Benghazigate

Another Benghazi email

Featured image Sharyl Attkisson draws attention to another newly released Benghazi email (the email is posted online here). I’m not sure, but this seems important: [The] email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya[,] the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame. The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President »

Where Was Barry? Where Was Hillary?

Featured image As I wrote here, one of the striking features of the White House’s latest email production is the complete absence of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the communications on the evening of September 11, 2012. Their names appear only later, when staffers write heartfelt statements about the deaths of four Americans to be released over their names. So where were they on the fateful night of September 11? Tommy »

Air Force General criticizes lack of military response to Benghazi attack

Featured image Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified today that the military should have done more to try to help the Americans who were under attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. At the time of the attack, Lovell was the deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command. Lovell told the House Oversight Committee: Many with firsthand knowledge have recounted the heroism displayed by the brave Americans in Benghazi that »

Jay Carney Lies About the Benghazi Email

Featured image Yesterday I wrote about the most significant email that the Obama administration produced in response to a FOIA request by Judicial Watch. It was sent by White House political operative Ben Rhodes to a variety of administration officials whose duties related to PR, not policy. Among the recipients were David Plouffe, Dan Pfeiffer, Dag Vega and Jay Carney. Sent on the Friday before Susan Rice made her infamous tour of »

All roads lead to…

Featured image At long last we have the email of assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications (hack/flack) Ben Rhodes on the urgent need to disseminate the (patently false) message that the video got Ambassador Stevens et al. killed in the 9/11 Benghazi attack. Catherine Herridge observes: Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing »

The Benghazi Scandal In One Email

Featured image One aspect of the scandal, anyway. The administration has released a series of emails in response to FOIA requests by Judicial Watch. You can read them here. This one, by Benjamin Rhodes, a White House political operative, shows the administration’s priorities on the Friday before Susan Rice’s infamous tour of the Sunday talk shows. Click to enlarge: From the earliest hours after the attack, this is how the Obama administration »

Fools and knaves: Mike Morrell vs. Vile Rat

Featured image The author of the comments below is a reader who contributed “Fools and knives, part 2″ to our long-running series. With former CIA deputy director Mike Morrell scheduled to appear before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence this morning — Morrell had a powerful hand in shaping the Obama administration talking points from which the ineffably lame Susan Rice spoke on the Sunday gabfests following the 9/11 attack on »

Ms. Rice doesn’t regret

Featured image In Cole Porter’s song “Miss Otis Regrets,” the singer passes on the heroine’s regrets that she’s unable to lunch today. Why? She was strung up by a mob for killing “the man who had led her so far astray.” It’s a reasonable excuse presented with demure understatement in Ella Fitzgerald’s classic rendition of the song. This past Sunday on Meet the Press Rice passed on the opportunity to express regrets »

Obama ties military’s hands by reading al Qaeda out of Benghazi

Featured image Katherine Zimmerman of AEI, whose work we have highlighted before, wrote an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post about the need to formulate a reasonable definition of al Qaeda. The whole column is worth reading, but I was struck most by her explanation of why the military won’t take action against the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack: Here’s the problem: According to recently declassified testimony of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of »

The smearing of Chris Stevens

Featured image Last week the Wall Street Journal published Gregory Hicks’s column “Benghazi and the smearing of Chris Stevens.” It would be easy to overlook Hicks’s column in the crush of last week’s news, but it is deserving of special attention. In the column Hicks offers his eyewitness testimony to the security issues that Stevens dealt with at our Libyan facilities before his death. The redacted report of the Senate Select Committee »

The Senate Benghazi Report: What Does It Say?

Featured image Yesterday, the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence released what I take to be its final report on Benghazi. You can read it here. The main body of the report is attributed to the committee as a whole, while the majority and minority each added separate comments. The bipartisan nature of the report (for better or worse) is apparent from these comments by the Democratic majority: The Majority would like to »

New York Times disconnects the Benghazi dots

Featured image David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times is trying to salvage some credibility in the aftermath of the refutation, including by the Washington Post, of his revisionist account of the attack in Benghazi. As Tom Joscelyn shows, Kirkpatrick does not succeed. In his initial piece, Kirkpatrick ruled out any meaningful involvement in the attack by ex-Guantanamo detainee Sufian Ben Qumu, who has longstanding ties to al Qaeda and is currently »

Benghazi bombshell — former Gitmo detainee implicated in attack

Featured image According to the Washington Post, U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The U.S. government is said to be planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization. The terrorist and former Gitmo detainee in question is Abu Sufian bin Qumu, leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah. Witnesses »

The difference Hillary makes

Featured image Elliott Abrams comments on David Kirkpatrick’s New York Times report on the Benghazi massacre: We’ll never know whom the Times thought it important to interview and whom it believed, but we do know that it had no access to the intelligence that members of Congress saw. And we are being told by members of Congress that the embassy staff had it right in saying the video was unimportant, and that »

David Kirkpatrick doubles down on bogus

Featured image David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times continues to claim that, notwithstanding the reporting of his own newspaper, claims of an al Qaeda connection to the Benghazi attack are “bogus” or, alternatively, “tenuous” (which is it, David?). How does Kirkpatrick square his claim with the Times’ reporting? By mischaracterizing that reporting. He told Anderson Cooper: I think that the reporting in our paper [of involvement by Muhammad Jamal's terrorist group »

Why won’t Obama target Benghazi ringleader?

Featured image My initial reaction to the New York Times’ revisionist account of Benghazi was that if there’s anything to the story, Congress should hold hearings to test, in light of the new information, the competing versions of who and what were behind the attacks. This remark was intended to point out that Benghazi revisionism might be a dangerous game for Hillary Clinton and her supporters to play. I made the same »

Fools and knaves: New York Times edition

Featured image A reader who has previously contributed to this series writes to comment on David Kirkpatrick’s New York Times story on the Benghazi massacre. I have tried to set off the quotations he includes in the text of his message with links to sources. If I have missed any such quotations below, it is an oversight on my part. I think the message makes a contribution to understanding this chapter of »