Absolutely devastating contrast between Obama's bragging about “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat" and what has happened

If you like to see a video with some of Obama's bragging claims about his victories against Al Qaeda with what has actually happened, the beginning of this video with Obama's quotes is worth a look.

White House YET AGAIN warns Russia "Against Seizing More Ukrainian Territory," How many times can Obama threaten "consequences" and be taken seriously?

Well, these threats from the Obama administration seem to be working well.  From the Wall Street Journal today:

The White House said Saturday it was concerned by what it called a "concerted campaign" by pro-Russian separatists to stoke tensions in eastern Ukraine, warning Russian President Vladimir Putin against using the events there as a pretext for seizing more Ukrainian territory. 

In a phone call Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his concern with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the State Department said. Mr. Kerry made clear that if Russia doesn't take action to de-escalate and move its troops back from Ukraine's border, there would be consequences, the department said. 

"We are very concerned by the concerted campaign we see under way in eastern Ukraine today by pro-Russian separatists, apparently with support from Russia, who are inciting violence and sabotage and seeking to undermine and destabilize the Ukrainian state," White House National Security Council spokeswoman Laura Lucas Magnuson said. 

The White House said it saw similar "so-called protest activities" in Crimea before Russia's takeover of the Ukrainian territory last month. "We call on President Putin and his government to cease all efforts to destabilize Ukraine, and we caution against further military intervention," the White House spokeswoman said. . . . .

Have we heard this before?

From CNN on March 20th:

In a briefing to reporters, senior U.S. administration officials sounded further warnings against any Russian provocations in Ukraine."We believe that it is very important to signal that if Russia further escalates this situation they will be met with severe consequences," one official said. . . .

From BBC:

18 March: Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses parliament, defending Moscow's actions on Crimea, then signs a bill to absorb the peninsula into the Russian Federation. Later, Ukraine says an officer has been killed as a military base is stormed in Simferopol, Crimea, the first such death in the region since pro-Russian forces took over in late February. 

From a transcript at the White House on March 14th:

President Obama: "Obviously on our minds right now is the situation in Ukraine. Ireland has been a strong voice in the European Council for the need to send a clear message of support for Ukrainian democracy and self-determination, and a strong message to Russia that it should not violate the integrity and the sovereignty of its neighbor.  We continue to hope that there’s a diplomatic solution to be found, but the United States and Europe stand united not only in its message about Ukrainian sovereignty but also that there will be consequences if, in fact, that sovereignty continues to be violated." . . .

From BBC:

12 March: Barack Obama pledges to stand with Ukraine during a meeting with interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the White House.
10 March: Armed men seize a military hospital in Simferopol.
8 March: The US and France warn of "new measures" against Russia if it does not withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Warning shots are fired at international monitors trying to enter Crimea. . . .

From Politico on February 28th:

President Barack Obama on Friday issued a blunt and direct warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin: stay out of Ukraine. 

If not, he said, there will be consequences — though he didn’t say what those might be. 

“We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine,” Obama said, speaking at the White House. “Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing.” . . .  

In language that’s about as tough as it gets within diplomacy, Obama warned Russia against a “profound interference” and what would be a “clear violation” of international laws. . . .

From USA Today:

Feb. 28: Armed men in Russian military uniforms take control of key airports in Crimea. Russian marines surround a Ukraine coast guard base in Sevastopol. Obama warns "there will be costs" for Russian military intervention in Ukraine. 

Robert Gates: Obama asked troops to fight in Afghanistan (including my son) even though he didn't believe in the war

Sending 18, 19, 20 year old kids to fight and die in a war that you aren't really interested in fighting nor that you care about is pretty bad.  The book is described as unusual for a former cabinet member to write a book with such a bitter tone about a president and how it is so particularly unusual for Gates given that people view him as someone who it is very difficult to get angry.  From the Washington Post:

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.” . . . 

As a candidate, Obama had made plain his opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion while embracing the Afghanistan war as a necessary response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, requiring even more military resources to succeed. In Gates’s highly emotional account, Obama remains uncomfortable with the inherited wars and distrustful of the military that is providing him options. Their different worldviews produced a rift that, at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair. . . . 

In “Duty,” Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently “seething” and “running out of patience on multiple fronts.”

US softening its position on Japan's Senkaku Islands with respect to China's air defense zone

The US is appearing to backdown in its confrontation with China over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Note at the very end of the piece:

On the morning of the 5th, in Washington [when Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was] asked by reporters whether China must adhere to withdraw recognition time zone , attitudes began to soften.

Liberal Democrats Amazed by the contradictions in Obama's Foreign Policy

My favorite contradiction was that we should not be the world's policeman, but that we have to do something and can't look away.  Dana Milbank at the Washington Post:

He promised that it would be “a limited strike” without troops on the ground or a long air campaign, yet he argued that it was the sort of blow that “no other nation can deliver.” He argued that “we should not be the world’s policeman” while also saying that because of our “belief in freedom and dignity for all people,” we cannot “look the other way.” He asserted that what Bashar al-Assad did is “a danger to our security” while also saying that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” . . .

John Harris at Politico:

This led to perhaps the most disingenuous line uttered by either Zig or Zag in the 16-minute speech, with the president claiming that he had asked Congress to postpone the vote that he earlier requested authorizing use of military force in Syria in order to let the latest diplomatic moves play out. But just a minute earlier he had asserted that a main reason diplomacy was gaining traction was because of the “credible threat of U.S. military action.” Presumably, any further diplomacy would be even more effective if Congress sent a message that it was giving Obama all options to act if the talks fail. The more plausible rationale for congressional delay is that the administration would lose the vote if it took place now. . . .

Even Democrats think that the US is less respected around the world today than it was a year ago

It isn't very surprising that by wide margins Republicans and Independents think that the US is less respected than it was a year ago, but by a very slim 27 to 25 percent margin even Democrats think that we are less respected.  From Fox News:

. . . Among Democrats, 25 percent say the U.S. is more respected around the world today. That’s a 27 percentage-point drop from 52 percent last year.  Twenty-seven percent of Democrats say the U.S. is less respected, up from 11 percent. 

A slim 51-percent majority of Independents thinks the U.S. is less respected, up from 38 percent last year.  At the same time, the number of independents who think the country is more respected fell to just 9 percent, down from 27 percent.  

Among Republicans, 72 percent think the country is less respected around the world today than it was five years ago, 6 percent say more respected and 22 percent say it’s unchanged. The views are generally unchanged from last year.  

The Fox News poll is based on land-line and cell phone interviews with 900 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from Sept. 6 to 8. . . .

Latest numbers on how Congress will vote on Syria

This survey is current as of today (Sunday, September 8th) and it is from USA Today (available here).  It will be updated regularly. It looks as if the vote will be close in the Senate if there is a filibuster.  Yet, in the House the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans will be voting against going to war.

Some evidence that Obama really doesn't want to win the vote on Syria

Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, formerly Obama for America, is so far sitting out the push on Syria.  As anyone who subscribes to their emails knows, when the issue is guns or something else OFA deluges people with emails pushing issues.  But nothing so far on Syria.  Could it be that they don't really want to win the vote?  From Politico:

Barack Obama’s supporters built a political organization to pressure Congress to build public support for him. Yet on one of his biggest efforts since Organizing for Action re-launched early this year — the push to convince Congress to adopt a use-of-force authorization against Syria — the group has so far sat on the sidelines. 

OFA’s silence has been palpable. It didn’t send one of its ubiquitous emails to supporters and volunteers, nor did it signal to top donors how it might help press Obama’s case on Syria — or even whether it would participate in the president’s push at all. 

It’s been a marked departure from how OFA handled Obama’s policy pushes on the environment, gun control, the economy and immigration, all of which came with cross-platform support. And it leaves dormant Obama’s single biggest lobbying army, the group formed with the express purpose of pressuring Congress to pass Obama’s agenda, at a time when House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said it will be up to the president to whip votes in support of a Syrian attack. . . .

If Obama doesn't really want to win this issue, the question is: why?   Is it because he wants get the issue off his back by blaming Republicans who look likely to vote against authorizing war?  The latest Whip count in the House as of 11 AM from the left wing ThinkProgress is 49 votes "yes" and 200 votes "no."

UPDATE: As of 7 PM tonight, adding in leaners, the nays had picked up 12 votes and the yeas had lost 6.

The Hill newspaper is less certain about these votes.  They also put this out at 7 PM.

According to The Hill’s count, 75 Republicans are opposed to or leaning against the measure. Without Grimm, only 10 Republicans have vocalized support for it. . . .

UPDATE2:  From Politico:

. . . Several Republican leadership aides, who are counting votes but not encouraging a position, say that there are roughly one to two dozen “yes” votes in favor of military action at this time. The stunningly low number is expected to grow a bit. 

But senior aides say they expect, at most, between 50 and 60 Republicans to vote with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who support the president’s plan to bomb Syria to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons on his people. That would amount to less than one-third of the House Republican Conference. 

That would mean the vast majority of the 200 House Democrats will need to vote with Obama for the resolution to pass. But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 “yes” votes. . . . 

Obama's changes in policies leave the few allies we have regarding Syria in the lurch

Will other allies be willing to agree to work with the US if they think that they will be embarrassed by sudden switches in policy?  Undoubtedly not.  From the Times of London:

President Hollande struggled to maintain French resolve for a strike against Syria last night after Washington’s retreat prompted dismay in his administration and stirred opposition demands for a parliamentary vote. 

Manuel Valls, the French Interior Minister, said that President Obama’s shift had “created a new situation”. He added: “France cannot go it alone. We need a coalition.” 

By backtracking on his agreement with Paris on an immediate offensive, Mr Obama has severely embarrassed the Socialist President. Already weakened by the defection of Britain, France now finds itself as the lone important ally and hostage to the US political tide. Some of the Hollande team voiced frustration over what they said was a letdown by Mr Obama which played into the hands of critics who accuse the French President of becoming a “poodle” to the United States. . . .

"The Fog of War" cartoon by POLITICO's Matt Wuerker on Obama's confused and tangled rhetoric

I rarely would post a cartoon, but this one by POLITICO's Matt Wuerker is pretty good.

Politico also has an article about the difficult time liberal Democrats might have in supporting the war. As one of the comments after the piece noted: "The Democrats are so obviously hypocritical voting for action on Syria, after recently castigating Bush for going after Saddam who gassed thousands. Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Kerry, now are all suddenly hawks. And what happens to all of those weapons if the opposition gets them? Have these guys learned nothing from Egypt. And now to see Obama once again trying to backpedal on his comments about a 'red line'...truly priceless. Every Democrat running around trying to save face for their hero."

A third Politico post has this:

Recently retired CENTCOM commander James Mattis warned Saturday that a limited U.S. intervention in Syria will be costly and ineffective, while he also suggested that the U.S. public is not invested enough in resolving the fight there to support broader U.S. involvement. 

"We all want to do something to stop this but...we have no moral obligation to do the impossible and hawk our children's future just because we have the desire to do something," Mattis said at the Aspen Security Forum. "When you go to war, it cant be a half step." 

"If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war. Anyone who says this is going to be easy or a no-fly zone is going to be cheap, I would discount that at the outset," the retired four-star Marine general said. . . .

Military can't explain what the administration hopes to accomplish in Syria

The Obama administration might have been literally days away from attacking Syria last week, but the apparently the president hasn't thought it was necessary to explain to the military what exactly he wanted to accomplish.

DEMPSEY: The answer to whether I support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes. 

CORKER: And this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction. 

DEMPSEY: I don’t know how the resolution will evolve, but I support – 

CORKER: What you’re seeking. What is it you’re seeking? 

DEMPSEY: I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.

Here is one of the many news stories from last week.

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday. 

The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already "crystal clear" that Assad's government was responsible. 

Vice President Joe Biden went even further, bluntly telling an American Legion audience in Houston: "Chemical weapons have been used." . . . 

I found this article about the leaks and the motives behind them at Politico of interest.

Many of the leaks about U.S. strike plans for Syria, a copious flow of surprisingly specific information on ship dispositions and possible targets, have been authorized as a way for President Obama to signal the limited scope of operations to friends and foes. 

But a number of leaks have been decidedly unauthorized -- and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself. . . . 

Recently retired CENTCOM commander James Mattis had this to say about the undefined mission:

Mattis said the U.S. also needs to define what "end state" it is seeking in Syria, if further action is to be taken. "Otherwise, you invade a country and pull down a statue and then say: 'Now, what do we do?'….Know what I mean?" he said, in an obvious reference to the chaotic aftermath of the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . . . 

Senator Ted Cruz raises an important point: "U.S.’s chief concern, if it goes into Syria, should be to make sure that chemical weapons do not fall “into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists"

Here is part of Ted Cruz's press release from Saturday after Obama's remark:

I remain concerned that the mission proposed by the President is not in furtherance the vital national security interests of the United States. To date I have heard a great deal from the administration about punishing Bashir al-Assad for violating an “international norm” through the use of chemical weapons, and that this is why we must act against him. Abstract notions about international norms should never displace U.S. sovereignty to act, or refuse to act, for our national security.

Assad’s murderous actions have claimed the lives of more than a hundred thousand of his own people, which is a humanitarian tragedy. But our chief strategic concern should not be international norms; it should be preventing the chemical weapons from falling into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists who might use them against us and our allies. . . .

Foreign policy experts turn en mass on Obama

From the left you have Fareed Zakaria:

Whatever your views on the larger issues, it’s hard not to conclude that the administration’s handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy. . . . 

The nature of the strike, we are told, will be short and symbolic – a shot across the bow. In the midst of a civil war in which both sides are in a high-stakes struggle for survival, does anyone think that this will make any difference? . . . 

the manner in which the Obama administration has first created and then mismanaged this crisis will, alas, cast a long shadow on America’s role in the world.

 On the right you have Elliott Abrams:

This context makes his claim that he must seek a vote now, in the Syrian case, unintelligible. It cannot be a matter of principle, or the principle would have applied to intervention in Libya as well. From all appearances, the president either lost his nerve, or more likely read opinion polls suggesting that intervention would be widely unpopular. He came to this decision abruptly, after sending out his new secretary of state to make two powerful, emotional, and affecting war speeches that explained why we must act. And he came to this decision, by all accounts now appearing in the press, without even consulting Secretary of State John Kerry, relying instead on his mostly young and comparatively inexperienced White House staff. 

This erratic conduct leaves U.S. foreign policy in a shambles. . . . .

Another point that has been raised is Obama's focus on enforcing international norms.  Yet, if these are international norms, why is it that Obama is going to have to go it alone.  Even Canada and the UK, two countries that we have always been able to depend on for support, are unwilling to go along this time.

Obama:"What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds ... and pay no price?", Obama's inconsistencies and blame Congress strategy

As I have noted in a previous post, UN Mideast envoy Robert Serry told the Security Council has already told the council that there have been 13 reported uses of chemical weapons in Syria.  Why is the 13th time crossing the "red line" the crucial step?  Obviously, Obama seems to be trying to set it up so that he can blame Congress, but shouldn't he have consulted with them before making the threats?  Indeed, up through Friday, the administration was indicating that it was going through with the war without consulting Congress, just as he hadn't consulted congress with respect to Libya.  Here is a text of Obama's statement. 

while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy. . . . 

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? 

Chuck Todd has this interesting discussion after Obama's talk on Saturday.

White House aides said they are fairly confident that Congress will grant them the authority to launch a strike, although they maintain that Obama would be acting within his constitutional authority even if Congress rejects the authorization and Obama orders military intervention. . . . 

The administration decided not to call them back early due to the Jewish holidays this week, a delay that the Pentagon also signed off on, saying that the wait won’t diminish U.S. military capabilities in the region. There’s an upside to that cooling-off period too, aides said. . . . 

Obama may still go forward with the attack even if Congress doesn't grant him the authority?  Is that right?  In addition, the fact that the U.S. military says that its ability to successfully attack Syria won't diminish after a month is not the same thing that it is wise to wait that long.  For example, our ability to lob a few cruise missiles into Syria and hit the targets that we want might  be significantly degraded if Syria has a month to move assets around.

UPDATE: Larry Elder has a very useful piece available here.  See also this.

Why the sudden rush on Syria by Obama? What is the logic of his policy?

Out of 100,000 people who have been killed in Syria, why is this 13th use of chemical weapons crossing the red line?  Obama's ambassador to the UN couldn't even leave her vacation to attend the UN Security Council meeting on Syria, but somehow we don't have time to debate whether we engage in war against Syria.  The Times of Israel:

A Free Syrian Army source told Al Arabiya the death toll stood at 1,188, while the Local Coordination Committees said some 785 people were killed. A nurse at an emergency clinic in Douma told Reuters the death toll was at 213, and the head of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 40 were confirmed dead and the death toll could reach over 200. . . . 

. . . UN Mideast envoy Robert Serry told the Security Council last month that the UN has received 13 reports of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. . . .

Even Bush got approval from the Congress before he made strikes and Bush went to the UN Security Council, but to Obama that wasn't enough.  Now the Obama administration's answer is that they have tried to use the UN Security Council for many months but have been consistently blocked by the Russians.  Would Democrats have been satisfied with this response?

Here is an absolutely devastating critique of Obama's policies in Syria.

 

Finally, it is interesting to see that in the UK they went to parliament to get approval.  But possibly Obama is worried that if he went to Congress he would face a similar rejection.  Also it is interesting to note that Canada, a country that has consistently stood by the US on these missions, is declining to get involved.

How Obama vascilates back and forth on his threats.  Here is a summary from the Washington Examiner:

• After demonstrations calling for Assad's ouster began in March 2011, Obama essentially ordered the dictator in April to stop killing demonstrators and to "change course."
• Then in August 2011, Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan gave Assad an Aug. 27 deadline to stop the violence and start implementing democratic reforms, or else risk joint U.S.-Turkish military action. The deadline passed, Assad continued killing his people and the U.S. did not do as it warned.
• On June 22, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says the U.S. won't give arms or other aid to Syrian rebels.
• On Dec. 3, 2012, Obama warns Assad that "if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable." Secretary of StateHillary Clinton says the U.S. will take action if chemical weapons are used.
• News reports from the on Pentagon Dec. 7, 2012 describe contingency planning for U.S. military action in Syria.
• Somebody uses chemical weapons March 19, 2013 and Obama says the U.S. is seeking conclusive evidence of who is responsible.
• Obama says on April 30, 2013 that he still doesn't have proof that Assad used chemical weapons.
• Unnamed White House officials say June 14, 2013 that Obama has opted to use military force against Assad.
• August 2013. Amid multiple leaks and background reports from unnamed administration officials, it appeared initially that Obama would order a significant military action. Now, a limited cruise missile attack that does little if anything to stop Assad's murderous attacks on his own people appears more likely. . . .

When Bill "Mr. Triangulation" criticizes Obama for relying too much on polls you know Obama is in real trouble.

 From Politico:

At another point during a closed-press event Tuesday, Clinton implied that Obama or any president risks looking like “a total fool” if they listen too closely to opinion polls and act too cautiously. He used his own decisions on Kosovo and Bosnia as a point of reference. 

The former president also said commanders-in-chief should avoid over-interpreting public opinion polls about whether the United States should get involved in crises overseas. . . .

Shocking Panetta testimony about Obama's lack of role in Benghazi response

This testimony indicates that Obama was virtually completely disengaged from what was happening in Bengahzi.  After a brief initial discussion, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us." So how does this shocking testimony fit in with Obama's assertion here:

"If people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we save the lives of folks who I sent there, and who are carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department things or our CIA thinks. Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives. That's what our job is.  I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were, do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger, whether they are civilian or military."

UPDATE:  Most presidents would at least give the appearance that they were in the loop during these events.

He said Thursday on Fox News that "thus far the White House has delayed, denied, deceived and stonewalled and this has to come to an end. He has to account for his leadership."
During the hearing, Graham questioned why there weren't subsequent follow-up conversations with the president.
"It lasted almost eight hours ... did the president show any curiosity?" Graham asked.
Panetta said there was "no question" Obama "was concerned about American lives."
"With all due respect," Graham responded, "I don't believe that's a credible statement if he never called and asked you, 'are we helping these people?'"  . . . 

State Dept officials make it very hard to believe what Obama and Biden have been saying about the Benghazi attack

A background conference call with Senior State Department Officials from last Tuesday is a wealth of information on the attack.

OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead. 

QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video? 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound. . . .

My question is whether this will create a war between Hillary Clinton and Obama.  The White House seems to be willing to blame things on the State Department, thus on Clinton, but the State Department doesn't seem to be willing to taken this blame lying down.

CBS's Lara Logan gives a very tough talk on what is happening in Afghanistan

Did the Obama administration deliberately hide information on the Libyan Attack?

From Bill Gertz in an article titled "The revolt of the Spooks":

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa. 

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. . . . 

Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.” 

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism. . . .

Meanwhile, the Obama administration claims that it was given bad information by the intelligence community.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told Republican senators that her televised statements last month on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were based entirely on information she was given by the intelligence community. 

"In my Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances, I was asked to provide the administration's latest understanding of what happened in Benghazi," Rice wrote in a Thursday letter to Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policy makers. This information represented the intelligence community's best, current assessment as of the date of my television appearances, and I went out of my way to ensure it was consistent with the information that was being given to Congress." 

Rice was responding to a Sept. 26 letter from the GOP senators in which they accused Rice of jumping the gun and disseminating false information about the attack. The letter quotes Rice's comments selectively, leaving out the context where she cautioned that the information was based on initial assessments. Rice emphasized in her response that she had caveated her remarks in her TV appearances. . . . 

CBS has information that "34 highly-trained security personnel" were removed from the embassy earlier this year.  If you combine that with the Ambassador's diaries and his concern over security, you get a real mess.

Sources critical of what they view as a security drawdown say three Mobile Security Deployment teams left Libya between February and August in addition to the 16-member Site Security Team on loan from the military. That's 34 highly-trained security personnel moved out over a six month period. . . .

Meanwhile more information appears that the Obama administration denied other security requests from the Libyan embassy.

ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties. 

Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya,  Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support. . . . 

UPDATE: "U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi"

A U.S. security officer twice asked his State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response. 

The officer, Eric Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until about two months before the September attack, said a State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low," according to a memo summarizing his comments to a congressional committee that was obtained by Reuters. 

Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi. . . . . 

The Congressional hearings on October 10th are going to be brutal.  Apparently both the Intelligence community and the Dept of State told the WH immediately after the attack that it was a terrorist in origin, but the WH went public saying that wasn't the case.  Based on what?

Jay Carney has a defense of the administration available here.  Great timeline available here.  See here also:



UPDATE: From the Washington Times (Rep. Mike Kelly, "Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volt," Wednesday, October 10, 2012):

While the security budget for Libya was being cut, the Department of State was spending a lot of money on Chevy Volts. 

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libyato continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country. 

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevenswas copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.” 

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies. 

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.” 

The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.” 

While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it. 

Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. 

Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi, two at the U.S. diplomatic compound and scene of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks. . . .