A few meters to the right is the safe haven’s bathroom. Everything here is blackened by smoke. One of the two white toilets is covered with bloodstains. On the mirror in the bathroom, an unknown person has written a macabre text in a thin layer of ash. “I am Chris from the dead,” it reads. [Foreign Policy]
ON THURSDAY we learned what was suspected by many, which is that both Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were C.I.A. security officers, identified as such for the first time in the New York Times. Multiple reports now reveal a complex security arrangement, with no centralization of communication in case of an attack, with another denial from the CIA on the Fox News report that caused such a stir.
A new report in The Wall Street Journal is being widely quoted, because for the first time we’re beginning to get answers on a question I asked back in September, which began with why CIA Director David Petreaus was being allowed to fly under the radar.
When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.
Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency’s role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department …
The Washington Post picks up on other parts of the WSJ report that need to be emphasized:
Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren’t on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.
The CIA’s secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn’t know about.
David Petraeus and Hillary Clinton have a long-standing and good relationship, making the agreements a natural fit as far as relationships go, but gets complicated when trouble erupts. Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings was quick to relish pointing the finger at Secretary Clinton, while completely ignoring the intelligence issues screaming from the Benghazi attack, which by definition have to involve DCIA Petraeus.
An important read from Foreign Policy:
“Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.”
The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures,” he wrote hours before the assault.
And yet again, officials are denying an earlier Fox News report that CIA was ordered to stand down.
“There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support,” said the official. The official’s comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of a Fox News report that CIA teams on the ground had been told by superior officers to “stand down” from providing security support to the consulate. According to the official, upon learning of the attack at the consulate, the security team at the annex responded “as quickly and effectively as possible.” The official described how the security team tried to rally additional support from local Libyan forces and heavier weapons, but that when that could not be accomplished “within minutes” they moved out to the compound. [Martha Raddatz, ABC News]
Fox News Channel, whose reporting has been good and solitary in much of the case, made a huge error in sandwiching these reports in partisan commentary meant to throw the whole blame on President Obama. It colored the information they were reporting. It turned the entire efforts of FNC into what at times looked like a get out the vote spectacle geared in revving up emotion on the issue against Obama, which was seen particularly through Sean Hannity’s disgraceful coverage. Focusing so intently on President Obama’s perceived failings hid the importance of some of what FNC’s security reporters were breaking, most of which revealed real intelligence failures that were far more important than political implications, because there is simply no evidence that President Obama hasn’t been fully engaged and competent on national security during his first term.
Eli Lake adds more important details:
On the night of the 9/11 anniversary assault at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Americans defending the compound and a nearby CIA annex were severely outmanned. Nonetheless, the State Department never requested military backup that evening, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the details of military planning tell The Daily Beast.
[...] “The State Department is responsible for assessing security at its diplomatic installations and for requesting support from other government agencies if they need it,” a senior U.S. Defense official said. “There was no request from the Department of State to intervene militarily on the night of the attack.”
The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. By 11 p.m. Benghazi time, 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.
SecDef Panetta said last week that “real-time information” was lacking at the time of the attack, so he wasn’t going to send military into harm’s way without more information. However, it has been confirmed that unarmed intelligence drones were present, though not at the moment the attack began.
Gosh…so once again faux not news and the gibbering fluffers for the repugnantklan/rteabaggers are shown to be…..either to stupid to breath and walk at the same time dupes or simply common, crawl out from under the shit house with the rest of the shit house crazy rat liars. Frankly, old news…WAY old news.
What happened in Benghazi was a protest against a movie that was released on YouTube. The protest escalated and some people ended up getting killed.
from CBS News:
Counterterrorism officials from two agencies said they concluded almost immediately that the attack was by terrorists and was not spontaneous. “I came to this conclusion as soon as I heard the mortar rounds were impacting on top of the building our people were occupying,” says one. “The position of the mortar must be plotted on a map, the target would have to be plotted, computations would be calculated that would result in the proper mortar tube elevation and the correct number of powder bags to be attached to the rounds.”
A White House official says President Obama immediately acknowledged the assault was a terrorist attack.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/?pageNum=2&tag=page
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The offensive video caused this violence. President Obama and Secretary Clinton made a T.V. commercial to do damage control. The person who made the video had been arrested and is in custody. We got him!
The violence at the US Embassy was not a terror attack. Remember there had not been a single terror attack against the United States since Obama had been in Office.
That event where the guy who was in contact with al-quadea and shot and killed US soldiers was workplace violence.
“Remember there had not been a single terror attack against the United States since Obama had been in Office.”
You sound like you are engaging in wish fulfillment– if there had never been a terrorist attack under Obama, then what happened in Libya could NOT be a terrorist attack, because it would wreck his winning streak?
It sure sounds like that’s what you are saying. Are you being sarcastic? Because if you aren’t, you may well be the last person in the country who believes that Sept 11 2012 was a spontaneous attack caused by a film.
I just do not know who or what to believe anymore. We all see the same thing and yet nobody really has a clear idea of what happened. If people actually do know what happened, they appear to be incabable of communicating or explaining exactly what occured.
I have a strong feeling that after the election a different story will come out.
Secular still believes it is. But Jjamele, I do believe mj is being sarcastic.
PLEASE continue with your moronic gibbering…PLEASE. It is nice to have a concrete example of the idiocy we will be voting against in this election front and center. Can’t WAIT to see what you have to say Wednesday morning!! That should be a REAL gas!!!
The preceding was a word from the gibbering fluffer.
TM, thank you for sifting through the “noise” on this story. The right will not let go if Obama is reelected. If reelected, HRC will be thrown under the bus for this sad event.
Question…Who will be throwing HRC under the bus?
“If reelected, HRC will be thrown under the bus for this sad event.”
Whatever…
TPAZ November 2, 2012 at 10:14
It’s no coincidence that after the Benghazi attack even she talked about being asked to stay, with Obama saying on Leno that he “begged” her to.
No one is going to throw Clinton under a bus, including Obama, who obviously has a deep regard for her, as he should.
Of course, as long as the Big Dawg is on the campaign trail, HRC is Obama’s BFF. After November 6, Dear Leader will never run for public office again. At that point, any and everyone is expendable. If want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
Taylor, I want to thank you for covering and analyzing the Benghazi tragedy with a clear head and who has avoided jumping to conclusions as quite a few others have (and I’m not just talking about a few of those who post on this blog) I’m referring to so-called professional journalists who HAVE done that for whatever reason pointing blame whilst the bodies of those brave men were still not buried. Granted, this story has not been easy to unpack and I’m not faulting those journalists who have not made any conclusions but rightly have been asking more pertinent questions which is their job. But, those who haven’t waited for all of the facts to emerge but had an agenda as easily sniffed out as Issa (and his morally bankrupt opportunists who couldn’t wait to pounce on Obama and Clinton, their ulterior motives as obvious as the cut of their jib) to place the blame in one direction either at Clinton or at Obama or both.
This has not helped to say the least especially as this noise has only contributed to confusion and mindless and subjective conclusions of people who want to believe the worst of leaders and pols they don’t like and refuse to wait for a comprehensive report before they pounce. Just more obvious and annoying noise. And, because this story has not been easy to unpack is more reason to hold one’s fire (conclusion) until the unpacking is done.
Your calling attention to the CIA angle in this story was spot on and it’s about time that teflon-Petreaus is called out for his role in all of this. I remember quite well what the outgoing Admiral William Fallon had to say about General Petreaus who replaced Fallon as CENTCOM Commander (and by all accounts, he said it to his face): “You’re an ass-kissing little chickenshit” “I hate people like that.” Here’s a bit outdated piece but relevant still about Fallon and Petreaus. http://tinyurl.com/avjo2xn
Open Quote:
No one is going to throw Clinton under a bus, including Obama, who obviously has a deep regard for her, as he should.
Close Quote
I was skeptical at first, but I now agree with your observation.
So, again, thanks, Taylor for starting out in the right way with this story and continuing to pursue it to wherever it winds up without a biased or subjective preemptive conclusion. I can’t tell you how fed up to my last nerve I am not only with how this story has been covered by the majority in the MSM to say nothing about Fox’s disgraceful performance in this but with all of the screaming mimi’s who post on the “internets”. What a blessing and curse this invention has been, heh? It and these times in which we live, reinvigorate that opening paragraph in Dickens “A Tale of Two Cities” (a never-ending perfect title):
Open Quote:
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”
Close Quote
The more things change…………………………
Anyway, thanks for your clear-eyed coverage of this story. I’ll continue to tweet your analysis of it.
Appreciate it very much, newdealdem1.
So why the big lie by all of Obama’s administration regarding the video, Taylor, if Obama and his gang are so fully engaged and competent regarding national security??? Doesn’t “THE LIE” bother you at all??????
It was all because of the video. Out UN AMbassador Susan Rice said so and Leon Panetta the CIA Director confirmed what Amb. Rice said.
http://tinyurl.com/brw3jmr
..CIA documents that will be the basis of testimony to the House Intelligence Committee this week support United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice’s early account of the attacks the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, writes columnist David Ignatius in The Washington Post.
“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States, Ignatius reported on Saturday.
Citing CIA documents, he wrote that a senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.
His reporting supports Obama administration claims that early intelligence reports pointed to a connection between the attacks and a crude, anti-Islam video published online by an amateur U.S. filmmaker once convicted of bank fraud.
According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” a senior official said, Ignatius reported, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. The officie said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House Intelligence Committee.
…
Well the CIA certainly wouldn’t say something that wasn’t true, so yeah this all has to be about the video, and the ultra-right gibbering fluffers at CBS News and the Washington Post are just trying to make trouble.
But seriously Petraeus, the guy everybody loved after McChrystal was canned, needs to be held accountable here. Or maybe Obama will pull a George Bush and just say everybody did a great job.
cjoblak@hotmail.com yousound like the people on Fox News who say the attack on September, 11 in Benghazi, Libya was a terrorist attack against the USA.
Are you saying that it was a terrorist attack? Why are high levels of our Government saying something else and something else? Why did President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton make a T.V. commercial apologizing for the viseo? Why is the person who made the video in jail?
cjoblak@hotmail.com November 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm
The Administration made the cardinal sin of trying to get out in front of it BEFORE they had all the facts, which was stupid and reckless.
People are so accustomed to not trusting government, that the right’s lies, led by the worst fact free carnival barker of them all Sean Hannity, who could put in a thimble what he knows about asymmetrical threats in a teetering state like Libya, are automatically believed. Fox has led on this with Benghazi. It’s too bad, too, because some of their reports were good.
I’ve written again and again the Administration handled the explanation horribly. It’s also obvious that there wasn’t enough security.
However, it’s a HUGE leap from there to “lies” and “cover up,” at least at this point.
This latest news does reveal real problems in the “secret” agreements between Petraeus and Clinton.
However, one of the reasons I didn’t support the NATO mission in the first place is because no one had answered What comes afterward?
Once upon a time we used to have foreign correspondents everywhere. Now we don’t, so we didn’t know what we didn’t know, which you can add on top of all the rest.
Republicans also have to take some heat, because they strangle diplomacy & State at every chance, while maligning foreign officers, aka diplomatic soldiers. If State didn’t have to beg for every goddamn dime perhaps they’d have had better security, not private security, though that’s on Bill Clinton in some ways, because back in the 90s he championed privatization of the military, but that’s a whole ‘nother subject.
What lie was that? The CIA…you know, the guys who keep the President informed and stuff, TOLD the Administration it was exactly what the Administration said it was…until they learned more. You people are ridiculous and rather pathetic really…stop listening to limpwithnoballs and turn off faux not news.
QUOTE ->Fox News Channel, whose reporting has been good and solitary in much of the case, made a huge error in sandwiching these reports in partisan commentary meant to throw the whole blame on President Obama. It colored the information they were reporting. It turned the entire efforts of FNC into what at times looked like a get out the vote spectacle geared in revving up emotion on the issue against Obama, which was seen particularly through Sean Hannity’s disgraceful coverage. Focusing so intently on President Obama’s perceived failings hid the importance of some of what FNC’s security reporters were breaking, most of which revealed real intelligence failures that were far more important than political implications, because there is simply no evidence that President Obama hasn’t been fully engaged and competent on national security during his first term. <-END QUOTE
Taylor – Why do you think the other media outlets dropped the ball on this story?
The GOP majority Congress voted to cut Diplomatic security.
Right or wrong, Obama is responsible.
Who know, perhaps Mitt Romney would of replaced our costly diplomatic security network with lower paid part-time employees and charged the Government $100 million dollars in consulting fees for doing so.
I agree- the very fact that Fox is running with this means, to many open minded people, that it MUST be a fake story designed only to bring Obama down. Hannity, O’Reilly, Kilmeade etc. have dug their own graves with this one- having been caught crying “wolf” a thousand times in the past, when they have what could be a legit story, they lack the credibility to make an impact.
mjsmith November 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Well, a couple of reasons are possible.
The most likely is that there are old hands in the traditional networks who sensed there was a lot not pinned down on the story & they didn’t want to get hung out if something changed as more was known.
MSNBC, backed by long years of NBC News & good foreign correspondent reporting, didn’t have anyone on the ground, to my knowledge, which makes them hesitant. But another reason is Benghazi hurts the All Obama Network’s narrative.
CNN has done some.
The other issue is that the election is not about Benghazi, it’s about the economy. Foreign policy is also in the weeds for most audiences.
Jake Tapper is someone to watch. He’s started to show up on right wing shows like Laura Ingraham talking about Benghazi. He’s given a nod to Fox as well, which I even understand, because *some* of their reporting has been good, though not all. HOWEVER, how they’ve packaged the reporting has been awful.
Obama deserves more criticism on policy than he does on the Benghazi attack so far, frankly, but no one wants to talk about that.
As you all know, I’ve thought David Petraeus was someone who deserved a lot more scrutiny on this as well, if only to find out how the hell the CIA missed the massing energy focused by our enemies inside Libya toward Amb. Stevens.