The truth at any cost lowers all other costs — curated by former US spy Robert David Steele.
Priceless video, one day before 9/11 — military cannot account for 25% of what it already spends.
Phi Beta Iota: We suspect–lacking direct knowledge–that a considerable portion of the “unaccounted for” funds actually went to pay for underground cities in the continuity of operations / elite fallback bunkers. This is different from the 41% documented waste in weapons systems contracts that is properly documented.
For those who may not have been following, article below is a pretty good high level summary of what happened in Benghazi on 11 Sep 2012. To date, I am aware of two official reports issued on the incident: one by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and an internal one by State Department. I attach both for your reference. I have seen ((UNVERIFIED)) open-source reporting asserting that an AC-130 gunship was available to support but that the Obama Administration denied clearance to fire. NFI.
Benghazi Threat Level Was ‘Flashing Red' On 9/11
Obama State Department still owes Americans answers
By Joe Lieberman and Sen. Susan M. Collins
Washington Times, January 4, 2013, Pg. B1
While our country spent Sept. 11, 2012, remembering the terrorist attacks that took place 11 years earlier here at home, brave Americans posted at U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, were fighting for their lives against a terrorist assault. When the fight ended, four patriotic Americans, including our ambassador, were dead. While we mourn their deaths, it is also crucial that we examine the circumstances of the attack in Benghazi.
We recently released the findings of our bipartisan report on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, which has now been shared with the administration.
First, our report finds the threat level was “flashing red” in Libya, and Benghazi particularly, as Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy told us. The thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents we reviewed and interviews we conducted depict a crescendo of evidence from the intelligence community and State Department personnel on the ground saying, effectively, “This place is dangerous, and we're not adequately protected.”
Second, the terrorists essentially walked into the compound unimpeded and set it ablaze because of the extremely poor security. This stark reality shaped our investigation as we sought to understand how each layer of security typical at diplomatic posts around the world broke down so completely and quickly in Benghazi. We believe the closed-circuit television video of the attack, which shows this failure in real time, should be released to the public, because it will make clear how unprepared the State Department was for this attack.
Tragically, the reaction to the flashing red indicators in a city awash with dangerous weapons and extremists was woefully inadequate to address the clear and present danger there. There was an unjustified trust that the Libyan government – which is friendly to the United States – would protect our diplomats according to long-standing international law, despite clear indications that the government did not have the capacity to do so. The replacements – a local security guard company and a hired militia – had limited capacities and questionable loyalties.
Meanwhile, State Department personnel in Washington ignored or responded incompletely to repeated pleas for more security from those on the ground in Libya. Physical barriers that could have slowed attackers and given our personnel time to prepare were not in place, despite previous recommendations for their installation at high-threat posts following a 2004 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Saudi Arabia that left six dead. Installing these barriers and accompanying gear costs $55,000 or less on average, according to the State Department inspector general. Further, after failing to fill the security vacuum left by the absence of host nation security, State Department officials neglected to make the one decision that remained: to temporarily close the Benghazi facility until security could be implemented to protect the Americans assigned there.
Third, what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. This fact was clear to the intelligence community and to key State Department personnel almost immediately after the attack. Nevertheless, unclear and contradictory statements made by some administration officials contributed to the unnecessary confusion about what happened.
Honest, he is….
‘Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment.'
A multimedia exploration of Chuck Hagel's historic moment, and what it means for a declining presidency. Read the story. See the videos. Watch history happen.
EXTRACT:
He's out of patience with the young cheerleaders of this war, the chickenhawks at places like The Weekly Standard who once called him part of an “axis of appeasement.” He is out of patience with think-tank cowboys and talk-show Napoleons. “I'm always taken aback by that certain cavalier manner, not connecting at all with that human loss,” he says. “I do think of those guys, kicking doors down, walking target practice for snipers.
Read full article (4 screenes)
On January 24, 2007, Sen. Chuck Hagel spoke about the war in Iraq. Watch the 8 minutes and 21 seconds that rocked Congress. Via YouTube.com.
Phi Beta Iota:
Doesn't get any better! AND a Senator.
Hagel Would Be First Former Enlisted Soldier To Run Pentagon
by Tom Bowman
NPR, December 24, 2012
Former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is said to be on President Obama's short list to be the next defense secretary. But even the possibility of his nomination has stirred up opposition — particularly from members of his own political party.
If Hagel can survive a political ambush in Washington, he would be the first Pentagon chief who saw combat as an enlisted soldier.
The blunt-spoken Hagel favors deeper cuts in military spending and is wary of entangling America in long overseas missions.
In January 2007, Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were fighting President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. Hagel was the only Republican to join them, and he blasted those who refused to take a stand.
“Why are you elected?” Hagel asked. “If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves, and have the courage to step up, than what we're asking our young men and women to do? I don't think so.”
Lessons From Vietnam
Hagel knew better than most what America was asking of its young men and women. Forty years earlier he'd fought in Vietnam with his brother Tom.
They served in the same unit. On patrol one morning in 1968, Chuck was hit by shrapnel in the chest, and Tom rushed to help him. A month later, Chuck saved Tom, pulling him from a burning vehicle. Between them the two brothers earned five Purple Hearts.
PDF (20 Pages): 2012 CRS Understanding Defense Acquisition
Phi Beta Iota: This CRS report comes at a very important time. As with all CRS reports, its describes the process without being starkly prejudicial. The report addresses the attempts to shift from a threat-based requirements system to a capabilities system. What the report does not do–and perhaps another report is needed–is point out that the acquisition is totally disconnected from a national Whole of Government and national military strategy — neither exist (what we have is political fluff, not real strategy).
While touted as strategy, I fail to see any, more like wishful thinking and hope…..and as we all know, Hope is Not a Strategy….
Remarks by Secretary Panetta at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA: Thank you very much, Theresa, for that kind introduction. And thank you for the invitation to be here today. I look forward to the opportunity to go back and pick walnuts back in Carmel Valley. I've told this story before, but it makes the point. When I was young, my father — when he first planted that walnut orchard, as it grew, he would go around with a pole and hook and shake each of the branches. And my brother and I would be underneath collecting the walnuts. When I got elected to Congress, my Italian father said, “You've been well trained to go to Washington, because you've been dodging nuts all your life.”
True. It was great training.
BOYKIN: Congress asking the wrong questions on Benghazi
Lack of military response should be top issue
Washington Times, 26 December 2012
“Iknew wherever I was that you thought of me and that if I got in a tight place, you would come — if alive.” This statement was contained in a letter dated March 10, 1864, written by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman to Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. It expresses an ageless ethos among warriors, especially those within the U.S. military. The commitment to come to the aid of fellow Americans in times of duress and danger has always been one of the foundations of America’s fighting forces. Yet that appears to have changed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, when no effort was made to respond to the calls for help by U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his CIA team at the U.S. Consulate facility.
Why was there no attempt to save the lives of the ambassador and his colleagues, beyond sending an unarmed drone to observe their demise? The congressional committees investigating the events in Benghazi seem to have focused on the Sunday talk-show statements of Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who blamed the attack on an obscure anti-Islam video made by a relatively unknown man in California.
