cbs news has finally begun to cover the obama administration failure to provide for the security of the benghazi embassy and diplomatic compound. this day, cbs has posted a story by sharyl attikisson that the obama administration did not convene an inter-agency terrorism panel, which is designed to use the assets of the entire intelligence community to evaluate terrorism threats, in order to judge what was happening in benghazi.
this panel specializes in evaluating terror attacks. obama/clinton did not see fit to use it, in an environment of heightened and known risk to the embassy, and its personnel.
the article, which reveals the indifference of the white house to utilize this most sophisticated intelligence and security asset is entitled, "sources: key task force not convened during benghazi consulate attack."
you absolutely need to read it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/ . dateline, november 1, 2012 at 6:02 p.m.
these paragraphs indicate just how seriously this matter is taken inside the washington d.c. beltway and the u.s. intelligence apparatus, and also indicate the dimension of the issues raised should the public begin to attend to these matters.--
"cbs news has learned that during the sept. 11 attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi, the obama administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the counterterrorism security group, (csg).
"'the csg is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. they know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,'" a high-ranking government official told cbs news. "'they were not allowed to do their job. they were not called upon.'"
"information shared with cbs news from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the u.s. response on sept. 11, the night ambassador chris stevens and 3 other americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the u.s. consulate in libya.
"the circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a senate intelligence committee closed hearing on nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.
"counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by cbs news express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack."
and, finally, we have an indication in the tenor and tone of this news report that the news agencies are not swallowing the obama/clinton "narratives" of what happened that evening. and, the language of the report clearly indicates that the reporter views this omission as very serious, as does the washington d.c. community.
hey, friends, it is a company town, it is a community, and the people there know ever so much more than we do, and they are tough judges. for this information to be given to a television/newspaper reporter indicates that the opinion of the beltway is that obama and company made serious mistakes, and should be held accountable.
they want the public to know the dimension of the obama/clinton mismanagement of the benghazi attack.
they want the public to know that in their collective and individual professional judgment, the public needs to know just how badly they screwed up.
understand something. this information was given to reporter attkisson are some career risk to the people who forwarded it. these matters were disclosed publically, and were given over by people who felt compelled that this information coming forward is in the public interest. notes attkisson:
"cbs news has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the state department, the u.s. military and the justice department."
this is bombshell stuff, that these people felt compelled to come forward with this. all is not well within this government headed by bark "no bite" obama.
and, as you might expect from the way this has gone to day, the white house attempts to turn aside any suggestion that to convene the csg was error, or caused the obama administration to not adequately perceive the risk that was presented by the attack. (more on that, in a bit.) but, it is obvious, why you look at the story, that reporter attkisson feels that this attempt by the administration to minimize the consequences of not convening the committee is not shared either by her, or by the washington intelligence & defense communities.
i am not making this up. read these passages.--
"as to why the counterterrorism security group was not convened, national security council spokesman tommy vietor told cbs news "'from the moment the president was briefed on the benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. members of the csg were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses.'"
but, this is not what reporter attkisson's sources told her, and they tell her that csg was not involved in the discussions, and that the failure to convene them was costly.--
"absent coordination from counterterrorism security group, a senior u.s. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. the official says the fbi received a call during the attack representing secretary of state hillary clinton and requesting agents be deployed. but he and his colleagues agreed the agents "'would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success.'" [in short, the fbi is not a military outfit, and not equipped and trained for military battle: they needed military protection, and to be taken there by the military: jjjay.]
"another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.
"'forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it,'" the military source told cbs news.
"'The response process was isolated at the most senior level,'" says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "'my fellow counterterrorism professionals and i (were) not consulted.'"
i don't know how it can get any clearer than this. these people are not covering their asses by coming forward, not trying to cover their dereliction.
these are not people airing petty bureaucratic grievances or rivalries. by stark contrast, they are people revealing what they view as grievous misconduct and malfeasance on the part of the obama administration, conduct which they feel cost the united states dearly. these matters of raise very important national security issues, and this prompted their revelations.
they are poeple who have come forward to reveal these matters because they feel duty and honor bound to tell the public what happened, and duty and honor bound to protect the republic.
they wish to protect america. one can only assume that they wish to protect america from foreign and terrorist attack, and one can only assume that they wish as well to protect america from the amateurish actions of obama/clinton, who failed miserably on september 11, 2012 to protect us.
go to the link. read the entire article. see if you can gain any sense of what is being said, other than barack obama and hillary clinton dropped the ball by not attending seriously to the threat to the u.s. mission in benghazi. if you read the cbs article, and you read it in any other sense than i do, then tell me so.
but, the thrust of the article is absolutely clear. the u.s. intelligence and military communities think that obama & clinton dropped the ball, and did not perform their duties as they should. and, the fact that they have come forward at this delicate juncture, just 5 days before the election, means that these people feel there is no forgiveness to be extended to obama/clinton for their amateurish conduct, conduct which cost 4 americans their lives, and which did irreparable harm to u.s. prestige and foreign policy interests.
my guess is that the people who talked with sharyl attkisson don't want to see this repeated. period.
they believe the following of barack obama and hillary clinton, that ---
they were derelict in their duties.
they cost american lives, and the death of a united states ambassador.
they damaged the flag.
and these people want the american public to know it. and, it is quite obvious they would rather not see barack obama reelected.
john jay @ 11.01.2012
related: news on pre-attack happenings that should have alerted the obama administration that the embassy was in danger. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544088/new-documents-reveal-events-leading-up-to-benghazi-attack/?tag=contentMain;contentBody .
this from breitbart. (it seems sharyl attkisson is talking to a lot of people, including military and counter insurgency types. she's mentioned in the breitbart text.) brietbart forwards a cbs news report that lt. col. andy wood, the command of a special forces "site security team" requested more forces to adequately defend the libyan embassy, and that he was turned down just weeks before his own team was relieved from duty there. is this mere stupidity, or was it purposeful? http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id=%7B874E4AB8-BF0E-4BAA-80C6-A96D9BE6CCEE%7D&title=Libya-embassy-staff-told-to-do-with-less .