To fully appreciate Geraldo Rivera's two appearances on Fox News (Fox & Friends and then the O'Reilly Factor) to discuss Benghazi-gate, consider three issues relative to the attack:
The lack of security for months leading up to the attack
The attack itself coupled with the Obama administration's failure to respond
The decision to point to the anti-Muhammad video for two weeks after the attack
Rivera has decided to side with the administration lock, stock, and barrel but he obviously believes that a vigorous defense of team Obama on issue number 2 is the best course. He obviously wants to talk about the other two issues as little as possible. When Eric Bolling brings up issue number 3, Geraldo shamefully doubles down on issue number 2 while also implying that Tyrone Woods' father is a liar but only because the father of the slain Navy SEAL has been misled by right-wing partisans (yes, that sounds like an insult to Charles Woods' intelligence).
Geraldo has no answers for issues number 1 and number 3 (this becomes blatantly obvious in his interview with O'Reilly, who made Rivera look like an unhinged adolescent who was growing increasingly frustrated with his inability to successfully argue with an adult).
That night, Geraldo appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to discuss Benghazi-gate in general and his exchange with Bolling in particular. To call what Geraldo did filibustering would make a seasoned politician blush. O'Reilly kept pushing Rivera to talk about issue number 1 but the Fox News liberal simply couldn't go there until about three minutes in and even then, he meandered around the issue and actually said he hates to agree with O'Reilly, which could explain why he refuses to lower the self-constructed firewall he's placed in front of the common sense region of his brain.
O'Reilly makes mincemeat of Geraldo here. Actually, Geraldo does it to himself and O'Reilly seems to enjoy watching him do it.
On the heels of a classified cable provided to Catherine Herridge of Fox News that shows Christopher Stevens issued a cry for help to Hillary Clinton's office on August 16th that was ultimately ignored, Foreign Policy has come into possession of two damning letters for the State Department, obtained from the consulate. House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz have taken notice and are demanding answers from Clinton.
One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads:
"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.
A potential bold red flag is raised about Obeidi a little later in the article:
Obeidi, the Libyan official named on one of the printouts, said he had not received any such letter, adding, "I did not even know that the U.S. ambassador was visiting Benghazi." However, a spokesman for the Benghazi police confirmed that the ministry had notified the police of the ambassador's visit. "We did not receive that letter from the U.S. consulate. We received a letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Benghazi asking for additional security measures around consulate during visit of the ambassador. And the police provided all extra security which was asked for," the spokesman said.
So Obeidi is essentially pleading total ignorance when it comes to being aware that Stevens was even in Benghazi while a spokesman for the police says his office was made aware. Perhaps the claim that Obeidi never saw one of the documents that mentioned him by name could be believed (because they were found in the consulate) but his not knowing that Stevens was in Benghazi strains credulity. Even if he is to be believed about that, he should have known, which still points to the likely infiltration of security forces.
Here is an excerpt from the letter to Clinton from Issa and Chaffetz:
These documents paint a disturbing picture indicating that elements of the Libyan government might have been complicit in the September 11, 2012, attack on the compound and the murder of four Americans. It also reiterates the fact that the U.S. government may have had evidence indicating that the attack was not a spontaneous event but rather a preplanned terrorist attack that included prior surveillance of the compound as a target.
Given the location where they were found, these documents appear to be genuine and support a growing body of evidence indicating that the Obama Administration has tried to withhold pertinent facts about the 9/11 anniversary attack from Congress and the American people.
Issa and Chaffetz conclude the letter with a demand for answers about why the State Department said there were no indications that anything was wrong at the consulate at all on 9/11/12. Pointing to an October 9, 2012 State Department briefing in which it was alleged that "Everything was calm at 8:30 p.m." the Oversight Committee members rightfully raise concerns that the documents recovered at the scene by FP belie that claim.
They want answers by November 8th.
To view the two documents recovered by FP, click here and scroll to page 4.
There was quite an interesting mass e-mail waiting for me this morning from Darrell Issa's press secretary. In a letter sent to Barack Obama by Oversight Committee chairman Issa and Committee member, Jason Chaffetz, the two Republicans are asking some very hard questions and demanding answers about Benghazi-gate. The implied charge is made fairly early on in the letter that the poor security which existed in Libya was the result of a policy of "normalization" in that country. If true, that would make the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three other Americans, the likely result of political decisions.
From the very first paragraph of the letter, via Oversight:
Information supplied to the committee by senior officials demonstrates that not only did the administration repeatedly reject requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels. We have been told repeatedly that the administration did this to effectuate a policy of "normalization" in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war. These actions not only resulted in extreme vulnerability, but also undermined Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission.
Issa also called Obama on the fact that several members of his administration - to include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House press secretary Jay Carney - repeatedly blamed the attack on Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muhammad video. After factoring in the matter of the video, one can easily connect the dots of plausibility:
...if administration officials indeed reviewed security reports on a daily basis, they would have seen the overwhelming evidence prior to the 9/11 attack that terrorists were actively targeting westerners in Benghazi.
This introduces three variables into the investigation.
Normalization: The administration wanted to 'normalize' Libya after Gadhafi was overthrown, a noble goal to be sure but not one that should be wished into existence for political reasons, especially if an opposite reality is the one that exists. 'Normalization' may just be the key to unlocking much of what happened.
Implausible Deniability: Between the number of catalogued security incidents and the repeated requests for beefed up security, there were far too many red flags for decision-makers in the administration to be able to claim plausible deniability if something happened. Something did happen; four Americans were murdered (not reading reports and memos was an excuse given by Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious investigation).
The Video: If normalization was the goal and denial of security was the means, we're talking major scandal in the wake of four dead Americans. It would point to a political agenda trumping human life (Fast and Furious was about furthering the gun control agenda by putting guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels that resulted in ending many human lives). That's before we get to any sort of cover-up. A consequence (unintended or otherwise) of blaming the video, was that Obama administration actually aligned itself with the Islamists, who pointed to the video as a reason to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. In blaming the video, the Obama administration was facilitating attacks on the first amendment.
Back to the letter...
According to Assistant Regional Security Officer David Oliveira - who was stationed in Benghazi from June 2, 2012, to July 5, 2012 - "they (local guard force) felt that the U.S. was a target and they felt that they didn't want to work overnight... A Facebook posting also called for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and provided details of his jogging route in Tripoli along with his picture.
Issa points to an unfathomable event in Benghazi that was met with an unfathomable non-response from Washington, smack dab in the middle of that June 2 - July 5 window:
...al Qaeda organized a rally in Benghazi. On or about June 10, 2012, fighters from Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Mali paraded through the streets with weapons and black flags... These events were the subject of an early July country team meeting where Ambassador Stevens and others expressed their concerns about these develeopments and the need for increased security. According to one participant, this "fell like a dead fish on the table" because everyone, including Ambassador Stevens, knew that the Embassy lacked support from Washington, D.C., and could do little about it.
Also within that time frame - on June 6th, in the middle of the night - a white truck approached the compound, an Islamist got out of the truck, and placed a bomb along the consulate's perimeter wall. Check out the first 17 of these 45 photos provided by sent as attachments to the letter. The first three show the white truck approaching the front gate. Photos 4-17 show the hole that was blown through the perimeter wall.
With that as a backdrop, check out this excerpt from Issa's October 19th letter (page 6):
In August 2012, Ambassador Stevens continued to warn Main State of a "security vacuum" being exploited by independent actors. He further noted that "Islamist extremists are active." His warnings culminated with two cables in September 2012 in which he notified the State Department that Benghazi had entered a state of "maximum alert" and that Islamist influence was expanding in Derna. His last notification came on September 11, 2012, the day he was assassinated.
Ranking member of the Oversight Committee, while accusing Issa of playing election year politics with the Benghazi attack, apparently decided to engage in some politicizing of his own. Before I get into the "normalization" aspect of Issa's letter, take a look at what Cummings said at the October 10th hearing. Also take note of the, 'never let a crisis go to waste' dynamic at work here. Cummings alleges that Republicans in the House cut funding for security. Cummings likely saw a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity.
By pointing to Republicans, he attempted to shift blame for Stevens' murder away from the administration and toward Issa's Party. He was also shamelessly attempting to lay the ground work for increased funding as a direct result of this attack.
There are a few problems for Cummings at this point. First, according to Issa's letter (page 8), the cost of the Security Support Team (SST) in question was absorbed by the Defense Department, not the State Department. Second, the State Department actually increased "danger pay" for its employees in Libya while removing security. Third, Charlene Lamb, the woman who withheld security from Benghazi, testified at the October 10th hearing that lack of funding had nothing to do with the withdrawal of security:
Also on page 8 of Issa's letter, he writes the following:
According to witnesses and documents received by the Committee, the administration made a policy decision to place Libya into a "normalized" country status as quickly as possible. The normalization process... appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse.
Before concluding the letter, Issa points a finger directly at the White House National Security Council (NSC), which is chaired by the President of the United States. In essence, Issa is pointing the finger of culpability directly at Obama himself:
These critical foreign policy decisions are not made by low or mid-level career officials - they are typically made through a structured and well-reasoned process that includes the National Security Council at the White House. The ultimate responsibility rests with you as the President of the United States.
To underscore this point, check out this excerpt from Whitehouse.gov about who makes up the NSC and who attends the meetings:
The NSC is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
I've posted this exchange between Lamb and Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) from the October 10th hearing before but it's provides a look into how the Oversight Committee might best proceed in the context of determining the level of culpability the NSC might have had in the deaths. The relevant portion comes in the first minute. Note how Adams asks Lamb if the latter had sole discretion to deny security to the consulate. After being told "no", Lamb is asked to provide names of those who did. She coughs up two names at the 1:00 mark.
If the NSC is responsible, those two men didn't have sole discretion either. Both should be placed under oath and be made to tell the committee if they acted on their own or were instructed to refuse security requests.
In this exchange between a very pale-looking David Axelrod, senior adviser to Barack Obama, and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Axelrod is asked to respond to Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter's remarks that the Benghazi attack is such a big story is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Expectedly, Axelrod doubles down and charges that Romney has politicized the attack and points to an interview Ambassador Chris Stevens' father gave to Bloomberg in which the senior Stevens denounced the politicization of his son's murder.
Axelrod then implies that anyone who discusses the attack isn't honoring the wishes of Stevens' father by saying everyone should wait until the investigation into the attack is completed. Forget the fact that the administration, at minimum, has a conflict of interest when leading any such investigation because it's shaping up to be a major scandal. Simply leaving it in the hands of people who answer to the administration is not acceptable.
Wallace, who was visibly agitated at the insinuation, stops him and points out that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told five different Sunday talk shows on September 16th that the attack was in response to a video, which proved to be demonstrably false.
After Oversight Committee member, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Regional Security Officer in Benghazi, Eric Norsdtrom, if the latter ever thought he was going to have his requests met by the State Department, Nordstrom delivered a two minute answer that you've got to see. If you've ever had to deal with the bureaucratic machinations of any entity, you should be able to relate directly to the source of Nordstrom's frustration here.
If you can stand it, the first 4:45 of this clip is an exchange between Jordan and State Department bureaucrat, Patrick Kennedy, whose ramblings are reminiscent of an obfuscating pencil pusher with the protection of the bureaucracy he serves being the sole purpose of his existence. It's sad, really. At the 4:45 mark, Jordan obviously gets disgusted with Kennedy's response, and tees up a question for Nordstrom that involved a response that included a metaphor which likened the State Department to the Taliban.
Nordstrom: "For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."
This exchange between Michelle Malkin and Juan Williams came one day after Joe Scarborough, the man whose checks are signed by the propaganda arm of the Obama administration - MSNBC - lumped conservative bloggers into one big pot before ridiculing them for being ineffective and irrelevant. Translation? Those conservative bloggers are pretty darned effective and relevant.
Fast forward one day later. While discussing the White House national security leaks, Williams felt it necessary to identify himself as a 'real reporter' and 'not a blogger.' Naturally, Malkin to offense at this and then proceeded to thoroughly shred Williams for his condescension and for being - among other things - a 'snotty... liberal elite journalist'. The best part is that Williams proves her point with his condescending eye rolls in response.
The good news? A common theme is developing among the liberal media. The conservative bloggers are winning and people like Scarborough and Williams secretly know it. Whenever they ridicule bloggers, it's reflective of their inability to admit it publicly. The most egregious example is Fast and Furious. After 18 months, the truth about the scandal - as well as the truth about how the liberal media covered it up - is coming out.
This is an instant classic. Is it racist to enjoy watching a filipino, conservative, female, blogger rip a black, liberal 'real reporter' to shreds?
There seems to be a very interesting dynamic developing among members of Congress. First, there appears to be more outrage over the national security leaks that Democratic pollster Pat Caddell says rather emphatically came from National Security Advisor Tom Donilon than over Fast and Furious. This is very likely because the leaks have some prominent Democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) outraged where support for the Fast and Furious investigation is still largely partisan. Second, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, these leaks seem to have compounded what anger did exist over the botched gun walking program previously.
Senator John Cornyn provided one example of this at the June 12th Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, when he referenced both and concluded - to Holder's face - that the Attorney General should 'resign.'
Senator Lindsey Graham provided another example. While Graham referenced Fast and Furious, he did so in the scope of a larger argument about the leaks. In particular, what has the Senator from South Carolina's dander up here is who Holder appointed to investigate the leaks - two Justice Department Attorneys. Graham wants someone a bit more independent. He also makes very sound arguments while making reference to two scandals that took place under the Bush Administration - Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff.
Holder has literally no coherent response to the inconsistencies pointed out by Graham when it came to Democratic insistence that independent counsel be provided under the previous administration but not here, with national security leaks that potentially border on treason.
One of the arguments from those who have a big problem with these leaks is that people have died - and will continue to die - as a result. That does sound a bit like Fast and Furious, does it not? Hundreds of Mexicans have been killed already and more will, which Holder himself has admitted, as long as F&F guns are out there. Another similarity is Holder's insistence that the DOJ Inspector General conduct the investigation into Fast and Furious. That investigation coverup has been going on for well over a year and a half.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing today, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) lit into Attorney General Eric Holder. Shortly after Cornyn told Holder that the Attorney General had 'violated the public trust,' the Senator from Texas then told Holder that he should 'resign.' Clearly adding to Cornyn's anger are the recent revelations of national security leaks that have originated from the White House.
Before launching into his problems with Fast and Furious, Cornyn expressed frustration with Holder's appointment of two non-independent Attorneys to investigate those national security leaks. Cornyn is clearly not ok with these two individuals reporting to Holder directly and to make his case as to why, he segued into Operation Fast and Furious.
If Obama is behind the leaks, Holder has reason to be angry with the President because by leaking national security secrets, the White House has essentially kicked the already disturbed hornet's nest that is Fast and Furious.
Holder clearly is taking the brunt of it here, one day after it was announced that the contempt hearing would be held on June 20th.
This is a must-see exchange. The arrogance of Eric Holder is very difficult to beat.
Imagine a scenario in say, 2003, in which then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice leaked national security information about which Al-Qaeda prisoners had been subjected to rendition and what countries they were sent to.
The equivalent has happened in the Obama administration, according to none other than Democratic Strategist Pat Caddell. He says that National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is the man behind the national security leaks in the Obama administration.
While appearing on CNN's State of the Union yesterday, John McCain was visibly concerned and said that Americans should be 'disturbed' as a result of the Obama administration leaking classified information about national security. Perhaps the Senator should have taken seriously American citizens at town hall meetings four years ago.
First up, to his credit, McCain insists that the national security leaks came from the Obama administration.
Remember this?
Is it me or does the Senator appear a bit scared now?
Back in 2010, when news surfaced that Iran's nuclear program had been targeted by the very crippling Stuxnet virus, the origin of Stuxnet remained a mystery, though the U.S. and Israel were primary suspects. Now, thanks to the Obama administration seemingly wanting to take credit for the cyber attack in a way similar to how it has milked the bin Laden raid for political advantage, much of that mystery is gone. At least some Israeli officials feel that it would be better that the truth be known than to let Obama use the virus as a political weapon on the eve of an election.
They (Israeli officials) said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy. In our book, Spies Against Armageddon, we will reveal much more about the special strategic relations and cooperation between the CIA and the Mossad and the importance given by the Aman (military intelligence) to cyberspace warfare.
Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”
Obama is getting sloppy and desperate. Unfortunately, national security is being sacrificed in the process.
Ret. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was on Fox and Friends yesterday morning to discuss the controversy over the national security leaks that allegedly came from the White House, despite Obama's claim that such a charge is "offensive."
Shaffer knows intelligence. He was an integral part of Able Danger, a data mining program that identified 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, one year prior to 9/11. It's obvious that Shaffer is spitting mad about these leaks. It is his contention that these leaks originated at the "National Security level" at a minimum.
As for Able Danger, it was largely Shaffer's work on that operation, and how he stood up to the full governmental assault against him, that I thought warranted an entire chapter in my upcoming book, Unsung Davids, to tell his very courageous story.
Senate Republicans have decided to swing at the slow, high-hanging softball that Barack Obama and the New York Times gave them yesterday. It's laughably obvious that when Obama said he found it "offensive" to suggest that his White House leaked national security secrets to the New York Times, someone was lying because the Times article referred to "three dozen" former and current White House employees who provided them the information.
President Obama at a press conference this morning insisted that high-level national security leaks are not coming from the White House. "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive," President Obama said.
But a Republican memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee maintains that either the president or the New York Times is wrong.
"It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time," the memo states.
For proof, the memo highlights Obama's denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times's stories.
"If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process 'to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'" the memo states. "One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying 'three dozen' of the President’s 'current and former advisers' were interview sources for the story."
Perhaps the biggest indicator that it is Obama who is lying is that the Managing Editor for the New York Times actually threw his own paper under the bus to a competitor - POLITICO:
“I can’t believe anybody who says these are leaks,” Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet told POLITICO. “Read those stories. They are so clearly the product of tons and tons of reporting.”
Obama appeared to point to those comments Friday when he stated: “The writers of these articles have all stated unequivocally that [the information] didn’t come from this White House.”
Isn't it obvious what's going on? The New York Times told the truth then, in the article about where it got its information; Obama is lying about the White House not being a source; and the New York Times is lying now to run interference for Obama.
So to answer the Senate Republican Policy Committee's question about who's lying, the answer is "both."
As I watched Barack Obama tell the White House Press Corps. (pronounced "corpse") that he found it "offensive" for anyone to suggest that his White House was responsible for leaking national security secrets to the New York Times, I remembered Attorney General Eric Holder using the same term when pressed by Rep. Darrell Issa last year at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. In both instances, both men (Obama and Holder) appeared to be lying their faces off.
There are countless lies to chronicle from both Barack Obama and Eric Holder but let's focus on one each. First, Obama is a liar when it comes to his denial that he was a member of the Socialist "New Party." Eric Holder is a liar when it comes to his May 3, 2011 testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee at which he said he'd learned about Fast and Furious for the first time "a few weeks" earlier. He later had to admit that he learned about the operation in February, more than a couple of months earlier.
Given that Obama lied about his membership in the "New Party" as well as the way he did it, with a vehement denial and smear of the person who levied the charge, the prospect that Obama is lying about anything, especially when he does so vehemently, should be on the table. After all, he lied about not being a socialist party member simply because it was politically expedient in an election year.
Now, to the videos. The first one is from today's press conference. Watch it all if you have time but fast forward to the 2:30 mark if you don't. This is where Obama suffers a bout of righteous indignation and tells the world that...
"...the notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive; it's wrong and people need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how people around me here approach this office..."
Be sure to continue on to the Holder video after viewing this one...
Now, at this House Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011 Rep. Darrell Issa grilled Holder about operation Fast and Furious. During this exchange, Issa made it clear to Holder that Congress wasn't interested in looking at the straw purchasers who placed guns in the hands of drug cartels; he was looking at the leadership in Holder's Justice Department. Here is part of Holder's response (6:40 mark):
"...I'm going to take great exception to what you just said. The notion that somehow or other this Justice Department is responsible for those deaths that you mentioned, that assertion is offensive."
In light of what we now know, Holder is no longer making such an argument. Issa has copies of wiretap applications in his possession that prove Holder's being offended is unwarranted, righteous indignation (see Obama above).
To wrap this all up, consider that the New York Times article from last week specifically cited more than 30 White House sources when writing about much of the sensitive national security information in question.
The Times claimed to have spoken to three dozen current or former advisors about Obama’s role in the process. Hard for me to believe that all of them were eager to talk, but between quiet encouragement from the White House and/or the “here’s what I already know” rap from the reporter, they probably ended up feeling obliged.
Hot Air goes on to cite a POLITICO story that quotes NYT's managing editor as saying the White House had nothing to do with leaking the information. Ok, this necessarily means that either the authors of the May 29th New York Times article lied or the paper's Managing Editor is lying.
Don't you find it offensive that the New York Times, Eric Holder and Barack Obama are all liars?
