freeman3 wrote:Well, you can assume that Hicks knows what he is talking about. As for me, If he can't show an adequate basis for his opinions, I don't see why his opinion should be respected just because he has reached a high-level position in the State Department. If you are so deferential with regard to the opinions of high-ranking officials, then you should blindly accept whatever President Obama says...
Oh by the way, it appears that Hicks was incompetent. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/ ... ?mobile=nc

U.S. military sources serving in North Africa are challenging the latest White House claim that the administration is applying "all the resources" at its disposal to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, charging instead that the Obama administration knows who is responsible but is not acting.

"They have let it slip by because of politics, and now we've taken all the correlation we had and dropped the ball because of risk (aversion) -- and now the security in Libya is more fragile than ever," one U.S. special operator told Fox News. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirms that U.S. forces have tracked the alleged attackers since October but have since lost the trail of some of them, as no one up the chain of command would authorize them to capture or kill the targeted militia members.

Sources who have worked in and around Benghazi since last October spoke out after White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly said at a briefing more than a week ago that the administration was going after the suspects in the Sept. 11 terror attack. "From the beginning, the president has committed all the resources of this administration, of this government, to finding out who was responsible and to bringing them to justice," Carney said, as he faced a barrage of critical questions from the press on the heels of reports that challenged the administration's Benghazi narrative.

"Carney just said they want to bring those responsible to justice -- that's a big ole negative," said one special operator who watched the press conference with part of his team and disputed Carney's characterization of the administration's efforts in the wake of the attack.

According to well-placed sources, the administration has known where some of the perpetrators are, based on information given to the Pentagon back in January, but no action has been taken to capture or kill them.

Further, sources said they are being restricted from any reconnaissance or advanced force operations to go after those responsible in the eastern part of Libya.

"We know exactly where the mastermind lives," one U.S. official said.

U.S. intelligence sources claim the "mastermind" and other suspects are on video that night at the U.S. compound, and that investigators have other evidence. Fox News reported last fall that investigators have visually identified several attackers at the compound, including one who was caught in Turkey, deported to Tunisia and eventually released by the Tunisian government due to a "lack of evidence."

WASHINGTON — The White House Counsel’s office advised senior Obama officials to keep quiet about the attack in Benghazi during the weeks preceding last year’s November presidential election, according to two administration sources.

BuzzFeed has learned that key members of President Obama’s national security team, including deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, pushed to release a comprehensive timeline of events documenting the attack that would also synthesize the views of the various government agencies into one report. The CIA also wanted the White House to put out such a timeline, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.

Those plans were quashed, however, when the White House Counsel’s office, which is led by Kathryn Ruemmler, advised the officials to not release any information to the public out of fear it could be used against them in any subsequent investigations and other legal complications.

The White House told BuzzFeed any suggestion that Ruemmler shot down the release of the Benghazi timeline was “off base” — but an official said the White House would not comment “on leaks out of purported internal deliberations.”

BuzzFeed’s sources said the legal advice proved frustrating for a number of officials in the president’s orbit, who felt they would have better served to put to rest controversy that has lasted nine months.

Meanwhile, it appears: 1) that the US government is not moving heaven and Earth to bring justice to those who murdered four Americans; 2) those who committed an act of war are being treated like drug pushers (common criminals):

rickyp wrote:fate

Meanwhile, it appears: 1) that the US government is not moving heaven and Earth to bring justice to those who murdered four Americans; 2) those who committed an act of war are being treated like drug pushers (common criminals):

This is the same administration that has used drone attacks over 500 times?
Its not like they are reticent about using force Fate.

Maybe the unnamed sources are either wrong or they have only part of the picture. Unnamed sources often say things they can't back up in public. Sometimes because the claims are false.

There are also reports on Fox that the CIA were rounding up Libyan ordinance and giving it to the Turks who were smuggling it to the Syrian resistance...
Do you believe that?

freeman3 wrote:DF, I think you have used up your life-time supply of references of drinking the Kool-Aid...Also I am not attacking Hick's character when I say his conclusory remarks do not have to be accepted unless they are backed up with substantial evidence.

His situation is not remotely analogous to a victim of a crime (the comparison is ludicrous). He is a high-level official attacking his own government and he should be prepared to offer substantive support for his opinions.

And by the way, it is relevant information if Hicks was incompetent. It suggests motivation for him to try and lash out at those who he feels have unfairly treated him (people are generally reluctant to accept that they are incompetent)

However, ThinkProgress has talked to staffers based in Libya who counter Hicks’ portrayal of both his own performance and the State Department’s alleged response to him speaking out. A meeting between Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and Hicks took place in Tripoli prior to his removal from Libya, but not under the same circumstances Hicks sought to portray. Counter to Hicks’ story of an unwarranted reassignment, the staff was upset with Hicks’ performance since he was first assigned to Tripoli on July 31, and told Jones as much prior to her meeting with Hicks.

“[Jones] and her aide had one-on-one meetings with us to see if [Hicks] could be guided into being a better leader,” a State Department employee posted to Libya told ThinkProgress. “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post,” said the employee, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, as they were not cleared to discuss personnel issues with the press.

A second State Department employee present in Libya before and during the Benghazi attacks confirmed the meetings occurred. Assistant Secretary Jones’ meetings with the staff prior to Oct. 2 were “entirely” focused on Hicks’ performance, according to this second employee, who also believed that Hicks should be removed from his position. “The group of us who were here during the attacks, we sat here two nights ago and watched [the hearing] with our jaws dropped,” the staffer said, referring to Hicks’ claim that he was demoted out of retribution for speaking out.

Hicks also said that Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, dressed him down shortly after he criticized the lie-agreed-upon narrative repeated by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous demonstration prompted by a YouTube video.

"Jones counseled me on my management style, she said staff was upset," Hicks said. "(She) delivered a very blistering critique of my management style and said, 'I don't know why (Libya charge d'affaires) Larry Pope would want you back.'

"I asked her why the ambassador said there was a demonstration when the embassy reported there was an attack," Hicks said. "The sense I got is that I needed to stop my line of questioning." When Hicks was asked whether he'd ever been told before not to meet with a congressional delegation: "Never."

Josh Rogin reports:

The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.

“Cheryl Mills directed me to remove you immediately from the [deputy assistant secretary] position,” Jones told Maxwell, according to Maxwell.

The decision to remove Maxwell and not Jones seems to conflict with the finding of the ARB that responsibility for the security failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi should fall on more senior officials.

Moreover, Jones wasn’t disciplined, “nor was the principal deputy assistant secretary of State at Near Eastern Affairs, Liz Dibble, who is slated to receive a plush post as the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London this summer.”

In short, people actually responsible for security in Libya weren’t disciplined. Hillary Clinton wasn’t even interviewed by the Accountability Review Board. And Maxwell gets the ax. Something sure does seem wrong here.

In 2002, Power told a Berkeley interviewer that she would advise a President to put together a “massive” Western military coalition to occupy Israel and the Palestinian territories in order to impose “a solution on unwilling parties.” On top of that, she told Harry Kreisler that this should be done even though it “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.” That would be the Jews in America, in case the subtlety didn’t come across:

rickyp wrote:Maybe you should watch the whole interview Fate, instead of depending on Hot Air pull quotes for your information....

Marine Corps Col. George Bristol was in a key position in the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) chain of command the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As such, he's high on the list of people that some Republican members of Congress want to interview. But they don't know where he is and the Pentagon isn't telling.

Pentagon spokesman Major Robert Firman told CBS News that the Department of Defense "cannot compel retired members to testify before Congress."

"They say he's retired and they can't reach out to him," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CBS News. "That's hogwash."

Bristol, a martial arts master, was commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara based in Stuttgart, Germany until he retired last March. In an article in Stars and Stripes, Bristol is quoted at his retirement ceremony as telling his troops that "an evil" has descended on Africa, referring to Islamic militant groups. "It is on us to stomp it out."

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have asked the Pentagon for assistance in locating Bristol so that they can question him about events the night of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. But those efforts have come up empty.

bbauska wrote:Dept. of Defense personnel who have retired, are obligated to provide address updates. The DOD has this info.

With a bit more effort, this could be resolved . . . unless there's no way to resolve it

He added that "any congressional committee can call the witnesses it needs" through subpoena, if necessary.

rickyp wrote:fate

With a bit more effort, this could be resolved . . . unless there's no way to resolve it

Oh c'mon. From your own article.

He added that "any congressional committee can call the witnesses it needs" through subpoena, if necessary.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can't subpoena someone you can't find. That's the point.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You can't subpoena someone you can't find. That's the point.

Does it mean they can't find him? Or just that as a retiree they can't compel him in the same way they could an employee?

Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have asked the Pentagon for assistance in locating Bristol so that they can question him about events the night of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. But those efforts have come up empty.