Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

10PM Phone Call: genesis of a cover story?

Andrew McCarthy:

[…] were investigating Benghazi, I’d be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That’s the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the one that’s gotten close to zero attention.

Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and “talking points.” The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.

A good deal of media attention has quite appropriately been lavished on e-mail traffic between mid-level administration officials in the days leading up to Sunday, September 16. That is the day when Ms. Rice, a close Obama confidant, made her appalling appearances on the Sunday-morning political shows. Those performances were transparently designed to mislead the American people, during the presidential campaign stretch run, into believing that an anti-Islamic Internet video — rather than a coordinated terrorist attack orchestrated by al-Qaeda affiliates, coupled with the Obama administration’s gross failure to secure and defend American personnel in Benghazi — was responsible for the killings.

Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration’s deft handling of the Arab Spring — by empowering Islamists — had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was “Islamophobia” and the “violent extremism” it allegedly causes — which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.

All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.

Even in the conservative press, it has become received wisdom that President Obama was AWOL on the night of September 11, after first being informed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in the late afternoon, that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. You hear it again and again: While Americans were under attack, the commander-in-chief checked out, leaving subordinates to deal with the crisis while he got his beauty sleep in preparation for a fundraising campaign trip to Vegas.

That is not true . . . and the truth, as we’ve come to expect with Obama, is almost surely worse. There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the “blame the video” narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.

We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”

Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.

The earlier story better fit Obama’s modus operandi, which is to disappear in times of crisis. His brief legislative career was about voting “present” because he prefers to be absent when accountability knocks. The idea is to be the Obama of Evan Thomas lore: “standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.” He reemerges only after the shooting stops and the smoke clears: gnosis personified, here to diagnose our failings. He is not a commander-in-chief for the battle but the armchair general of the post mortem.

In this instance, though, Carney’s hand was forced by then-secretary Clinton. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, she recounted first learning at about 4 p.m. on September 11 that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. That was very shortly after the siege started. Over the hours that followed, Clinton stated, “we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.” It was in the course of this “constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings” that Clinton then recalled: “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective.”

Yes, the 10 p.m. phone call.

[…]

[…] at 8 p.m. Washington time, Hicks spoke directly with Clinton and some of her top advisers by telephone. Not only was it apparent that a terrorist attack involving al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Sharia was underway, but Hicks’s two most profound fears at the time he briefed Clinton centered on those terrorists: First, there were reports that Ambassador Stevens might be in the clutches of the terrorists at a hospital they controlled; second, there were rumblings that a similar attack on the embassy in Tripoli could be imminent, convincing Hicks that State Department personnel should evacuate. He naturally conveyed these developments to his boss, the secretary of state. Clinton, he recalled, agreed that evacuation was the right course.

At about 9 p.m. Washington time, Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens was dead. Hicks said he relayed all significant developments on to Washington as the evening progressed — although he did not speak directly to Secretary Clinton again after the 8 p.m. briefing.

That is the context of the 10 p.m. phone call between the president and the secretary of state.

We do not have a recording of this call, and neither Clinton nor the White House has described it beyond noting that it happened. But we do know that, just a few minutes after Obama called Clinton, the Washington press began reporting that the State Department had issued a statement by Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack. In it, she asserted:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?

Interestingly, CNS News asked Carney whether, in that 10 p.m. phone call, the president and Secretary Clinton discussed the statement that Clinton was about to issue, and, specifically, whether they discussed “the issue of inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Carney declined to answer.

We now know from the e-mails and TV clips that, by Sunday morning, the White House staff, State Department minions, and Susan Rice were all in agreement that the video fairy tale, peppered with indignant rebukes of Islamophobia, was the way to go.

How do you suppose they got that idea?

And even more importantly — in light of this — when was the stand-down order given.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the President and his tight group of advisers were worrying about narrative-shaping, spin, plausible deniability, and being able to string the tragedy out beyond the election. Part of that calculus was to keep military engagement out of the equation and play the attacks down as a spontaneous uprising.

And while they were plotting the political strategy — which Clinton, who has her own political aspirations, would have happily gone along with, the upshot being, she hoped, that her gross incompetence not come to the fore — a couple of brave men died alone, exhausted, unsupported, on a rooftop in Libyan.
— All while Obama and Clinton planned alibis and the cover up.

Did Obama know that the two SEALS had attempted a rescue and were calling for backup?  Did he care that the CIA annex was being attacked — knowing that the nature of the facility would allow him keep much of the information classified?

Where is Charlie Gibson to once again ride the cultural referent for scandal, coming to the air and intoning gravely, as he did during Bush’s presidency, “What did the President know and when did he know it?”

(h/t geoff B; more here and here)

74 Replies to “10PM Phone Call: genesis of a cover story?”

  1. sdferr says:

    Blackbox detectives stories are a gas for [a] reason.

  2. geoffb says:

    i have my own view on the stand down order which is all Obama had to do was nothing and then nothing could be done.

    He always votes present when there is accountable actions being done. He places his real vote well before things happen by making the outcome inevitable through actions taken long before and in secret. His electoral campaigns have always been done that way. Why would he do anything else any other way?

  3. JHoward says:

    Mason’s suggestion to add “maladministration,” Madison’s objection to it as “vague,” and Mason’s substitution of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors agst the State” are the only comments in the Philadelphia convention specifically directed to the constitutional language describing the grounds for impeachment of the President. Mason’s objection to limiting the grounds to “Treason and Bribery” was that treason would “not reach many great and dangerous offences” including ” [a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution.” His willingness to substitute “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” especially given his apparent familiarity with the English use of the term as evidenced by his reference to the Warren Hastings impeachment, suggests that he believed “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” would cover the offenses about which he was concerned.

    Contemporary comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No, 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:

    “. . . those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

    Etc., etc., etc. Source.

    Disclaimer: I am unhelpful.

  4. Silver Whistle says:

    And additionally, nobody hammers the Glen Doherty/JSOC flight from Benghazi. This absolutely nails the lie that “nobody could get there in time to help”.

  5. sdferr says:

    “. . . from Benghazi.”

    “To” though, right? Toward.

  6. Silver Whistle says:

    Yes, should have been from Tripoli. Sorry, I really need a beer and a cheroot.

  7. sdferr says:

    Cheer up?

    The White House press corps posed several angry questions to Obama administration spokesperson Jay Carney about the James Rosen case in his daily briefing Monday. The Washington Post revealed Sunday that Rosen, who works for the Fox News Channel, had been the target of unusual surveillance by the Department of Justice, which treated his reports on North Korea as potential crimes against national security.

    Showing unusual fight, reporters such as Jonathan Karl of ABC News and Major Garrett of CBS News were visibly angry as they challenged Carney’s evasive responses. Carney refused to condemn or comment on the way in which the Department of Justice had treated Rosen, other than to emphasize President Barack Obama’s general support for the First Amendment and to stress that the case was an ongoing criminal investigation.

  8. sdferr says:

    Some particular someone’s Pinto just blew up.

  9. Pablo says:

    This absolutely nails the lie that “nobody could get there in time to help”.

    Ty Woods et al who were at the Annex were told to stand down but went to the consulate anyway rescued a significant number of people. They DID help, after being told not to. Multiple orders to stand down were given.

  10. sdferr says:

    But Tom Donilon?!

    Guilty as sin, free as a bird.

    Magic wand, you see.

  11. geoffb says:

    Multiple orders to stand down were given.

    If what I’m saying is in the case then there wouldn’t be an order to “stand down” but anyone who requested that they be allowed to go to the consulate would be told that they had to await approval from higher up.

    And such approval would be slow in coming if it came at all because all the standing orders which covered such a contingency, military action on the territory of a sovereign nation, would defer to ever higher authority till they would need, in the end, Presidential approval. Which wouldn’t happen in time because he was not available. Purposefully so.

    This could have been set up long before the attack happened and it wouldn’t have even been controversial that no military action could take place without Presidential approval if it was happening on foreign soil which the so called consulate was, as was the annex. It could be worded so that defensive actions by those attacked were approved but additional forces would require higher approval.

    This, to me, fits with Obama’s whole way of doing everything.

  12. Silver Whistle says:

    If what I’m saying is in the case then there wouldn’t be an order to “stand down” but anyone who requested that they be allowed to go to the consulate would be told that they had to await approval from higher up.

    This is part of my point. Doherty and the JSOC team were responding to calls for help. They went. People were saved. What about that approval? The CIA either didn’t need it, or listen to it. Clearly there were some fighting men and women who held their comrades in greater esteem than the feckless sack of shit who went to get his beauty sleep.

  13. geoffb says:

    In this book they write that Ty Woods was told he didn’t have approval to go but after he badgered the COM enough the rescue was either approved or that the COM turned a blind eye to their going without approval.

  14. geoffb says:

    Sorry, this book.

  15. dicentra says:

    Were they covering incompetence to save an election or covering criminal gun-running (or worse) to avoid prison?

    With this crowd, I vote criminality. Else, why hang the ambassador out to dry?

  16. dicentra says:

    the feckless sack of shit who went to get his beauty sleep.

    Ten bucks says that’s a lie: Obama was way more involved than they want to admit. They’d rather make him out to be disconnected than depraved.

  17. Libby says:

    The thought that Obama & Hillary discussed messaging strategy while the attack was till going on, and Woods & Doherty were still fighting for their lives against AQ terrorists, is truly sickening.
    This is who Obama is. Wonder if MoDo and the rest of the MSM boot-lickers understand just how cool their “Mr. Cool”, “no drama-Obama” really is. Maybe when they’ve been informed they’ve been under surveillance by the DOJ…

  18. Silver Whistle says:

    Ten bucks says that’s a lie: Obama was way more involved than they want to admit. They’d rather make him out to be disconnected than depraved.

    I’ll take that ten. It wouldn’t take Gustsy Call ten minutes drop all the little people in it. And off for a good night’s sleep without a care in the world.

  19. cranky-d says:

    OT: Any word from leigh lately? That tornado was nasty.

  20. sdferr says:

    Any word from leigh lately?

    No, but I think they’re out east and south of there, awaiting the stormline’s movement through probably.

  21. cranky-d says:

    Okay. I knew she live in the toolies, but I wasn’t sure where.

  22. sdferr says:

    I don’t have specific knowledge where, but I think she’s mentioned being in Boren’s district (2), and nearby the “lakes” area. So.

  23. sdferr says:

    Anonymous Obazma administration official on background: “What a Godsend this devastating tornado rip is for us. We needed a change of subject something fierce . . . like the fierce urgency of now.”

    [satire, for the humor impaired]

  24. cranky-d says:

    Satire it is, and yet very, very true.

  25. Pablo says:

    I’ll take that ten. It wouldn’t take Gustsy Call ten minutes drop all the little people in it. And off for a good night’s sleep without a care in the world.

    Seconded. He doesn’t govern, but he does love him some campaigning.

  26. sdferr says:

    He doesn’t govern . . .

    On the other hand, as Michael Graham has pointed out, his administration keeps better track of working reporters than it does of Boston jihadis. The fierce urgency of “shut off those whistleblowers NOW!”

  27. Pablo says:

    If what I’m saying is in the case then there wouldn’t be an order to “stand down” but anyone who requested that they be allowed to go to the consulate would be told that they had to await approval from higher up.

    Hicks testified that they were on their way to the airport to board a plane and were told they could not leave, as they did not have approval. So while you’re right that they weren’t authorized, they were planning to go anyway and were ordered to stand down. A stand down order was given.

  28. cranky-d says:

    The Benghazi mess will require us to either give up the world stage entirely, which is out of the question, or it will require us to do some serious killing that we may have been able to avoid, if not in fact than at least in scope.

    One cannot avoid confrontation with enemies, but one can be forceful enough when it occurs to keep such confrontations to a minimum.

  29. sdferr says:

    A stand down order was given.

    Though in defense of geoffb’s stance, this could merely have constituted a reminder of an existing condition (i.e, a condition obtaining prior to the day in question, even, lacking an affirmative removal of an existing stand in place, expressed in the alternative, an affirmative “go”), right?

  30. Pablo says:

    Yes, that appears to be exactly what it was. At the same time, it was also an order to stand down given that it aborted their ongoing attempt to head toward the sound of the guns.

  31. BigBangHunter says:

    – Scandal of the day? Well it’s Monday, so of course.

  32. Pablo says:

    One cannot avoid confrontation with enemies, but one can be forceful enough when it occurs to keep such confrontations to a minimum.

    One can be, but The One has not been. Now we have an enemy who neither fears nor respects us, and our leadership is at least sympathetic to if not outright collaborating with them.

    I never thought I’d know how it feels to be Vichy.

  33. dicentra says:

    One cannot avoid confrontation with enemies, but one can be forceful enough when it occurs to keep such confrontations to a minimum.

    Or, as Ender Wiggin used to do: don’t win just this fight, win all the fights that would arise from this one.

    IOW, hit ’em so hard they can’t get back up. Because they’re dead.

  34. leigh says:

    OT: Any word from leigh lately? That tornado was nasty.

    Thanks, all. We’re fine. The tornadoes are hitting the middle of the state and we are up in the northeast about 40 miles from Missouri.

  35. cranky-d says:

    I expect the movie “Ender’s Game” to disappoint me greatly. That way I might be able to enjoy a little of it.

  36. newrouter says:

    good to know you’re ok l

  37. BigBangHunter says:

    – Warning to staffers “dazling”.

  38. leigh says:

    Thanks, nr. The only time I’ve ever actually been in a tornado was when I lived in Pittsburgh and one decided to tear through Mt. Washington. I watched it through the windows (I just thought it was a just a big storm) and after it stopped, I saw that my yard had my neighbor’s awnings in it and that all the power lines were down and the trees were splintered. It was just like they say, like a freight train running by the house.

  39. newrouter says:

    “Warning to staffers “dazling”.”

    proggtard: “bush did it too”

  40. newrouter says:

    was that in the 90’s? i remember watching one hit mt wash from my house on troy hill.

  41. leigh says:

    Yes. It was in 97.

  42. leigh says:

    Sorry. It was June of 98. I was trying to remember how old my youngest was since he was still tiny.

  43. sdferr says:

    I’ve been frequently returning in my mind to the testimony of the State Dept. Security division woman (sorry, don’t remember her name) in the first round of hearings on Benghazi. She said, in answer to the “why was security denied?” question, that the “policy” was to seek “normalization” or some similar bureau-speak, a policy from “on high” which determined that heightened security presence didn’t look like normalization, therefore remove the heightened security presence.

    This pins the responsibility for the deaths squarely on the “higher ups” who decided they wanted this “appearance”. Stephens was sent to Benghazi, said Greg Hicks, in specific agreement with Sec. Clinton to establish a US mission there consistent with ordinary US missions in other nations. Obama doesn’t want the US to appear to be at war with jihadist Islam. He too wants the appearance of normalization. These two fucks are in this up to their necks, and they know it. They knew it the day of the attack, saying to one another in the 10:00 call “uh oh, this isn’t going to look good for us. Our policy made this happen. We gotta do something to tamp it down, and certainly do nothing to ramp it up!”

    This is all right there in front of the faces of anyone paying the least attention. The press, of course, refuses that option.

  44. newrouter says:

    i called honzman’s show on kdka with my eyewitness report

  45. dicentra says:

    the “policy” was to seek “normalization”

    To cut down on the number of personnel who are privy to the gun-running to the MB in Syria.

    All that other stuff is just a distraction.

  46. newrouter says:

    “The press, of course, refuses that option.”

    at least huma got a weiner out of the deal

  47. mondamay says:

    Dead children? Must be time for tornado control…

  48. BigBangHunter says:

    – Apparently Global warming Tornado’s never get the memo.

  49. Pablo says:

    I’ve been frequently returning in my mind to the testimony of the State Dept. Security division woman (sorry, don’t remember her name) in the first round of hearings on Benghazi.

    Charlene Lamb.

    This is all right there in front of the faces of anyone paying the least attention. The press, of course, refuses that option.

    Of course. They’re too busy selling the fiction that Republican security budget cuts (that never happened) are to blame, as that’s the new talking point.

  50. cranky-d says:

    I don’t want progressives to get hurt or die, I just want them to shut up and get out of my way. They, on the other hand, want us dead.

    There is something very wrong with them.

  51. leigh says:

    Shep Smith is such a ghoul. It’s like he wants there to be tons of dead little kids in Moore.

    Cranky, you’re more generous than I am about the progressives.

  52. Danger says:

    Perhaps the recently retired Gen Ham could be coaxed into discussing the stand down whodunnit.

  53. I don’t want progressives to get hurt or die, I just want them to shut up and get out of my way. They, on the other hand, want us dead.

    Years ago on my blog I playfully posted one of those “Republicans will vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday” things.

    A progg commented that Democrats will use their headlights at night, Republicans during the day.

    I wanted his side to lose an election, he wanted my side dead.

  54. sdferr says:

    DiploPundit: Josh Rogin’s Exclusive: Benghazi ‘Scapegoat’ Raymond Maxwell Speaks Out — Duck and Cover!

    The somebodies appear to have miscalculated that folks would just go away quietly …

    And from Powerline (including Maxwell’s latest poem on the subject): Hillary Clinton’s designated Benghazi scapegoat speaks out

    Maxwell also says that nobody from the State Department has ever told him why he has been disciplined. He has never been granted access to the classified portion of the ARB report, where all of the details regarding personnel failures leading up to Benghazi are set forth. Maxwell also says he has never been shown any evidence or witness testimony linking him to the Benghazi incident.

    […]

    According to the Daily Beast’s sources, the decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s top “henchman,” whose services for the Clintons date back to the days of Whitewater and Monica. The decision was executed by Beth Jones, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, although it has been reported that Jones understood from Mills that Maxwell would receive another spot rather than being placed in the purgatory of indefinite administrative leave.

    Mills and Jones were named by Gregory Hicks as the two State Department officials involved in retaliating against him for questioning Susan Rice’s statements about Benghazi on the Sunday talk shows. Being Hillary’s henchman can be a demanding job.

  55. geoffb says:

    At “In from the Cold.”

    Mr. Pfeiffer’s parsing suggests the White House has something to hide. What might that be? Our guess goes something like this: initial reports from Libya were bad; in the middle of a re-election campaign, Mr. Obama took the advice of his political advisers and tried to distance himself from Benghazi–even before the attack ended. Key decisions were deferred to subordinates, part of a strategy to muddle through the situation and “manage” the disaster on the back end.

    This strategy is reflected in the lack of communication between Mr. Obama and his senior national security advisers on that fateful evening. To date, there is no record of additional conversations between the President, Defense Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey beyond their 5:30 meeting. Similarly, there appears to be only one phone call between the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the attack in Benghazi. That conversation reportedly occurred at 10:00 pm Eastern Time, hours before the assault ended.

    Clearly, it’s hard for a President to manage a crisis when he has limited communication with his advisers. And it’s even more difficult when he is outside the Situation Room, apparently by design. If there’s anything worse than a commander-in-chief who is AWOL, it’s a President who deliberately takes himself out of the loop during a serious foreign policy crisis. The political calculations of Barack H. Obama are now being laid bare, and the White House is doing all it can to minimize the damage.

  56. Diana says:

    Let’s get a little frank and sense, shall we? Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama murdered innocents in Benghazi for political purposes.. Does the word “murder” resonate in y’all’s minds? Say it! It will set you more free.

  57. And that dude is still in prison for insulting islam.

    Apart from the people who were left to die to cover up whatever covert operation they were involved in, to me, that arrest; coming when it did and why it did, and publicized the way it was by our government, is the biggest scandal of this century. I would like to see someone other than Glenn Reynolds focus on this particularly horrendous fact of this case.

  58. It’s (ahem) unreasonable to believe that any reporter straying into subject matter the White (Mil)house didn’t want reported, wasn’t being watched.

  59. daveinsocal says:

    As if we needed yet another reason to despise him and wish for his speedy removal from the Senate:

    President Obama’s newest ally: John McCain

    I would not be surprised in the least if McCain started actively running running interference for “good man” Obama.

  60. newrouter says:

    I am offended by a government that uses the IRS to bully groups such as the Tea Party but I am also offended by a government that convenes a hearing to bully one of American’s success stories.

    I am offended by the spectacle of dragging in here executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal. If anyone should be on trial here, it should be Congress.

    I frankly think the Committee should apologize to Apple. I frankly think Congress should be on trial here for creating a bizarre and byzantine tax code that runs into the tens of thousands of pages, for creating a tax code that simply doesn’t compete with the rest of the world.

    Rand Paul Stands Up Against Government Greed

  61. cranky-d says:

    I’m a Rand Paul fan. I hope he doesn’t disappoint me later, but he probably will.

  62. leigh says:

    I also Stand with Rand.

  63. I give Rand Paul the highest rank I would give to any Republican presidential prospect for 2016: Potentially Acceptable.

  64. cranky-d says:

    That sounds about right, McGehee.

  65. mondamay says:

    I’m still kinda steamed about his drones for ordinary law enforcement comment.

    “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,”

  66. […] BENGHAZI KEY? — That 10PM Phone Call: genesis of a cover story?; The IRS Scandal Is Bad – The Benghazi […]

Comments are closed.