The Assignment of the CIA Annex in Benghazi

Posted on October 20, 2015October 20, 2015 by Denise Simon

We keep asking what the CIA annex was actually tasked with doing in Benghazi. It was nothing nefarious but more to control what Hillary and her team were doing. Remember, the CIA is subservient to the White House and State Department. The Hillary-Benghazi testimony on Thursday is not about emails or the server. That track has already been established. The thrust of the questions will center on exactly what Hillary’s State Department intended to do about Libya after Qaddafi. Questions will be about mission pieces coming into play and being installed for deposing Qaddafi with regard to buying back weapons and buying others that were NOT bound for Syria but for the Transnational Council to take over the Qaddafi regime with particular emphasis on Tripoli and Benghazi. As noted from Politico below, this is the posture taken by Gowdy as his team.

Politico: The seven GOP members of the panel aim to strike the right balance during Thursday’s hearing with the former secretary of state. They’re hoping a professional approach, coupled with tough questions about security in Libya, U.S. foreign policy under Clinton and her email practices will help put to rest accusations that they’re ideologues bent on hurting the Democratic front-runner in the polls — or that the panel is a waste of taxpayer money. The hearing, which could last, sources say, until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., will delve into U.S. policy toward Libya under Clinton, who encouraged U.S. support of the rebels fighting Qadhafi. Republicans want to know what the goal of that policy was and whether she was trying to make Libya a centerpiece of her foreign policy.

Gowdy said he’s particularly interested in asking Clinton about “the increase in violence juxtaposed with the decrease in security” at the mission that was attacked, because “it’s counterintuitive.”

A 1999 report after the East African embassy bombings recommended that the secretary of state take a “personal and active role” in security issues, Republicans — including Gowdy — have noted. Clinton, however, has testified previously that she was not aware of Stevens’ requests for more protection. And while it’s unclear whether the panel has any evidence suggesting that she was, Gowdy says there’s still the issue of “why” those pleas for help didn’t reach her.

When it comes to the machinery that Hillary’s team, it does involve weapons and the contracts and routes they took to reach the destination of Libya, all while doing so against rules and sanctions. Hillary may be actually guilty of much more than we can begin to define.

*** The facts begin to surface:

Washington Times – Tuesday, October 20, 2015
The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government. At least one of those shipments, kept in a file marked “arms deal,” was supposed to come from Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, California, according to an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing that was contained in the file.
The shipment was to include rocket launchers, grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition, much of it new and inexpensive hardware originally produced in the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, according to an itemized list included in the end use certificate.

Dolarian Capital, part of a small network of U.S. arms merchants that has worked with U.S. intelligence, confirmed one of its licensing requests to ship weapons via Kuwait to Libya was approved by the State Department in spring 2011 and then inexplicably revoked before the armaments were sent. “Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya. The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter,” one of its attorneys said in a statement issued to The Washington Times. “As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, the existence of the documents and the temporary approval of at least one U.S. arms shipment provides the most direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department was aware of efforts to get weapons into the hands of rebels seeking to oust Gadhafi.

Mrs. Clinton is set to testify Thursday during a highly anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been ambiguous about the exact role the United States played in arming the rebels who overthrew Gadhafi, even as arms merchants and former CIA officials have stated publicly that a covert program facilitated such weapons transfers through a network of friendly weapons brokers and third-party countries.

The issue is sensitive because a U.N. ban on weapons shipments to Libya was in place at the time, although the State Department had the authority to deem a specific shipment in the United States interest and permit its transference, officials said.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment Tuesday, as did the CIA public affairs office.

To date, the public evidence of U.S. involvement in weapons trafficking to Libya has been episodic.

Reuters reported in 2011 that President Obama signed a special presidential directive that authorized covert U.S. action to destabilize Gadhafi and stand up a new regime, up to and including facilitating weapons transfers if it was deemed in the U.S. interest.

The New York Times, quoting anonymous officials, reported a year later that the Obama administration gave its secret blessing to some weapons shipments to Libyan rebels routed through Qatar during the height of the country’s revolution.

Fox News this summer quoted a former CIA official as providing testimony in a court case that the U.S. almost certainly ran a covert weapons operation to help arm the Libyan rebels.
But to date, no evidence has emerged publicly that the State Department had direct knowledge or involvement in reviewing potential shipments.

The Benghazi documents, however, show that U.S. diplomats in the consulate were monitoring a series of potential exports in spring and summer 2011 to third-party countries and that one or more were likely to land in Libya.

For instance, a June 28, 2011, email chain contained in a file titled “arms deal” documents an exchange among State Department employees about eight export licensing application numbers, indicating one or more of the shipments involved Libya’s Transitional National Council.

“DRL recommends BA L181-11 T6-F RWA — need decision from higher level on TNC,” reads one of the notations in the email.

DRL stands for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and TNC is the interchangeable acronym for the Transitional National Council, the NATO-supported Libyan rebel government.

The email also references the office of defense trade controls licensing, the State directorate in charge of registering arms exports.

The Dolarian Capital papers, dated May 18, 2011, include an end-user certificate that outlines a long list of heavy former Eastern-bloc weaponry and artillery to be shipped from the California-based arms dealer first to Kuwait, and then to Libya.

“This is to certify the following items are to be delivered by Dolarian Capital, Inc. [of] Fresno, California, United States and secured by M/s Specter Consultancy Services G.T.C. [of] Kuwait City, Kuwait to the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya. The Ministry of Interior has agreed the items are for the exclusive disposition of the Ministry of Interior of the Translational [sic] Government of Libya and will not be re-exported or transferred to any third countries,” the certificate reads.

Just one month earlier, Mrs. Clinton privately endorsed inside the State Department the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans. “Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in an email to her most senior aides.

Dolarian Capital and other U.S. arms merchants — all legally registered with the State Department — have worked with U.S. intelligence over the years to move covert shipments into hot spots around the globe such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

It applied for several State Department licenses to ship weapons to Libya, but only one got approved and then only temporarily before being revoked. The one export listed in the certificate was among the smaller shipments the company proposed for Libya, according to people familiar with the applications. In each instance, State and other U.S. agencies were directly aware the end destinations for the weapons were in Libya.

Dolarian Capital also is listed in court records as the source of weapons for another U.S. arms dealer, Marc Turi, who sought permission to ship weapons to Libya during the same time frame. Mr. Turi since has been charged criminally with making false statements in his application for those shipments, and has publicly asserted that Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and other U.S. officials sanctioned his involvement.

His attorney, J. Cabou, told The Times on Tuesday his client intends to show the United States facilitated the possible weapons shipments to Libya, which never occurred.

Mr. Turi strongly believes he had the permission of the U.S. government to engage in the actions for which he is now charged with and he is vigorously trying to prove that fact,” Mr. Cabou said in a phone interview.

Supporting Mr. Turi’s case is a former CIA officer named David Manners, who has told a federal judge in the case that “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC).”
The end-user certificate for the one Dolarian transfer, obtained by The Times, details an itemized list of Soviet developed weapons including 10 Konkrus missile launchers, 6,900 RPK, AKM, SPG-9 machine guns and 100 grenade launchers. It also included two Soviet SVD sniper rifles and nearly 8 million rounds of ammunition.

An authorization letter signed by TNC Defense Minister Omar Hareery accompanied the certificate “call[ing] upon” TNC Interior Minister Esam M.T. Shibani and representatives from Specter Consultancy GTC to “supply all military surplus and hardware to the Transitional National Council of Libya [and] provide military and security consultancy for both civilian and government elements within Libya.”

The sensitivity of U.S. involvement in arming the Libya rebels stems from a U.N. embargo.

On March 17, 2011, the U.N. passed Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and also established a panel of experts to monitor the arms embargo.

However, on March 27, 2011, only days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, a claim that came under immediate fire from British defense officials who disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the same day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

In February, The Times published as part of a series on the 2011 NATO intervention classified Libyan intelligence reports including a 16-page weapons list corroborated by Gadhafi aide and U.S. intelligence asset, Mohammed Ismael.

The weapons list revealed where and when arms were brought to both terror and jihadi groups in Libyan cities including the rebel fortress of Benghazi by the country of Qatar. It did not detail the weapons’ point of origin, but in February 2012 Qatari officials sent a letter to the U.N. “categorically” denying they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions.”

Tape recordings obtained and released by The Times earlier this year depicting secret calls between a U.S. intelligence asset and members of the Gadhafi family revealed the then Libyan regime believed NATO was helping Qatar and other countries illegally smuggle arms across their country’s borders to aide rebel forces in an attempt to destabilize Libya.

In a May 2011 telephone call between U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and heir apparent Seif Gadhafi, Mr. Gadhafi alleged illegal arms shipments were coming into his country.

Mr. Kucinich, an outspoken critic against the Libyan intervention who has since retired from the Congress, told the Times he would not be surprised to learn the U.S. violated the arms embargo.

“Violating the arms embargo to send heavy weapons to Libyan rebels was a phase in engineering a crisis to establish a pretext for U.S. intervention and overthrow of the Libyan government, a very dirty business indeed,” Mr. Kucinich said.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously reinforced the embargo in May when the 15-member panel declined a request from the TNC for fighter jets, attack helicopters and munitions, fearing the weapons could get into the wrong hands.

This blogger has written about the operations in Benghazi, 3 days directly after the attack:

https://founderscode.com/look-who-hillary-hired-for-benghazi-help/admin/

https://founderscode.com/13-hours-of-benghazi-hat-tip-to-the-heroes-rip-to-the-heroes/admin/

https://founderscode.com/wall-street-and-5th-avenue-planned-for-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/tanto-explains-13-hours-of-benghazi/admin/

https://founderscode.com/the-chase-in-benghazi/admin/

54 in SW Border Detention Center from Terror Countries

Posted on October 20, 2015October 20, 2015 by Denise Simon

ElPaso: Activists gathered Saturday to protest the treatment of 54 detainees who started a hunger strike at the El Paso immigration detention center.

Members of the Detained Migrant Solidarity Committee said they took issue with the alleged mistreatment of the 54 detainees from South Asia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are currently detained at the El Paso Processing Detention Center, 8915 Montana.

“The idea is to show solidarity for the hunger strikers,” said organizer Roxana Bendezu. “We had to communicate what was going on at the detention center very quickly. These people have stayed here for months. They are seeking asylum and should be processed and released right away.”

The 54 detainees started a hunger strike Wednesday. Organizers said all of the hunger strikers are seeking asylum and have passed the credible fear test, a measure immigration officials use when determining who is fleeing from danger and is in need of asylum. Some detainees have been held for as many as 11 months, organizers said.

Migrants from Terrorist Nations in Texas ICE Center Seeking Asylum

JudicialWatch: The Obama administration insists the southern border is secure, yet dozens of illegal aliens from terrorist nations entered the United States through Mexico and are being held in a Texas Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing center.

The detainees are nationals of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and they are seeking asylum in the U.S. This week the 54 migrants from terrorist nations started a hunger strike to protest their detention at an ICE facility in El Paso. A local news report reveals that the foreign nationals “refused to eat or drink water” and a leftist immigrant advocacy group blasted the government for jailing the Afghans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis without proper medical care.

One of the detainees released from the ICE processing center over the weekend said he arrived in El Paso after traveling from South America to Juarez, Mexico. He is a national of Bangladesh, his name is MD Nasir Uddin and he claims to be a refugee seeking asylum. In the news report Uddin complains that he was jailed for no valid reason and was not provided with an interpreter, legal documents or judgements against him. “We are not criminals and they don’t have any proof of criminals,” Uddin is quoted.

Just last month the U.S. issued a terrorism alert warning that militants in Bangladesh may be targeting westerners. “The U.S. government continues to receive information that terrorist groups in South Asia may also be planning attacks in the region, possibly against U.S. government facilities, U.S. citizens, or U.S. interests,” the bulletin states. “Terrorists have demonstrated their willingness and ability to attack locations where U.S. citizens or Westerners are known to congregate or visit.” Afghanistan and Pakistan have long been known as the headquarters of Al Qaeda’s global leadership and the State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism offers all the juicy details.

The fact that individuals from these three terrorist nations have made it all the way to the U.S. through the Mexican border is downright alarming. Judicial Watch contacted officials from several Homeland Security agencies—including ICE and the Border Patrol—but none would comment on the 54 Afghans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis held in El Paso. The reality is that it’s unlikely the story would have been covered if not for the hunger strike and involvement of a publicity-seeking immigrant advocacy organization. In fact, the focus of the El Paso news report is the “critical medical condition” of some of the detainees and the fact that one was held in solitary confinement.

The reality is that this is part of a very serious issue involving the dangerously porous southern border. Judicial Watch has covered this extensively and over the summer published a story detailing how Mexican drug cartels are smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso. To elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers, they use remote farm roads—rather than interstates—and they are being transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road. The foreigners are classified as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) by the U.S. government, which prefers to keep this from the American public.

ICE, WH, Sanctuary Cities and Sex Parties

Posted on October 20, 2015October 20, 2015 by Denise Simon

America is losing her identity and in less than 10 years, it is all but gone. There are many reasons as noted below. Fasten your seat belt, this is chilling. Sadly, there is no topic or agency where corruption and scandal is exempt.

Sessions-Brat: 14 million MORE immigrants in 10 years, 5-times all U.S. high school seniors

WashingtonExaminer: If nothing is done to address legal and illegal immigration, some 14 million more immigrants will come to the United States over the next 10 years, according to a warning call from two congressional immigration critics.

In a full-page ad to run in Roll Call Tuesday, and previewed in the paper today, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and Virginia Rep. Dave Brat provided the raw data on the nation’s building immigration problem and blew the whistle on the so-called “Gang of Eight” proposal to ease immigration rules.

“Including all forms of immigration, the Census Bureau estimates another 14 million immigrants will enter the U.S. on net between now and 2025 — that’s almost five times the number of students who will graduate from public high school in America this year,” the two wrote.

And much of it is legal, and threatens U.S. workers, they added.

White House threatens to veto anti-sanctuary city bill, ahead of Senate test vote

FNC: The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto a Republican-backed bill that would crack down on so-called sanctuary cities by withholding funding to local governments that don’t cooperate with federal immigration officials.

The veto threat comes ahead of a critical Senate test vote Tuesday afternoon.

GOP sponsors furiously are trying to peel off a few Democrats to advance the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, whose consideration comes months after a young woman’s murder in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant touched off a national debate over immigration law.

“Sanctuary cities and the associated violent crimes by illegal immigrants are reaching a critical point, and we cannot wait any longer to take action to protect Americans here at home,” sponsor Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a statement.

The White House, though, claimed in a written statement that the bill “fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the Nation’s broken immigration laws and undermines current Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local law enforcement agencies.”

According to the White House, it would “essentially turn State and local law enforcement into Federal immigration law enforcement officials, in certain circumstances.” The chamber’s top Democrat also has tried to discredit the measure by calling it “The Donald Trump Act,” linking its provisions to controversial statements made by the Republican presidential front-runner about illegal immigrants.

Government Worker Accused of Recruiting Co-Workers for Sex Parties

FreeBeacon: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is probing allegations that a supervisor during work time tried to recruit fellow employees to attend private sex parties at his home.

According to NBC News, ICE spokeswoman Lauren Mack confirmed that the federal agency has launched an internal misconduct investigation after a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune publicized the accusation about a supervisor in San Diego recruiting employees for “private sexual ‘swinger’ parties.”

The Tribune reported:

The accusation of “gross sexual misconduct” was made in a complaint submitted to the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year. … It says that employees at the ICE Enforcement Removal Operations office in downtown San Diego have been approached during work hours to participate in the parties held at the home of a supervisor in the office along with his wife, who is also an agent.The complaint says the recruitment has been going on for more than a year, and alleges the practice is coercive of subordinate employees and an abuse of authority.

In a statement, Mack emphasized that the government agency takes the accusation “seriously.”

“The agency takes all allegations of misconduct seriously,” she stated. “The matter you reference has been referred to ICE Homeland Security Investigations Office of Professional Responsibility for further investigation. That inquiry is ongoing and, as such, we are unable to offer further comment at this time.”

Arab Spring: Business Over Diplomacy

Posted on October 20, 2015October 20, 2015 by Denise Simon

Courtesy of Sharyl Atkisson’s FullMeasure show and hard investigative work, matters come to the surface of where the White House misplayed countless missions in foreign policy especially as it relates to the Middle East, Syria, Libya and Yemen to mention a few.

When it comes to Libya, was the Hillary Clinton State Department more focused on business opportunities than equalizing countries? The answer appears to be yes and the hearing on Tuesday will be structured to prove that over security and diplomatic objectives.

Bloomberg: By Eli Lake

When Hillary Clinton testifies this week before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, expect Republicans to focus on her old friend, Sidney Blumenthal.

The chairman of the Benghazi committee, Trey Gowdy, alleges that in the run-up to President Obama’s intervention in Libya in 2011, Blumenthal was encouraging Clinton to support the war that he might personally profit from.

Recently released e-mails do show that Blumenthal was advocating in this period for a U.S. military contractor that sought business with the government that replaced the dictator, Muammar Qaddafi. But that contract was never signed. The contractor even lost money trying to win that business.

Blumenthal himself may have overstated his connections to the Libyan officials who would take power after Qaddafi fell. A lawyer who represented Libya’s transitional government in Washington at the time, David Tafuri, told me he didn’t recall running into Blumenthal in this period.

If Gowdy’s portrait is accurate and Blumenthal was trying to be a war profiteer, it appears he wasn’t a very good one.

Blumenthal did not respond to an e-mail request for an interview.

Gowdy’s allegations stem from Blumenthal’s connection to Osprey Global Solutions, a military contractor that sought to build field hospitals in Libya during the 2011 revolution and train the country’s national police after the fall of Libya’s dictator. According to e-mails received by the committee in late September, Blumenthal promoted Osprey to Clinton in a July 14, 2011, memo to prep her for an upcoming meeting with the transitional Libyan government’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.

The memo touts Osprey’s founder and chief executive, retired General David Grange, as the man who can help whip Libya’s opposition — the Transitional National Council, or TNC — into shape so it can take Tripoli. Blumenthal wrote that Grange’s company would provide direct training for Libyan fighters without the U.S. military having to be on the ground. “This is a private contract. It does not involve NATO. It puts Americans in a central role without being direct battle combatants,” Blumenthal wrote. “The TNC wants to demonstrate they are pro-US. They see this as a significant way to do that.”

Grange told me last week that he met Blumenthal only once, after being approached by Bill White, the chief executive of the consulting firm Constellations Group, to gauge his interest in doing business with the post-Qaddafi government in Libya. Constellations Group specializes in connecting people. In a 2013 interview, White said he helped put together the sale of Blackwater — the military contractor that became a target of Democrats during the George W. Bush presidency — to Academi. Grange said his understanding was that if he won any contracts in Libya, Constellations Group would get a percentage of the revenue as a finder’s fee. He did not know what Blumenthal’s relationship was with Constellations Group. “At that time I didn’t know if Blumenthal was doing this as a favor for Bill or if he was getting paid,” Grange told me. “I had no idea.”

Grange said Blumenthal in the meeting indicated that he could help expedite matters of licensing with the State Department. Mainly though, Blumenthal was promising to connect Grange to the Libyan opposition leaders who stood to take power after the fall of Qaddafi. “I knew that he was going to try to set up some meetings for us,” he said. Grange also said Blumenthal did not specifically talk about his relationship with Clinton.

Osprey never won any contracts in Libya. Grange said he spent $60,000 overall in pursuing the business in Libya. “We met with lots of people in positions of power, but they could never write a check,” Grange told me.

Blumenthal’s memo to Clinton also misstated Grange’s experience. Blumenthal wrote that Grange had helped devise the plan for U.S. Special Forces to take Baghdad in 2003. Grange told me that he was already retired from the Army by then and had nothing to do with the operation.

Democrats on the Benghazi committee say all of this strays far from the initial mandate, which was to learn more about what happened before, during and after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi. On Monday, the committee’s Democrats released a report on the investigation that said the transcript of Blumenthal’s deposition in June before the committee would show that Republicans asked him about things that had “nothing to do with Benghazi.”

The probe’s new focus on Blumenthal is nonetheless a serious matter. Gowdy’s letter earlier this month said nearly half the personal e-mails Clinton received about Libya prior to the Benghazi attack were from Blumenthal. This includes the period when the Obama administration was deciding whether to intervene against Qaddafi in 2011.

These e-mails show that Blumenthal was often a cheerleader for the intervention, even suggesting that Qaddafi’s ouster would benefit Obama in the polls. His messages often contained freelance intelligence about the situation in Libya, some of it wrong.

Blumenthal has said he never profited from his work for Osprey. In June following his closed testimony to the committee, he said the Osprey venture was one “in which I had little involvement, [that] [n]ever got off the ground, in which no money was ever exchanged, no favor sought and which had nothing to do with my sending these emails.”

But the July 14 memo from Blumenthal to Clinton says that he and two associates “acted as honest brokers, putting this arrangement together through a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving.”

Republicans on the committee tell me that they will be calling Blumenthal back soon to clarify answers he provided to the committee in June.

The irony is that Republicans are sounding a lot like the Democrats of 10 years ago, who accused some Republicans of seeking to profit from the war President Bush waged in Iraq.

But there is an important difference. In Iraq, the U.S. invested hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild the country after the dictator fell, and many American companies like Halliburton profited from this nation building. In the case of Libya, Obama lost interest after Qaddafi’s regime fell and never committed the resources to keep the country together after the dictator was gone.

That decision was likely one reason Osprey never won the contract that Blumenthal tried to set up. That decision also lies at the heart of the Benghazi committee’s mandate: President Obama allowed Libya to descend into a state so chaotic that terrorists could murder a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans only a year after the nation’s liberation.

White House Called YouTube on Blamed Benghazi Video

Posted on October 20, 2015October 20, 2015 by Denise Simon

Within in 3 hours of the attack, the White House was on the phone with YouTube about that pesky blamed video as the cause of the 9/11 Benghazi attack.

Lawsuits to get documents and emails often prove useful as verified evidence. Hat tip once again to Judicial Watch.

State Department documents detail delays and lack of support in hours after attack

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents that raise more questions about the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission at Benghazi, Libya. The documents show the White House contacted YouTube over an Internet video as one of its first moves after the initial attack.

The documents, from the agency’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, were provided to Judicial Watch in response to a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on October 16, 2014, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01733)). The lawsuit seeks “any and all logs, reports, or other records” the Washington-based Diplomatic Security Command Center produced between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012, relating to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.”

The documents detail that only three hours after the initial attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, the White House contacted YouTube in an apparent effort to initially blame the assault on an obscure “Pastor John video,” rather than filmmaker Nakoula “Mark” Basseley Nakoula. The administration falsely claimed that Nakoula’s video, “Innocence of Muslims,” provoked the attack. The email also references the involvement of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Judicial Watch, through separate litigation, previously uncovered documents that show Obama White House officials set Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi response):

From:               [REDACTED]

Sent:                September 11, 2012 9:11 PM

To:                   DSCC_Managment_Team; DSCC_Watch Team

Subject:            (S//NF) [REDACTED] Libya

Per Ambassador Mull [Stephen Mull, then Executive Secretary of the State Department] after SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference System] conference:

DOD is looking at various resources.

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

S [then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] expected to make statements one of which may confirm KIA, notification of next of kin is pending confirmation. DCM The Hague was to call OPS when completed.

White House is reaching out to U-Tube to advise ramifications of posting of the Pastor Jon video.

(The “Pastor Jon” reference may have been to a rarely viewed video by Oregon-based Pastor Jon Courson entitled God vs. Allah, a low-key exposition of the Biblical book of Kings.)

The documents also include a previously Secret “Attack Timeline,” dated September 12, 2012, which raised additional questions about the Obama administration’s response to the attack. The State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security makes no mention of any spontaneous demonstration or Internet video in describing the Benghazi assault:

At 1549 hrs, DSCC was notified that U.S. Mission Benghazi was under attack. At 1600 hrs, DSCC [Diplomatic Security Command Center] was notified by Regional Security Officer (RSO) Benghazi that armed individuals had entered the compound, and at 1614 hrs RSO Benghazi reported that an armed group had set fire to buildings inside the compound. The US Ambassador was visiting post from Tripoli, and as of 1614 hrs it was suspected that one of the buildings that had been set on fire was the building where the Ambassador was sheltering. [Redacted] Quick Reaction Force (QRF) responded from their off-compound Annex, but was turned back due to heavy hostile fire.

As of 1700 hrs, [REDACTED] QRF and host nation militia (17 February Brigade) have redeployed to the compound. One Assistant RSO (ARSO) suffered injuries from smoke inhalation. This agent was in the Principal Officer’s Residence with U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Information Program Officer (IPO) Sean P. Smith. All three moved to the safe haven when the attack began, but had to relocate to the roof as the building caught on fire. The agent reached the rooftop but lost contact with the other two. The agent reentered the residence and found the IPO killed in action (KIA), and was unable to locate the Ambassador. The agent had given his cell phone to the Ambassador.

The new timeline also confirms prior Judicial Watch disclosures that the State Department received intelligence that Ambassador Stevens may have been alive after the attack:

The QRF and friendly militia forces were unable to locate the Ambassador, and pull back to the off-compound Annex. All classified material on the compound is secured by RSO [REDACTED] personnel. Embassy Tripoli receives a phone call from the injured ARSO’s cell phone (which had been left with the Ambassador) from a male caller saying he is at the hospital with an unresponsive male who matches a physical description of the Ambassador. [REDACTED MATERIAL]. Tripoli charters an airplane and sends it to Benghazi with six personnel onboard as a response team.

The document also raises questions about whether a delay of personnel sent to Benghazi led to additional deaths:

At 2215 hrs, Benghazi ARSO called DSCC to report that the [REDACTED] response team has been on the ground in Benghazi for approximately 60 minutes, but are waiting for the 17 February Brigade to escort them to [REDACTED]. DS Seniors ask ARSO about the identity of the reported white male in the hospital. [REDACTED MATERIAL] hospital for about two hours. Henderson will call him after this call.

The timeline later details that the team did not leave for the airport for another 45 minutes and did not arrive at the Annex until 2313 hrs, nearly two hours after the team first arrived. The timeline then details the second attack, which takes place only 17 minutes after the response team arrives:

At 2332 hrs, ARSO reports that they are under mortar attack, with 3 to 4 rounds hitting the Annex. There are [REDACTED] injured and [REDACTED] the need for medical evacuation. The response team is on site and either inside or deployed to the roof. The agents are sheltering in place with 45-minutes to sunrise.

At 2349 hrs, DS Special Agent [REDACTED] was reported hit during the mortar attack, which has since ceased. [REDACTED MATERIAL] All other DS agents are accounted for.

More than six hours after the initial terrorist assault, there remains only one plane available to evacuate injured and other personnel from Benghazi. The timeline details that the plane takes off, leaving some personnel behind, including those killed in action. Those remaining behind initially have to wait for the one plane to return from Tripoli, but are eventually rescued several hours later by a Libyan Air Force C-130 airplane.

The attack timeline also includes a section labeled “Causes and Responsibility,” which is redacted completely.

Other timelines are included in the State Department materials. These documents make no mention of Internet videos or demonstrations, for example one declassified timeline details:

1550 The Diplomatic Security Command Center (DSCC) receives word that US Mission Benghazi is under attack by 15-20 armed hostiles.

1615 RSO Benghazi advises hostile individuals setting fire to buildings on compound, including the one housing Ambassador Stevens, IPO Sean Smith, and ARSO [REDACTED] responds with a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and takes fire from hostiles. QRF returns to Annex to regroup with host militia and redeploys.

The documents also reveal that at the time of the attack, the Department of Defense apparently had two government contractors in Benghazi working on weapons removal without the knowledge of the Department of State.

Judicial Watch has now filed 40 FOIA requests, a Mandatory Declassification Review, and at least 12 lawsuits against the Obama administration relating to the Benghazi terrorist attack. Currently, Judicial Watch is the only non-governmental organization in the nation litigating in federal court to uncover information withheld by the Obama administration about the events that transpired before, during, and following the Benghazi massacre.

“These documents show the Obama White House rushed to tie yet another video to the Benghazi attack, even before Ambassador Stevens was accounted for. The Obama White House, evidently, was confused as to which Internet video to falsely blame for the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents show that the Obama White House should have been focused on rescuing our people under fire. These documents detail delays and lack of support that raise questions about whether American lives were needlessly lost and put at risk during the Benghazi attack.”

In April 2014, Judicial Watch forced the release of State Department documents it had obtained, including an internal email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents showed that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt. The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of a June 21, 2013, FOIA lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)). Judicial Watch’s release of the Rhodes email, which had been withheld by the Obama administration from Congress, caused the House of Representatives to approve the Select Committee on Benghazi, which is now led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

In June 2013, Judicial Watch released the first seven photos depicting the devastating aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic and CIA facilities in Benghazi. The following November, it obtained 32 new documents from the Department of State, including 13 previously withheld photos depicting the carnage at the American diplomatic compound. The documents were obtained in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed against the State Department on February 25, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1-13-cv-00242)).