As to the media covering events, consider: NYT scolded by public editor for keeping Libya hearing coverage off front page (FNC). Killing a US Ambassador, any nation’s ambassador for that matter, is an act of war. An act of war is always news worthy. Pearl Harbor and 9-11 were acts of war. The Ambassador’s death in Libya at the hands of Al Qaida/Taliban should have made the front page of every paper in the USA and been the lead in all televised national news. How much coverage have you seen of the attack? Do you still think it was an impromptu response to a video? Get the facts from the people involved and testifying under oath.
You need to be deciding for yourself which politicians and news sources are telling the truth and who is lying. I would suggest you NOT trust anyone and that includes me. Read the minutes of the Congressional Hearings where those testifying are under oath and at risk of serving jail time for even misrepresenting facts (think Scooter Libby) and certainly for lying, but government sources have not yet published the pertinent transcripts.
In general you can normally read the transcripts of Congressional Hearings in Library of Congress. But, it takes time for the documents to be prepared, indexed, and published, sometimes weeks to months. Also, the Law Librarians’ Society of Washington, D.C. maintains copies of transcripts, but they run behind too. The Government Printing Office publishes the Hearing transcripts too, but GPO runs way behind. This is because Congress reserves the right to EDIT the documents sent to GPO and the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record Transcripts usually come out ahead of other sources.
I find it strange that hearings on Benghazi, Libya are not yet been published by the various government agencies. Some of the delays getting the minutes out seem longer than normal, but it is too soon to say. The conspiracy people can read lots into that. I won’t despite the fact that we are near an election. I suspect Congress is having hard time deciding on the final edit. You can make your call as to why that may be.
So, where can we find the data now and preferably without its being edited, so we can make a decision for the upcoming election? Fortunately CSPAN makes their coverage available online for free. You can also find the original copies used in the CSPAN site on YouTube.
Watch the Hearing recorded by CSPAN at: The Security Failures of Benghazi (The Committee’s title, not mine or CSPAN’s). The Hearing is 3:12:00 hours long in Part 1. Part 2 is 57 minutes long. This record is the most accurate and least partisan as it is a record of what happened as it happened. That does not mean the committee members shown in the video are free from partisan bias and showmanship.
Notice on the CSPAN page there are links to transcripts of the various witnesses’s opening statement testimony. These are their opening statements prepared before the Hearing and read under oath during the Hearing. Also on that page are the links to documents referenced in the video.
The most revealing testimony is by Lt. Col. Wood and Ms Lamb (Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security U.S. Department of State). The key points from testimony are:
- Funding was not a factor.
- The attack was watched in NEAR REAL TIME by the State Dept. Meaning: as it happened.
- Multiple requests for additional security were denied by the State Dept.
Point 1 – According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008. For a handy reference to documents See: Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible (Heritage.org) – I will point out that if one looks at Thomas Law for the voting record on the latest budget funding embassy security they will find it was bipartisan with ONE more Democrat voting for the budget than Republicans. So, while less than the President asked for, it was still more than in past years and it was a bipartisan agreement.
See Part 2 – 00:19:00 – Ms Lamb states no matter what the funding they would have provided protection to any endangered embassy.
Point 2 – State Department Followed Benghazi Attack as It Happened (Bloomberg) Charlene Lamb’s statements are focused on. Quoting from page 5 of her statement: “When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
See Part 1 – 02:09:00 – Ms Lamb testifies about following events in near real time. Explosive! 02:16:00 testimony on 50 minute video of the attack that was available to State Dept. Tape had not been released at the time of the Hearing. As of now it is unclear who’s hands it is in. The Daily Beast says the FBI recovered the tape and the ‘administration’ is analyzing it. So far, I have not been able to find a copy of the video or hard information on when and who it was available to.
Point 3 – See U.S. official says superiors worked against effort to boost Benghazi security (CNN) for a point by point analysis of the Hearing testimony related to the issue of requests for additional security.
Quick Index to CSPAN Video
Part 1 – 00:35:00 – Lt Wood reads his opening statement.
Part 1 – 00:45:00 – Eric Nordstrom, Regional Security Officer at the U.S. Embassy for Libya, reads opening statement. I suggest you watch at least that portion starting at 00:46:00. It reveals some of what the State Dept knew prior to the attack.
Part 1 – 00:52:00 – Ms Lamb reads opening statement. I suggest you listen to 00:54:00 for a quick account of events.
Part 1 – 01:03:00 – Ambassador Kennedy reads his opening statement.
Part 1 – 01:15:00 – Rep. Issa (R) on Amb. Steven’s compliance with security.
Part 1 – 01:20:00 – Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) starts his questioning.
Part 1 – 01:26:00 – Rep. Dan Burton (R) stats his questioning. Was attack premeditated? It was a terrorist attack per Amb. Kennedy.
Part 1 – 01:34:00 – Rep. Eleanor Norton (D) starts questioning. Takes on the most controversial point. Amb. Susan Rice’s comments on various news shows stating it was an impromptu response to the Mohamed video. The interesting part starts at 1:35:00.
Part 1 – 1:42:00 – Rep. Jim Jordan (R) starts questioning. Risk assessment process.
Part 1 – 1:48:00 – Rep. Denis Kucinich (D) starts questioning, more of a statement. This is one unhappy Democrat asking hard questions wanting to know who screwed up. Worth listening to. 10 to 20K shoulder ground to air missiles. Is Al Quida established in Libya?
Part 1 – 01:55:00 – Rep Chaffetz gets into Hazardous Duty Pay being given to those posted in Benghazi. Buildings in Benghazi and Tripoli did not meet required standards. UN reports provided to State Dept. specifying on Sept. 1st the highest level of danger in Libya. Requests for security.
Part 1 02:20:00 – Rep Cooper reads list of attacks on US posts during current Obama presidency.
…
There is more explosive testimony. For many it will be unbelievable, which is why the link to the CSPAN recording of the event is important as an original source.
Summary
If you are not hearing these things from your news sources, you need better news sources. Use the link to be informed. You will then know who is lying or telling the truth in the Oct 16th and 22nd Presidential debates.
For good news sources I recommend Brietbart and Drudge Report, with Drudge being the least partisan.
Regardless of what you believe about Libya, harden your computer’s security.