This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Foreign Policy

  • Curioser and Curioser . . . .

    By now, you’ve all heard (or read in Jonn’s excellent prior article) that the former CIA Director, David Petraeus, testified to Congress that the original CIA assessment of the Benghazi consulate attack indicated the attack appeared to have “al Qaeda involvement”.   Maybe it’s just me 0 but now things starting to get a bit confusing.

    Because I could swear that’s not what we were told originally.  And no one seems to know when the change occurred.

    Here’s what’s been reported so far.  Petraeus apparently testified yesterday that the CIA’s original assessment indicated that the Benghazi attack included participation by “al Qaeda-affiliated individuals”.  This language was contained in the original CIA assessment prepared the day after the consulate attack.  That assessment appears to have been sent to various agencies – including State, the National Security Counsel, Justice, and the White House

    However, the assessment was later changed to read “extremist organizations”.  Obviously, that does not convey the same message as the original.  Al Qaeda is specific; “extremist organizations” could be anyone.

    It also seems that no one can say, precisely, when the assessment was changed.  Nor can they say who made the change.

    Indeed, the current Acting CIA Director, Mike Morell, reportedly doesn’t know who made that change or when it was made.  Ditto for the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

    UN Ambassador Susan Rice had access to both classified and unclassified sources of information about the Benghazi attack before she made her now-famous public remarks on Benghazi.  So she damn well should have consulted the CIA’s assessment on what caused it.

    But the change must have been made before Ambassador Rice ever saw the document.  Because in her famous public remarks on Benghazi, Ambassador Rice blamed the attack on an unreleased film made by a felon.  A film that was at the time unknown to exist by most of the world.

    Either that, or Ambassador Rice . . . simply wasn’t truthful.

    Petraeus still has some explaining to do.  His testimony yesterday doesn’t seem to jibe very well with at least one previous briefing to Congress on the subject.

    But a second source has confirmed that the original language of the CIA assessment was changed as noted above.  Further, both Clapper and Morrell have indirectly done so via failing to challenge Petraeus’ claim that the original assessment was watered down.  So I think we can trust that part of his testimony today.

    And it’s really curious that no one so far seems to know just who made the change – or when.

    I thought this might get interesting.  Looks like it’s beginning to do exactly that.

    And an old question keeps tugging at the back of my mind:  “What did the President know, and when . . . . “

  • Remember That Little Incident in Benghazi?

    Yeah, I do too.  And the folks who were on the ground in Benghazi say what’s coming out of DC isn’t exactly matching up with what they saw.

    Specifically, they say that the timeline which has been released by DC of events that night is not accurate.  They say that the CIA Annex was notified considerably earlier than 9:40PM (local) that there was a problem; that it was obvious several hours prior that an attack was possible; that the local guard force panicked and/or fled before the attack; and that the safe room where Ambassador Stevens was killed was not set up properly, lacking ventilation and fire suppression.  In other words:

    Both American and British sources said, at the very least, the security situation on the ground and the lack of proper response were the result of “complete incompetence.”

    But that’s not all:

    Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to “heavily armed troops showing up with artillery.” Fox News was told by both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only “loosely based on the truth” and “doesn’t quite add up.”

    The same sources also indicate that armed UAVs were indeed readily available in the area.  They also dispute the assertion that other US military assets (FA-18s or AC-130s) were “not available’.

    We now appear to have a couple of contradictory stories.  One is coming from DC; the other is coming from people who were actually there.

    Which story do you think is more likely to be closer to the truth?

  • More News From Egypt

    Want to see what happens when freedom gets pushed to the back seat?  Just look at Egypt.

    An Egyptian TV host is facing 4 months in jail for “insulting the president” on TV.  So much for those pesky Western concepts of free speech and freedom of the press.

    Chrissy-poo Matthews must be so proud – I understand he endorses this kind of thing.  I wonder when he plans to emigrate to Egypt and put his ass where his sentiments are.  (Yeah, right.)

     

    Tell me again why it was such a good idea to stand by idly doing nothing to prevent Egypt from be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood ?

  • Stingers in Syria

    Stars & Stripes is reporting that the Russians claim that Syrian rebels have an unknown number of Stinger missiles.

    Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the military’s General Staff, didn’t say how many such missiles the rebels had and who supplied them. Makarov said Wednesday in remarks carried by Russian news agencies that some of the weapons could have been delivered by commercial airlines, but he didn’t elaborate.

    However, according to Reuters, the Pentagon is denying that the missiles were supplied by the US;

    U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Wednesday he had no knowledge of the United States supplying Stinger missiles to Syrian rebel forces, after Moscow said the rebels had acquired the U.S.-made surface-to-air missiles.

    […]

    A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the United States was unable to confirm that the rebels had acquired U.S. Stingers.

    I’m guessing that most likely culprit is our NATO ally, Turkey, which has been known to be supplying the Syrians rebels with arms. So, I’m sure some rocket scientist troll will claim that the Stingers are left over from when we armed the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, but that’s not possible. Any missiles we gave them and that we weren’t able to buy back after the Soviets left have degraded beyond any serviceable use by now.

    Of course, there are more than 29 nations that field Stingers, so who knows, but since the Russians are pretty mad at the Turks for downing their illegal weapons resupply to the Syrian government a week or so ago, I’m guessing that they’re blowing the whistle on Turkey to even the score.

  • “What Did the President Know, and When Did He Know It?”

    Regarding the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, thanks to Reuters and CBS we now know.

    The President knew – or should have known – that it wasn’t mob violence inspired by a film roughly 2 hours and 32 minutes after the attack had begun.  That’s when the Executive Office of the President was notified that an Islamic fundamentalist group had claimed responsibility.

    And he also knew – or should have known – about 30 minutes after the beginning of the attack that US personnel were under fire and might need help.  It was another 6 1/2 hours before the two US personnel killed defending the “safe house” in Benghazi were killed.

    Officials in the Executive Office of the President were advised at 4:05PM  EDT on 11 September 2012 that the US mission in Benghazi was under attack.  That was 20-30 minutes after the attack had begun.  And the EOP was advised 2 hours and 2 minutes later – at 6:07PM – that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.

    One of the addresses at the EOP to which these alerts were sent was reportedly the one for the White House Situation Room.

    By the next morning, per Reuters there were also indications that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was involved as well.  And the next morning, the CIA station chief in Libya  reported that the attacks appeared to have been deliberate and carried out by Islamic militants vice a spontaneous mob action.

    CBS News had made copies of redacted e-mails documenting the initial reports referenced above.  They can be viewed here.

    “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”  Regarding the Benghazi attack, he knew – or should have known – everything of significance by the next morning.  Yet for over a week his Administration flat-out lied to the American public about what had happened and why.

    My leg’s wet.  And it isn’t raining today.

  • Looks Like It Wasn’t Just the US Consulate in Benghazi That Got Hit

    Fox News is reporting that the “safe house” attacked in Benghazi, Libya, was a little bit more than just a safe place to live.

    The Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi targeted more than just a State Department consulate. One of the buildings hit was a covert CIA installation, U.S. officials told Fox News.

    The article goes on to say that two of the US dead died defending that “safe house” vice the consulate.  And it adds that evidence suggests they were wounded by indirect fire (mortar round) some 7 hours after the beginning of trouble in Benghazi.

    Seven hours.  And we reputedly had a UAV over Benghazi watching events as they happened.

    Maybe I’m on the wrong frequency, and like Kenneth I “just don’t understand”.  But it seems like 7 hours is damn well long enough to do decide to do something to support guys on the ground taking fire.

     

  • Are You Surprised?

    In news from Egypt:

    1. The leader of Egypt’s largest political party – the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice” Party – has indicated that the party’s goal is to “institute Islamic Sharia law.”
    2. The current Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi, was recently seen mouthing the word Amen after a prayer that featured the line, “Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters”.
    3. The Egyptian government has just confiscated the assets of the secular candidate who lost to Morsi in the last election, Ahmed Shafiq – as well as assets belonging to his daughters.

    Someone please refresh my memory.  Tell me again why was it such a good idea for us to stand back and do nothing while Mubarek was overthrown?

  • Washington Post; How Obama lost Syria

    Jackson Diehl writes in the Washington Post today on how Obama screwed the pooch on Syria. I’m sure hell have nightmares about the fact that he kind of said Bush was right in regards to Syria;

    Obama’s Syria policy began in 2009 with the misguided idea of reaching out to the dictator. Within a month of his inauguration, Obama reversed the Bush administration’s approach of isolating Assad. He later reopened the U.S. Embassy and dispatched senior envoys, such as George Mitchell.

    The problem with this policy was not just the distasteful courting of a rogue regime but the willful disregard of the lessons absorbed by George W. Bush, who also tried reaching out to Assad, only to learn the hard way that he was an irredeemable thug. Yet Obama insisted on reversing Bush’s policy of distancing the United States from strongmen like Assad and Hosni Mubarak — a monumental miscalculation.

    When the uprising against Assad began in March of last year, the administration’s first reaction was to predict that he could be induced to coopt it. “Many .?.?. believe he’s a reformer,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That illusion caused the administration to stand by for months while Assad’s security forces gunned down what were then peaceful pro-democracy marchers; not until August 2011 did Obama say that Assad should “step aside.”

    OK, that’s a good place to start. I wish Diehl had qualified who exactly he thought was also responsible for this besides the Obama Administration instead of leaving that hanging out there. But, yeah, the Obama Administration went out of it’s way to reverse most of the Bush foreign policies just, well, because it was a Bush policy. Never mind that those policies had been forged by trial and error. As it turns out, most of the Bush policies have been validated by the Obama Administration either by continuing them or by royally screwing it up. Syria happens to be one of many.

    As countless observers correctly predicted, the subsequent U.N. mission of Kofi Annan was doomed from the beginning. When the White House could no longer deny that reality, it turned to an equally fantastical gambit: Vladi­mir Putin, it argued, could be persuaded to abandon his support of Assad and force him to step down. The nadir of this diplomacy may have been reached on June 30, when Clinton cheerfully predicted that the Kremlin had “decided to get on one horse, and it’s the horse that would back a transition plan” removing Assad.

    Yeah, because Putin always cheerfully makes things easier for us – said no one ever. But Obama has never been alone in this. Remember in 2007 when Nancy Pelosi that foreign policy genius went to Syria to undo the Bush Administration attempts to isolate Bashar Assad. They were all eager to sabotage our efforts in the region just because it was a Republican’s policies not because they had better ideas.

    And today we read in the New York Times that most of the weapons that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are sending the rebels in Syria are ending up in the hands of the more radical (read that jihadists) elements of the rebel movements.

    That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.

    Actions (or inactions) have consequences. And, oh, Syria’s war is spilling over to two of our allies’ countries – Jordan and Turkey. Say “Thank you, Nancy”. How long before we have troops facing those weapons that the Saudis shipped to the region?