Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Monday, December 30, 2013

The New York Times' on Benghazi: A political whitewash & a pack of lies

When the New York Times published "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" (by David D. Kirkpatric) this weekend, Obama Administration supporters -- particularly those backing former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton -- hailed the story as proof they had been right all along: the story said the deadly attack on the "embassy" in Libya was conducted by a group unconnected to al Qaeda, and that it was brought on by a YouTube video they felt slurred Islam.

From the NY Times - Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters

Beginning late Saturday night and continuing on through Sunday's news chat shows, the Clintonistas/Democrats triumphantly paraded Kirkpatric's findings anywhere they could get an audience. It wasn't long, however, before those in the know (from the military, intelligence and diplomatic realms) started coming forward to counter the NYT's report. In short, they were seething with anger over what they perceived as a report that was not only wrong, but also was constructed to protect the legacy of President Obama...and, more importantly, shield Mrs. Clinton from a scandal that could derail her presidential aspirations.

What follows is a piece by Larry Johnson -- reprinted with permission from his fine blog, No Quarter(Disclosure: Larry is a radio colleague.) He worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. 



Understanding the Attack in Benghazi and the NY Times Lie


By Larry Johnson on December 30, 2013 @ No Quarter
Hillary Clinton and her advocates in the media are busy trying to muddle what actually happened in Benghazi, including the decision at Hillary’s State Department to ignore warnings of a deteriorating security situation, and the failure of the Obama Administration to respond competently to the attack as it unfolded. So let’s get the record straight.
This was not an “intelligence” failure. The intelligence correctly noted a worsening threat. It was a policy and leadership failure. The ultimate responsibility for this belongs to Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy. Unfortunately, the Accountability Review Board (which was chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering) was appointed by Hillary, supervised by Patrick Kennedy. Pickering and company decided to not interview Hillary Clinton as part of their bogus investigation. But they did affix blame on Ambassador Chris Stevens for not kicking Washington in the testicles for failing to respond to their repeated requests for more security:
2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.
The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity.
This is the ultimate Washington move–blame the dead guy, who is unable to rebut the allegation, and exonerate the ones who ignored the actual requests for more security.
No one predicted the attack in Benghazi on 11 September 2012. But that’s not unusual. Most terrorist attacks that have occurred over the last 30 years have come without any specific advance warning.
The real problem for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama starts around 4pm Eastern Daylight Time in Washington, DC when the attack started on the so-called “US Consulate” in Benghazi. The facility was not a Consulate. It was a “special facility” and existed primarily to handle the intelligence operations being conducted from the CIA facility at the location now knows as, “The Annex.”
Once the attack started the Operations Center for Diplomatic Security was notified. In accordance with standard procedures for this kind of event, a NOIWON (National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer’s Network) was initiated. This means that the Ops Centers at the White House, the CIA, DOD, the FBI, Homeland Security, the NSA and the National Counter Terrorism Center were alerted. Normally, when those Centers are alerted they start contacting the relevant officers and officials in their organizations who have a need to know.
At State Department, the Ops Center was instructed to NOT NOTIFY the Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism. The Senior CT official in charge of handling overseas responses to terrorist attacks found out about the assault when he received a phone call from military Special Operations personnel who, in response to this news, initiated planning, per standing orders, for a possible overseas contingency response. What does that mean in English? We alerted our shooters to stand by to pack their bags and prepare to move Libya to help rescue US personnel and stop the bad guys. However, they do not move without an order from the President. They can pack their bags, but will not board aircraft unless Barack Obama says go. Obama dithered.
Obama met with Secretary of Defense Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff around 5pm. The attack in Benghazi had been underway for almost an hour. More alarming was the news from the front–Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing. No one knew where he was. Was he kidnapped? Dead? In hiding? No one knew. That’s the critical point.
As someone who has been involved in the response to these kinds of incidents for 25 years, and my experience includes helping train special ops forces for responding to these kinds of incidents, what did not happen next is truly shocking. Normally, a Secure Video Telephone Conference would be convened. This is the CSG (aka: the Counter Terrorism Security Group). The CSG consists of representatives from the US national security community who are experts in terrorism and the possible responses/options that should be recommended to the President.
But this groups was not convened. The Department of State, and I’m talking Hillary Clinton and Pat Kennedy here, in coordination with the National Security Council, and this includes current CIA Director John Brennan, decided not to assemble the CSG because they did not want to admit that a terrorist attack was taking place on the anniversary of the 2001 attacks that devastated America.
I do not blame Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton for not having full info about what was happening in Benghazi. That is fog of war. That is normal. But they did know one critical, undeniable fact–AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS WAS MISSING. And what did they do? NOTHING!!
No tasking of intelligence assets. No contingency planning for finding and rescuing Stevens. Nothing but Crickets. It is essential for the American public to understand that the machinery of Government dedicated to combating terrorism that normally would have been activated to start planning and gathering resources was frozen. This was a deliberate, conscious decision by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Instead, the response was handled piece meal. The US National Counter Terrorism force eventually was alerted and deployed, but they left late and arrived in the theater long after the attack had ceased.
One other important point to note. Once mortars were fired on the CIA Annex, it was clear, with no doubt, that this was a pre-planned, organized attack. A retired military officer at the Department of State, an individual with experience in training and employing mortar squads, knew immediately the implications of mortar fire on the CIA site. This was not a weapon of opportunity nor serendipity. It was pre-planned. The mortar is a crew served weapon and was “sighted” in on the CIA base. What does that mean? The terrorists who were firing the mortar had trained in advance to ensure they could fire the weapon a specific distance to hit the target.
And what did Hillary and Obama initially claim? That this was a spontaneous riot incited by an obscure anti-Muslim video. That was a lie. Knowledgeable, experienced military officers communicated the reality of the mortar fire to Secretary Clinton and to the White House. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton chose to ignore those informed briefings.
As the attack unfolded in Benghazi, no one in Washington or on the ground in Benghazi knew how long the attack would last. There was no prior warning that the assault would be confined to a set period of time. So why did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton react so passively? That is the key question they have refused to answer.
They deliberately covered up what happened and embarked on a propaganda campaign to deceive the American people. Remember what Susan Rice told ABC’s Jake Tapper?
ABC’s “This Week”:
JAKE TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We’re hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They’re saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaeda ties. What’s the latest information?
MS. RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
This was not the result of fog of war. This was a lie. A deliberate deception.
If the American public could get access to the Top Secret briefings that were prepared for Senior Policymakers, including Obama, Clinton and Panetta, on the evening of September 11th regarding what was unfolding in Benghazi, they would be shocked by the clarity and specificity that was available early on. The people/group involved in the attack was quickly identified thanks to the work of one of the US intelligence agencies. As House Intel Committee Chairman noted on Fox News Sunday, an Al Qaeda affiliate was clearly identified as having a critical role in the attack.
It is essential to keep these facts in mind as the New York Times and other media outlets try to confuse and deceive the American public. What happened in Benghazi on the 11th of September 2012 was a premeditated terrorist attack against US citizens, who were denied requested security assistance by their Government, carried out by Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda. This is not a theory. This is a fact.


Monday, May 30, 2011

Honoring those who have sacrificed...

Remembering.



On this Memorial Day, 2011, we remember those who have gone before us...and those who gave all.


World War II Memorial, Washington, D.C...



-- And remember the Gold Star Moms and Gold Star Dads.



--Not all of the brave carry a rifle: "US medics brave fire to save lives in Afghan war"...


Pacific Theater/World War II Memorial, Washington, D.C...



Atlantic Theater/World War II Memorial, Washington, D.C...

--In one of the most stirring speeches honoring the heroes of World War II: President Ronald Reagan commemorates the 40th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion/D-Day (clip below).


Want to know more about the history of Memorial Day? Check out this article in the New York Times.

World War II Memorial, Washington, D.C...

Finally, "For the Fallen"...


Wednesday, September 22, 2010

"We can absorb a terrorist attack"



Veteran journo Bob Woodward's latest book, "Obama's Wars," won't be released until Monday, but it's already raising eyebrows.

Among the revelations in the book (according to the Washington Post):

-- [President Barack] Obama told Woodward in the July interview that he didn't think about the Afghan war in the "classic" terms of the United States winning or losing. "I think about it more in terms of: Do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end?" he said.

-- The CIA created, controls and pays for a clandestine 3,000-man paramilitary army of local Afghans, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams. Woodward describes these teams as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there.

-- Obama has kept in place or expanded 14 intelligence orders, known as findings, issued by his predecessor, George W. Bush. The orders provide the legal basis for the CIA's worldwide covert operations.

-- A new capability developed by the National Security Agency has dramatically increased the speed at which intercepted communications can be turned around into useful information for intelligence analysts and covert operators. "They talk, we listen. They move, we observe. Given the opportunity, we react operationally," then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained to Obama at a briefing two days after he was elected president.

-- A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer." He said: "When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one where you can't afford any mistakes."

-- Afghan President Hamid Karzai was diagnosed as manic depressive, according to U.S. intelligence reports. "He's on his meds, he's off his meds," Woodward quotes U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry as saying.

--By the end of the 2009 strategy review, Woodward reports, Obama concluded that no mission in Afghanistan could be successful without attacking the al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens operating with impunity in Pakistan's remote tribal regions. "We need to make clear to people that the cancer is in Pakistan," Obama is quoted as saying at an Oval Office meeting on Nov. 25, 2009. Creating a more secure Afghanistan is imperative, the president said, "so the cancer doesn't spread" there.

Bob Woodward...

The part that bringing the most attention/criticism has been this: "Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, 'We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.'"

So, is this about "acceptable losses" or is it justifiable pride in the nation's strength and resiliency? The biggest criticism against this line of thinking is that "the best defense is a good offense." Chiefly, there are those at the Pentagon, Langley, Foggy Bottom - heck, even in the administration - who think there is no such thing as "acceptable losses."

The quote does ring a familiar bell...


General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

(via IMDB)

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Did Obama [screw over] the CIA?

This was written by Larry Johnson - a former CIA employee, a counter terrorism expert and a frequent guest on TV/radio shows. His blog, No Quarter, is considered a must-read for those interested in the intersection of national security, military, intelligence and geopolitical issues. I highly recommend No Quarter, where the post (below) currently appears.


Larry Johnson...

Did Obama [screw over] the CIA?
By Larry Johnson on January 2, 2010 at 11:59 PM

Short answer? Yes! President Barack Obama’s public statement of condolence last Thursday regarding the suicide bombing of a CIA base in eastern Afghanistan may have been heartfelt but it was a bonehead move.

In fact, it probably puts more CIA personnel at risk and compromises a CIA operation. Obama issued the following statement last Thursday:

Full text: Obama statement to CIA
Obama said he relied on the fruits of the CIA’s work every day. U.S. President Barack Obama has sent his condolences to CIA staff after the US spy agency confirmed seven officers were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan on Wednesday, 30 December 2009. Here is the full text of the US president’s letter:

To the men and women of the CIA:
I write to mark a sad occasion in the history of the CIA and our country.
Yesterday, seven Americans in Afghanistan gave their lives in service to their country.
Michelle and I have their families, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers.
These brave Americans were part of a long line of patriots who have made great sacrifices for their fellow citizens, and for our way of life.
The United States would not be able to maintain the freedom and security that we cherish without decades of service from the dedicated men and women of the CIA.
You have helped us understand the world as it is, and taken great risks to protect our country.
You have served in the shadows, and your sacrifices have sometimes been unknown to your fellow citizens, your friends, and even your families.
In recent years, the CIA has been tested as never before. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, you have served on the frontlines in directly confronting the dangers of the 21st Century.
Because of your service, plots have been disrupted, American lives have been saved, and our Allies and partners have been more secure.
Your triumphs and even your names may be unknown to your fellow Americans, but your service is deeply appreciated.
Indeed, I know firsthand the excellent quality of your work because I rely on it every day.
The men and women who gave their lives in Afghanistan did their duty with courage, honor and excellence, and we must draw strength from the example of their sacrifice.
They will take their place on the Memorial Wall at Langley alongside so many other heroes who gave their lives on behalf of their country.
And they will live on in the hearts of those who loved them, and in the freedom that they gave their lives to defend.
May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.

So what is the problem? Nice sentiment. Right? Wrong. Acknowledging the location of a CIA base in a theater of war compromises mission and puts people at further risk. Here is the implication going forward–the CIA will close this base and have to find another. Anyone else who comes to this base will be assumed to be a CIA operative. While I can appreciate the political imperative to appear sympathetic to the loss of lives at the CIA, Obama had a larger responsibility–protect the CIA and their mission and ultimately the nation.

The fault does not entirely lie with Obama. The CIA was sloppy in providing operational cover for these people. Let’s face it. If the deceased had operated under military cover we would only be mourning the loss of six more military personnel. No one outside of the Agency or the families of those who died would have realized the CIA took a hit.

But most of the dead were under State Department cover. Hell, the frigging White House did nothing to try to cover that position. Instead, Barack compounded the problem of CIA’s inadequate cover by going public with his statement of condolence. I don’t ascribe a malevolent intent to Obama. This is just another example of an amateur not ready for prime time.

Barack Obama is not the first one to help blow the cover of a CIA operation. Remember the death of John Michael Spann at Kala-i-Jangi prison in Afghanistan in November of 2001? George Tenet, the CIA Director at the time, did everything short of crawling into Spann’s coffin. He too made a public spectacle of something that should have been kept low key and out of sight.

And let’s not forget the Bush Administration’s outing of CIA ops officer, Valerie Plame. I don’t want to see Republican’s doing high dungeon over Obama’s exposure of the CIA mission in Afghanistan when they came up with all sorts of bullshit justification for ruining the career of a frontline ops officer who was busy trying to collect intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

Once again a President is playing politics with the CIA. I hated it under Bush and I hate it under Obama. The CIA should not be a political football but politicians cannot help themselves. They want to play this game.


The president, joined by Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta, addressed CIA employees at the agency's headquarters in Langley, VA, last year. The men are standing in front of Memorial Wall, which is adorned with stars representing CIA members who have given their lives in the line of duty. Seven new stars will be added following a suicide bomber's attack on an agency base in Afghanistan last week.