons hiding a possible military attack U.S.
“Washington’s concern is that Iraq could provide these arms to terrorists … ‘If we wait until the danger is obvious, it may be too late,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “
Now that Vice President Biden is, we can not help but ask if you have any involvement in the bias on Syria, with his words eerily similar.
“John Wolfsthal, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the significant inventory of Iraq:” Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands of civilians or soldiers, “said Wolfsthal “.
Also: “Experts in United Nations weapons have said that Iraq may have stored more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin. Neither knows the whereabouts of some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical, experts said.
“The concern is at hand, or could quickly create, the ability to produce vast quantities of Anthrax, tons of material” was the further statement of Wolfsthal.
“Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ” said: “… Iraq has mobile biological weapons laboratories, it would be nearly impossible to identify and attack U.S. forces” The lives of thousands of people are at stake, he said. Indeed, since the invasion deaths of Iraqis by U.S. and British or their militias, and the puppet government tax, represent a real holocaust.
According to Jonathan Schwartz, who refocused the pack of lies about Iraq by General Colin Powell on February 5, 2003: “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. There are statements. What I present are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence … “Powell is now repentant.
Schwartz shows little understanding. On the fifth anniversary of misleading nonsense Powell, February 5, 2008, said: “Despite all the criticism that Powell has received so-called ‘painful’ and something ‘will always be part of my history’ – does not approach what is justified. Powell was much more than horribly wrong, the evidence is conclusive evidence that Amano and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false. “
Totally illegal invasion of Iraq, based on a bunch of lies began transatlantic just 45 days later. Does your stupid name? “Operation Iraqi Liberation” OIL [Oil].
The lies about Libya under Colonel Gaddafi who arrived at the tip of the Human Development Index in Africa are recent memory. Nonetheless, a few memories:
The CIA paid traitors abound in these invasions and other for decades. For example, General Abdul Fatah Younis, the interior minister of Colonel Gaddafi, who “defected to the opposition” - what will have been its price? – And became chief of staff of the insurgents: “… advocated that NATO allies of the rebels arm themselves with heavy weapons, including helicopters and anti-tank missiles, to defend the besieged city of Misurata. He predicted that the dictator … would be willing to use chemical weapons as a last resort against rebels or civilians. “ (Amazing, words identical to the argument list of the current “opposition” Syrian.)
“Gaddafi is desperate now. Unfortunately it still has about 25% of its chemical weapons, which could be used as it is in a desperate situation … “
“We know that Colonel Gaddafi has about 10 tons of mustard gas remaining stocks had been destroyed under the supervision of a United Nations agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” .
In context, in 2002, Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor winning Sunday Herald, said: “Driven by greed and a profound lack of morality, the British government violated the Chemical Weapons Convention selling chemicals” that could become weapons of war. “
Countries that benefited from UK sales, Mackay said, including Libya,Yemen, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, India, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey and Uganda, “clearly admitted” a manager of the Department of Trade and Industry.
After handshake of Tony Blair with Colonel Gaddafi in March 2004, the British government announced plans to send experts to Libya to destroy chemical weapons it had sold, noting that Colonel Gaddafi had misled Blair over his existence. They seem to have forgotten that he was shipping documents. Equal to the ambiguities in the UK over Iraq.
Between the beginning of the destruction of Libya on March 19, 2011 and the inauguration of NATO on March 31, 2011, USA and the United Kingdom launched 110 cruise missiles against a country with a population of less than 6.5 million inhabitants. When NATO took command of “humanitarian intervention”, attacked the 26,500 minimum population with bombing raids.
Of course there were tears presidential children killed in Libya, whose death must have been preceded by an unimaginable horror, in an attack that had two stupid names, one for the U.S.: “Operation Odyssey Dawn”and one for the NATO’s “Operation Unified Protector”,the latter, defies comment.
Gaddafi himself lost three young grandchildren and three sons. In 1986, another bombing in U.S.adopted a little girl lost.
Moments after being informed of his terrible death at the hands of an angry mob “protected” by NATO, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on television laughingas he said: “We went, we saw, he died”.
Said long ago: “I really think that it takes a village to raise a child.” Now he seems to think that we must wipe out the village, their children, their parents and lynch the village elder to have a chance of strident mirth on television.
On December 4, 2012, Clinton warned that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria might be moving, guess what: “an arsenal of chemical weapons.”
“We made it very clear our views. This is a red line for U.S. I will not detail specifically what we would do if they have evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to the use of chemical weapons against his own people, but certainly enough to say that we plan to take action if it happened, “he told a press conference in Prague.
Of course they “could use” weapons “to contain sarin gas,” according to another U.S. official. Another added: “… we are concerned about any action that might mean that somehow are willing to use those chemical weapons against his own people .
“Déjà vu again” as they say.
Syria said on December 6: “Syria again emphasizes, for the tenth, hundredth time, that if we had such weapons, would not be used against the people. Not commit suicide, “said Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Al Maqdad in Lebanese Al Manar television …”
“We fear that a conspiracy exists to provide a pretext for any subsequent interventions in Syria by countries that increase pressure on Syria.” BTW. Can not say it’s the first time.
In late October, U.S. troops arrived in Jordan for a major joint exercise near the Syrian border. Operation Stupid and Child Name: “Operation Lion Ambitious”. Al Asad translates into Arabic as: the lion.
Ironically, the first statement that Syria has chemical weapons appears to have come from John R.Bolton, whoaccording to Congressman Henry Waxman persuaded George W. Bush to include the fairy-tale purchase yellow-cake from Niger in his State of the Union 2003. The claim has not been proven, however, since the documents are still classified.
Bolton is involved with a plethora of organizations unless liberals, including the Project for the New American Century, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the National Rifle Association.
Regarding Syria, we must also remember that the country is increasingly harsh sanctions since 2004.
The chief ex-inspector Iraq Weapons of Scott Ritter wrote that “chemical weapons have a shelf life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf life of three.“ They also emit an “ether”, experts say, that may be identified by satellitesurveillance, which is sure to Syria, as before Iraq has undergone exhaustive.
God forbid, Washington, Whitehall, Tel Aviv and the coalition of the coercive again make a fuss over nothing. God help them make.
The committee indicated further witnesses could be added, but the State Department confirmed that Clinton won’t be one of them.
“She was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week,” said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. She did not answer a question about whether Clinton would be willing to fly back from Australia to address either the Foreign Affairs panel or the Senate and House closed-door intelligence committee hearings getting to the root of the Benghazi scandal.
“The Committee plans to hold the second segment of this hearing the week of November 26, 2012 and will request Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify before the Committee at that time,” the Foreign Affairs Committee said in an advisory.
Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) wrote Clinton on Tuesday to demand that the State Department respond to the panel’s requests for information on Benghazi.
“It is disappointing that we have yet to receive any response from your Department and that we are receiving more information from the press than from the Administration,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote.
On Sept. 12 and Sept. 14, the chairwoman requested State Department witnesses for both an open hearing and closed-door members’ briefing. On Sept. 25, committee members requested information on intelligence leading up to the attack and the role former Guantanamo detainees may have played. On Oct. 15, fresh requests were sent from Ros-Lehtinen directly to Clinton. No responses have been received.
“While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote. “Accordingly, I respectfully request access, in accordance with standard procedures for classification information, to all cables regarding embassy security in Benghazi before, during, and after the September 11th attack and all memoranda establishing security protocols, including agreements with other agencies.”
“Moreover, I continue to have concerns more broadly about embassy post security in front-line countries and I request an expeditious response to the questions raised in my October 15th letter,” the chairwoman added. “Finally, please be prepared to present State Department officials to testify on these issues when Congress reconvenes later this month.”
It is necessary that men should understand things as they are, should call them by their right names, and should know that an army is an instrument for killing, and that the enrollment and management of an army...is a preparation for murder - Tolstoy