Associated Press
Despite congressional Republicans' role in slashing funding for security at U.S. diplomatic outposts abroad, congressional Republicans held a hearing yesterday on security lapses at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The point was to shine a light on what transpired during last month's attack, but lawmakers may have disclosed more than they bargained for.
Dana Milbank noted that House Republicans apparently "accidentally blew the CIA's cover." After Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) "alerted potential bad guys that something valuable" was in a photo shown during the hearing, Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) "attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted."
"I would direct that that chart be taken down," he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. "In this hearing room, we're not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities."
May still be a facility? The plot thickened -- and Chaffetz gave more hints. "I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate," he said, adding that "the activities there could cost lives."
In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member "rapid response force" in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that "not necessarily all of the security people" at the Benghazi compounds "fell under my direct operational control."
And whose control might they have fallen under? Well, presumably it's the "other government agency" or "other government entity" the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI.
It was hard to miss that they were talking about the CIA.
All of this, incidentally, could have been part of a closed-door hearing, in which administration officials and committee members explored images, maps, timelines, and related intelligence in detail, without fear of disclosing classified information. But that would have defeated the purpose.
Issa and congressional Republicans are trying to create an election issue, and a legitimate hearing, dealing with sensitive, classified information out of public view and away from the cameras, wouldn't have had the kind of political impact the GOP wanted.
Republicans wanted to embarrass the Obama administration. In the process, they clumsily painted a new picture: "the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday's hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd."
Issa hearings usually are.
Leave a Comment:
I don't suppose there's any chance of Issa losing his seat in a few weeks?
No.
His electorate is Morons, er, I mean Mormons, and retired Marines, there in Northern San Diego County. These are the people who enthusiastically sent Randy Cunningham to Congress. San Diego: best weather and dumbest inhabitants in California.
I'm with TC, the only place that's sane in Insane Diego (sans alcoholics and smokers) is from the shore to ~1 mile inland, the rest you could nuke from orbit nobody would miss it..
TC: Dude... You live in LA and you're calling *us* dumb?
Having a closed door investigation would defeat Issa's purpose.
A traitor is someone who is willing to betray their country for a purpose they are more loyal to.
Who are the republicans in the House?
The biggest irony is they have the gall to refer to themselves as the true Patriots.
Traitors usually do, John.
We can be assured of the same response to Issa as was the response to Cheney when he outted Plame.
Issa has never let "reality" intrude on his dreams of his own grandeur! And it's just too bad that the voters in Issa's district are on drugs otherwise they would vote out the a$$ that they call their representative!
So budgets have consequences? Who knew?
The republicans obviously don't. That's why they can vote to cut funding to social programs and still believe they are acting in the people's best interests. It's the same logic at work. Deny funds to achieve an objective, then blame the democrats when whatever you've set up to fail, fails.
Did you not hear the State department official say budget cuts played no role in security at Libya? You see when cuts are necessary, you keep money in security and lose the purchase of $47,000 Volt cars. You buy those in prosperous times.
Same tactic that the GOP relies on: Do everything you can to make the government dysfunctional (budget cuts in this case) and then scream bloody murder when the results come in and blame democrats.
In their zeal to promote their agenda at any cost, the GOP is systematically undermining our faith in government, science and society in general.
Perhaps they should consider what a tattered shell of a once great country will remain if and when then win their scorched earth campaign.
@RobDon from 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/177045-panetta-proposed-defense-cuts-would-break-faith-with-troops
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html
MsJoannes, this is testimony from yesterday by the State department official who made the security decisions around the Libya embassy.
So it doesn't matter what others said in 2011 or anytime for that matter. The person who determined the security details around Benghazi said budget cuts ro constraints were NOT an issue.
Skip Hoffman has commented extensively about how he abhors leaks. I know he's not pleased about this.
This will give him a chance to show, yet again, how independent he is by employing his favorite (and only) critique of a Republicans: "both sides do it".
Will this story get the play it needs? The Repubs are always SO sure they have the high ground on security and now, in order to make political hay, they are giving away secrets. Yikes!
These zealots will end up endangering an ongoing plan to hunt for and exterminate the perpetrators and their leaders. Playing dumb about suspicions and what you know are excellent tactics to create overconfidence. Only in GOP world are unintelligent people posted to the intelligence committee.
Calling Darryl Issa Moron and Jason Chaffetz clowns is an insult to clowns. Calling them pigs is an insult to an intelligent animal. They are perfect examples of what Hofstadter was talking about 50 years ago:
"The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition."
Chaffetz is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
"The point was to shine a light on what transpired during last month's attack, but lawmakers may have disclosed more than they bargained for."
No, the point was to try to embarrass the Obama administration and tilt the election toward Romney and Republicans running for the House and Senate. There was no other point to this hearing.
@mpguy - magnificently stated.
What? Politicians are playing political games? Stop the presses!
And the point of continually calling the Libya attack spontaneous reaction to a video despite that now we know the State department watched the attack in real time and there was no protest? Hmmm
When are you going to get mad that the GOP just publicly released sensitive information RD? Or are you just here to throw red herrings about?
RobDon ... Shortly after the four people were killed (and the immediate speculation, driven mainly by the media), both Hillary Clinton and President Obama clearly stated that this was a terrorist attack. Hilary was very quick to point out that the video was little more than an excuse for some well-prepared militants to attack the Consulate.
No, RobDon, they are playing political games with national security.
Again Rice was speaking about two separate issues. Good god I've explained this like five times to you Rob. TWO issues that weren't related, but took place at the same time. This is what happens when you try to narrow the damn world down into a black and white marble that can be easily fit into your otherwise defunct ideology: complexity and context become completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter that there were multiple protests going on around the world, that there was ambiguity as to who and what was going on, and that people didn't want to speak out until they knew better. All that matters is that Obama didn't come out and say what you, in your POST HOC reasoning, now assert he should have said at the time it happened.
80sgirl, the State department brough that information to the hearing. The map that was shown was prepared by them, cleared by the FBI, and then brought by this administration to the public hearing. Cummings (D) said they were cleared, the State department representative said they were unclassified.
I'm not certain on this, but I believe it was also released at a press conference by the State department the day prior, although I don't know this for sure...only a side note. I'll see if I can confirm.
Why do you think it was "sensitive information?"
Cartoon, I understand there was an incident in Egypt and one in Libya. Here's Ms Rice comments about both (sorry sort of long...I typically like short posts):
As you can see, she is saying there was a) a protest in Benghazi (which now they say it was not although State department was monintoring in real time) and b) it wasn't planned. That, to me, rules out terrorist attack, but then again as you point out, I'm sort of slow.
"Good god I've explained this like five times to you Rob."
And he will not hesitate to continue spouting any self-serving bullpucky he thinks is convenient to his propaganda purposes. He has never been here for any legitimate purpose. He obviously enjoys insulting the intelligence of decent people.
Entropy, if you read my previous post you will see that I understood completely that there were "two separate issues," and I posted words from Ms Rice to back up my point.
You on the other hand don't address the issue as usual but only attempt to hurl insults. Sorry if I "insulted" your ignorance.
No what she is saying Rob is that, at the time she gave that statement, it was believed that there were protests taking place at the same time as the attack took place. That was still asserted today which was pointed out in the article I linked to. As best as they can tell there were protests and the attackers used those protests as cover. What Rice was saying- in her ambiguity- was that we did not know if it was a protest gone awry or if it was a calculated attack. Again you aren't addressing the fact that these are two SEPARATE issues going on simultaneously to which she is speaking to. You're deliberately manipulating her words to fit into a black and white narrative that you've retroactively applied to the situation in order to say that she's lying. It's dishonest and full of crap.
6th time I've explained it to you.
Robbywobby doesn't deserve anything but insults (at best). He personifies shamelessness and absence of conscience. He serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
Cartoon, maybe our "two separate issues" are two separate issues. I'm separating the Egyptian incident from the Libya attack. Are you saying there was a protest at Benghazi and an attack at Benghazi as your "two separate issues."
In my situation, Ms. Rice addresses both locations. Under the second scenario above, I think the State department is now saying there was NO protest at Benghazi. The question is what made them think there ever was a protest, especially if they were watching it in real time as Ms. Lamb said.
Last attempt at clarity from my part:
Ms. Rice said about Egypt:
thus, it was a protest.
Ms. Rice said about Libya,
Thus there was a protest and no planned attack, it "evolved." She said on the same day it was not premeditated, meaning "not planned."
Have I addressed both now?
Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin...
No, Etropy, these are called facts, quotes, and sources...you probably aren't very familiar with them.
Lol! You really need to get over yourself, Robbywobby. Whatsa matter poor thing, not getting the respect you think you deserve? Too bad.
Again, Rob, the State Department has said that there were protests going on in Bengahzi at the same time of the attack. See? There were two SEPARATE events going on SIMULTANEOUSLY. The article I linked to went into detail about this. At the time Rice gave that statement it was believed that the protestors escalated into a mob that attacked the US embassy OR that the attackers used the cover of the protestors to launch their assault. We now know that in fact the two were separate issues. At the time Rice gave her statement however we did not know this. You are accusing the administration of lying because the statement given by Rice, at the time, was not certain whether or not they were separate events. Now you say they were attempting to cover it up! when in reality what she was saying was that they thought the protests escalated into the attack. Now we know differently. The entire point here is that your accusation that the administration has been invovled in a cover up is complete bull@!$%# given a. her statement and b. the facts we knew at the time her statement was given. Once again you cannot RETROACTIVELY apply what you know now to what was known then and make the accusation that the person making the statement should've known better. It is post hoc reasoning. You're accusing her of lying because we now know that the attacks and protests were not associated, but at the time she made that statement the best available information said that they were. It was not until late that investigators were able to confirm their segregation. The two issues are separate. Saying that the Administration blamed the film for the attack is a wild inflation of what was actually said and completely obfuscates the complexities going on at the time. THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG
This is now the 7th? time I have explained this to you
"This is now the 7th? time I have explained this to you"
And he will continue to obfuscate, misrepresent, and worse because that is the way he is.
Okay, didn't anyone hear the State department official who made the decision about security in Libya say that budget cuts or a lack of resources played NO part in the security assigned to the embassy? Talk about only reporting or telling half the story! Wow!
Ugh no not really Robby
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578048344154761294.html
Nice try at spin though robby
It is not spin, here's the question and Ms. Lamb's answer:
You can find the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OFCdwVVRhq4#!
The question starts at the 24:30 mark.
Look at the question as it is phrased Rob. You are putting so much spin on this it's crazy. She was asked why didn't you INCREASE the amount of security personnel present. That then leads to the exchange I shared from the above article. She staffed the amount of personnel that, given their current operating intelligence, was necessary. This does NOT access whether her decision was influenced by budget cuts or whether budget cuts affected the State Department and their staffing of personnel to Libya overall. It just accesses why there weren't more people on that particular day.
If you cut a department down from 10 personnel to 5 and on that particular day your intelligence estimates say that you only need 5 people staffed, that means that your decision IN THAT MOMENT wasn't going to be drastically impacted by budget cuts. But even if you HAD put all personnel on base would you have, had enough to defend yourself? No.
The point here is that Republicans are whining about why weren't there more people regularly staffed: there weren't more people regularly staffed because more people weren't available.
Honestly this is a kind've common sense issue to me. If you only have a select number of people to choose from then you choose, based on your intelligence assessments, when to put those people on duty. The fact that you have that limited number is the part that's affected by budget cuts- not your choice of how to staff them on each day.
"The fact that you have that limited number is the part that's affected by budget cuts- not your choice of how to staff them on each day."
There is no way Robbywobby couldn't know that, at least by now, but typical of his ilk, he cares little or nothing about objective reality. He is here solely for malicious partisan ideological purposes.
You are making huge assumption on her decision making process. Security decisions are made on what is necessary to provide adequate protection. If you can't meet that threshold because of limited resources then "yes" budget constraints affect your decision.
On the other hand, if you evaluate and can provide appropriate protection based on limited resources, then "no" budget constraints did NOT affect your decision. This was the scenario as Ms. Lamb described it. I watched the testimony.
Maybe you did, Robbywobby, but we all know that you are a troll.
Read the testimony. They stated that they had limited staffing, but on the day of the attack they did not have intelligence that more people would be needed. Had they been advised that an attack was imminent they likely would've been at full capacity, but even then the staffing would not have been adequate due to the cutbacks.
Again people this is not Obama's 9/11. I am so fing sick and tired of the right-wing's attempt to conflate these two issues. We didn't have pre-eminate knowledge and the administration didn't lie about anything. Sorry, your dude did a bad job in the White House. Grow up and deal with it. I'm sick of this childish whine fest.
Good job "legislators" and Chairman Issa-gonna-Tow-D-Partyline, and I use that word legislators extraordinarily snarkily.. Thank goodness the GOTP Congress is focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs! This should be run as a small portion of a television commercial to expose what is going on in Congress, not what is going on with the President, but pointing to the actions of his opposition over the past 4 years.. Who the Hell is running Obama's campaign anyhow?!
The GOP should be sued for malpractice.
Betrayed by Power, Revealed by Greed:
It is quite the serious possibility for the 'radical' Republicans from Mormon, Utah, to be discovered willing to do anything to advance their cause. It is highly unfortunate that the voters choose to place this Congress people and Senator in office, and to have the share 'intelligence', from Military, Security, FBI, and CIA etc.
It is very clear from the past four years that they (Congress people and Senator) are willing to pass on vital information to foreign agents. Where this simple treason, for unimportant gain that would one matter, but politicians running for high office could just as easily collude with enemies and allies alike to achieve 'high political' effect.
The major problem with using any all and all means to obtain political gain, a new philosophy seen in the Republican Obstructionists movement, is to take power by political means, and then to use that power to further their insidious aims. Thus the republicans oppose a sitting president, attempt to cheat in election by suppression, derail any economic progress to address recession corrupt the courts, and to use raw craven campaign money to purchase the election, or to cause such mayhem that the voters stay home.
So we are being led by the corrupt and incompetent partisans like, Daryl Issa, that we smell the truth, not from the smoking gun, but the smell from sitting too much on their obstructionist hands, soaking up the flatulence, that we also see emanating from their mouths.
The hapless media, needing facts, which are just not possible to have continues to place the apologizing microphones in the faces of capable liars to facilitate their 'honest' opinion. The media fail to see themselves being manipulated, and make deliberate concerted efforts to help derail the election.
When we look at who is to gain and who is to loose, and look in their faces, we see them clearly positioning themselves for personal gain.
So we have a obstructionist movement that opposes the President, and by direct implication 310 million Americans who are being made fools.
American by their 'nature' cannot believe what they are seeing and that is unfortunate.
Why aren't these "Leakers" who are looking to create political strife and partisan advantage, being tried for treason for their dissemination of what should be classified information?
This is a recurring pattern with these people going back to the Bush Administration. National security means nothing to them other than it's just another political stick with which to beat Democrats.
They did it in the 2002 midterms when they told us a man who'd lost three of his four limbs in Vietnam was in bed with Osama bin Laden, so we needed to vote for chickenhawk Saxby ("football knee injury") Chambliss. They did it when Orrin Hatch informed the world that the NSA had been listening in on Bin Laden and his associates' cell phone calls. They did it in the run up to the Iraq war when they outed not just Valarie Plame, but status of the company she and other agents worked worked for as a CIA cover and everyone they'd come in contact with as a potential source because Dick Cheney had a mad. The MSM has politely averted its eyes from the ongoing damage of that affair. The Bush people gave up the name of a double agent the British and Pakistani intelligence agencies had inside al Qaeda when the press started questioning the timing of one of their more brazenly political color coded terror threat elevations and blew the whole op.
They care no more about national security than they do the deficit or the size of government. It's just one more thing to posture about to a press that insists on credulously taking them at their word.
One right leaning site complains how Congressman Chaffitz was followed around by a State Department lawyer when he was in Libya....now it is obvious why.... he might compromise operations there by what he reveals during this oh so grand "hearing"..... In this mad rush to find "something", they have succeeded.....but now it is gradually becoming obvious that if they do not tread lightly, they are going to seriously compromise operations and security.
They could have done a closed door/off camera inquiry, but in their lust to find fault...they have faltered themselves.
We need to give the professionals, who are right now conducting a thorough investigation of the Benghazi tragedy, time to succeed so we can know who did what, track them down and make adjustments so we can continue the mission our guys gave their lives for. I know this won't stop Republicans who have already proven their willing to throw the CIA under the bus (Valerie Plame), but at a minimum they should press the issues we can address now, like funding, and not the ones that risk the investigation or lives. Republicans prove once again that despite their best wishes and baseless rhetoric, the Pres. is a part of the American team and all of us are responsible for the part we play in what this country does. If you refuse funding for State Department security you failed in your role to protect our people. It is truly inspiring to me that despite this and the hypocrisy of not taking responsibility for this, thousands of State Department employees continue to willingly accept the risks, in order to carry out our mission of bringing democracy to the world because they, like the four patriots in Benghazi, believe in it. If Democrats can only get half of this President's economic agenda for moving this country forward and create jobs, Republicans are playing their part in making this a slower recovery than it has to be. Even with only half of the president's economic policies we have created 5.2 million jobs, brought the unemployment rate down from 10.1% to 7.8% and brought stock market back from 5,000 to 14,000. Republicans relentless willingness to obstruct and cut has real-world effects.
The story isn't who is responsible for reduced funds. The story is
WHY DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT OUT A FALSE NARRATIVE On the day and in the subsequent days following the Bendhazi terrorist attack?
Perhaps James Clapper was running the state dept for the day? That's it, Susan Rice is the New James Clapper! Dumb and Dumber?
Of course, had this been Donald Rumsfeld .............then what would you all be saying?
Please don't be so hypocritical. The Obama Adminstration either ignorantly or purposely put forward a false and misleadiing narrative about the attck on Benghazi.
Actually Paddy, the STORY the rest of us have been commenting on is about how Issa's hearing leaked sensitive information publicly. This insanity about the administrations "false narrative" after the attack is what's known as a red herring. It's also known as bullshyte.
What is it exactly about the press conference that the president and secretary of state held THE NEXT DAY in which they said it was terror is incomprehensible to you?
Actually the Administration has already addressed that issue. There wasn't a false narrative put forward: the Administration gave what information it had at the time. For the last goddamn time people you cannot use CURRENT knowledge and then RETROACTIVELY apply it to a situation in which the current information you have wasn't known back at the time period you're applying it to. The BEST information we had at the time was that there were protests and that attack took place under the guise of those protests. Even to this day during the testimonials that was STILL asserted to be true by the State Department.
Jesus H. Christ!
The Republicans in Congress are all Bozos on the Bus, and the chauffeurs driving them are Issa, Boehner, Canter, and McConnell! And, on occasion this political season, Romney and Ryan have taken the wheel and are also heading us into the ditch!
Issa is wasting our time, and putting our security forces in harm's way all for political points in a perverse pursuit of his sense of puissant power now that he finds a gavel in his hands!
Hey Issa, you're a dangerous jerk! -Kevo
Horse hockey
The CIA has been established in Libya for at least 18 months, possibly longer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html
The idea that anybody wouldn't know the CIA routinely operates out of our diplomatic missions is patently ridiculous. In many countries the locals could even give your their names.
Heh isn't this kind've like when people exclaim that if you tell the enemy when we're leaving they'll "know" about it? Cause, ya know, they totally won't notice when those helicopters and tanks suddenly disappear from their backyard ;-)
They knew where and when the Ambassador was going to be. They knew where the safe house was. Somehow or other though, this CIA stuff is going to blow their minds!
Speaking of the devil banned:
Ryan just played the line I quoted above. We don't want to announce when we're leaving because we don't want the enemy to know.
O.O really they AREN'T going to know when we've left?! Because I know I'd notice when I no longer have to hear gunshots every day, helicopters overhead, and tanks and MWRAPs rolling by.
RobDon, having had his Bull Sh.. Republican HQ talking points shoved down his throat with very effective - devastating! - rebuttals by the good crew here at MaddowBlog, has scurried back to Rethug HQ to get some fresh Horse Sh... Don't hurry back RobDon.
if Democrats had leaked classified information like this...
well...you know what would have happened.
From today's Daily Kos:
Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:47 PM PDT
CA-49 Phone Bank Opportunity: To Defeat Rep. Darrell Issa for Re-Election!
by pipsorcle
For any of you who live in California's 49th Congressional District, in California or elsewhere and want to see Rep. Darrell Issa booted out of office after his handling of the hearings on the Fast & Furious fiasco (grilling U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder) and contraception (denying Sandra Fluke the chance to testify) as House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Chairman, you have the opportunity to channel your frustrations by participating in a phone bank for Jerry Tetalman's campaign. In case any of you are not familiar, Tetalman is the Democrat who is challenging Darrell Issa. He has strong progressive beliefs and credentials although it is evident that his campaign operations and cash are not anywhere near Issa's network and war chest.
The details of the phone bank event are as follows (per Jerry Tetalman's website):
If the phone bank is too busy and you guys need other opportunities, I wouldn't hesitate to ask the Tetalman campaign to see if there's anything else you can do to help (i.e. canvassing, honk & wave campaigning, letter writing to newspapers, contacting MSNBC people like Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell, etc.)
For more information on Jerry Tetalman, go to
www.jerryforcongress2012.com
What a bunch of friggin idiots.
If they want to have this fight, let's have it! It's time to expose the Republican Obstructionism that led to the defeat of those requests made by the military for more security. I hate the FAKE PATRIOTISM by this party and it's time to call it out.