Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Benghazi, David Petraeus, Michael J. Morell and the Destabilization of the Obama Administration

Michael J. Morell

Bosom Buddies: Karl Rove and Paula Broadwell, 6/11/2012

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books avail­able on this site.)

COMMENT: The ginned-up non-scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack is beginning to clarify, and our ruminations concerning the Petraeus affair and the succession of Michael J. Morell to the position of acting CIA director are becoming increasingly prescient.

It seemed apparent that Petraeus was set up to fall. (This is not to say he wasn’t a damn fool to take the bait–i.e. former counter-terrorism investigator Paula Broadwell.)

Some of the bullet points that we made in the context of the Petraeus affair:

  • Petraeus was going to be questioned about the Benghazi affair behind closed doors. Does this impinge on the Benghazi situation? Might this be connected to the “October Surprise II” that the GOP was crowing about last fall?
  • Petraeus was also seen by the Obama administration as an element of stability going into the second term. Might this affair be an effort at de-stabilizing Obama?
  • In the above context, note that negative headlines are dominating in the wake of Obama’s re-election.
  • The acting head of the CIA is Michael J. Morell, who gave Dubya his intelligence briefings and was actually with him on 9/11. Some observers were critical of Morell as being too much of an insider to effectively counteract abuses at the agency. Is this the agency “re-righting itself”–i.e. cleaning out an outsider? (The agency was initially reported to be leery of Petraeus, only coming to accept him when he adopted a “hands-off” approach to intelligence matters and CIA.)
  • On a highly speculative note, we’ve read of Nazi generals named Morell during our research into the Third Reich. I wondered if Morell might be an Underground Reich insert when I heard he was acting head of CIA and being considered as director. A legend would have been created to obscure his Nazi/German/Underground Reich background. This suspicion grew more profound when I saw Morell’s picture. Again, this is admittedly highly speculative. Look at Morell’s picture at right and see what you think.
  • Will Morrell work with the GOP and Underground Reich against Obama?

 Since that analysis was posted, we have learned that Morell is of German-American extraction. One wonders if his ancestors might have been part of the large German-American Fifth Column in the United States, encompassing such organizations as the Steuben Society and the German American Bund. (Under Cover by John Roy Carlson, available for download on this website, details that milieu.)

The thrust of the GOP charges in the Benghazi incident are allegations that the Obama administration denied that the attack was a terrorist incident and deleted references to CIA warnings in their report.

It has now become clear that it was none other than Michael J. Morell who deleted the references to the terrorist warnings! He was opposed by David Petraeus in this attempt!

Do not fail to note that Petraeus was then sacked, leaving Morell in charge of the CIA! (Again, it was Morell who gave George W. Bush his intelligence briefings and was actually with him at the time of the 9/11 attacks.)

As the destabilization of the Obama administration takes form, do not fail to note that the head of the IRS when the Tea Party fronts were targeted was a George W. Bush appointee!

At the same time, the whored-out American media are up in arms over the Justice Department’s seizing of reporters’ phone records. The phone records concern a story that contained leaked material about a counter-terrorism sting in Yemen.

Who leaked that material? Might it have been Michael J. Morell, or someone else linked to the Bush administration/GOP/Underground Reich?

We note that that seizure of phone records could be precisely calculated to inflame the media. 

The suspicion in these quarters centers on the 2012 leak as part of the pre-calculated destabilization of Obama.

“Early E-Mails on Beng­hazi Show Inter­nal Divisions” by Mark Landler, Eric Schmitt and Michael D. Shear; The New York Times; 5/15/2013.

EXCERPT: E-mails released by the White House on Wednes­day revealed a fierce inter­nal jostling over the government’s offi­cial talk­ing points in the after­math of last September’s attack in Beng­hazi, Libya, not only between the State Depart­ment and the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, but at the high­est lev­els of the C.I.A.

The 100 pages of e-mails showed a dis­agree­ment between David H. Petraeus, then the direc­tor of the C.I.A., and his deputy, Michael J. Morell, over how much to dis­close in the talk­ing points, which were used by Susan E. Rice, the ambas­sador to the United Nations, in tele­vi­sion appear­ances days after the attack.

Mr. Morell, admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials said, deleted a ref­er­ence in the draft ver­sion of the talk­ing points to C.I.A. warn­ings of extrem­ist threats in Libya, which State Depart­ment offi­cials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.

Mr. Morell, offi­cials said, acted on his own and not in response to pres­sure from the State Depart­ment. But when the final draft of the talk­ing points was sent to Mr. Petraeus, he dis­missed them, say­ing “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” adding that the heav­ily scrubbed account would not sat­isfy the House Demo­c­rat who had requested it.

“This is cer­tainly not what Vice Chair­man Rup­pers­berger was hop­ing to get,” Mr. Petraeus wrote, refer­ring to Rep­re­sen­ta­tive C. A. Dutch Rup­pers­berger of Mary­land, the top Demo­c­rat on the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, which had asked Mr. Petraeus for talk­ing points to use with reporters in dis­cussing the attack on Beng­hazi.

The White House released the e-mails to reporters after Repub­li­cans seized on snip­pets of the cor­re­spon­dence that became pub­lic on Fri­day to sug­gest that Pres­i­dent Obama’s national secu­rity staff had been com­plicit in try­ing to alter the talk­ing points for polit­i­cal reasons.

While the e-mails por­trayed White House offi­cials as being sen­si­tive to the con­cerns of the State Depart­ment, they sug­gest that Mr. Obama’s aides mostly medi­ated a bureau­cratic tug of war between the State Depart­ment and the C.I.A. over how much to dis­close — all under heavy time con­straints because of the demands from Capi­tol Hill. The e-mails revealed no new details about the administration’s evolv­ing account of the Sept. 11 attack, which killed four Amer­i­cans, includ­ing Ambas­sador J. Christo­pher Stevens. . . .

Discussion

5 comments for “Benghazi, David Petraeus, Michael J. Morell and the Destabilization of the Obama Administration”

  1. And now we learn that key passages from hundreds of emails released by the White House relating to Benghazi reported by ABC last week were inaccurate quotes peddled by by Republicans and misreported by ABC:

    Talking Points Memo
    Editor’s blog
    The Latest Turn of the Screw
    Josh Marshall May 19, 2013, 8:18 PM

    For the last several days we’ve been narrating the odd aftermath of ABC’s Jon Karl’s blockbuster but ultimately erroneous report about the White House Benghazi emails. This afternoon he released what I believe is his first statement on the controversy as such …

    Statement from ABC News’ Jonathan Karl: “I regret that one email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately when new information became available.”

    This seems at best willfully misleading.

    I thought it would be best to break the statement down into its constituent parts.

    “I regret that one email was quoted incorrectly …”

    If you didn’t know the backstory here you would think Karl was referring to some sort of editing error. What seems to have happened is that a Republican source gave him what they said was a direct quote from an email but which turned out to be inaccurate. The fact that it was wrong in a way that appeared damaging to the White House (the opponents of the Republican sources in this case) suggests it may not have been an innocent mistake. But whether they were playing games or just sloppy is secondary to the fact that the quote was wrong.

    “… and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands.”

    This is simply false. Folks on either side can disagree over how much it changed the story. But you can’t have a major part of the story be false and have the story ‘entirely stand’. Here Karl is doubling down on his original claim that the fact that his quotes were wrong didn’t change the story. Not so. A central point of his story was White House involvement and White House involvement on behalf of the State Department. The alleged quotes were key evidence for that claim but the quotes were wrong. Ergo, the story cannot ‘entirely stand.’ Calling this error a ‘distraction’ from the story is incorrect because the error undermines the story itself.

    Indeed, even within the normally collegial norms of elite reporters, CNN’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Major Garrett have both said the bogus quotes change the story significantly or undermine it entirely.

    “I should have been clearer about the attribution.”

    Here’s where you see that this very short statement is like a tightly-bound set of interlocking misdirections. Karl repeatedly said that he reviewed the actual emails. But he didn’t. And that’s not a minor point because the impact of his story was based on his having reviewed them himself rather than relying on a second hand account — having gotten some summary of them from a tendentious source — a Republican staffer. The fact that Karl put the non-quotes within quotation marks makes it pretty clear that he was led to believe that he was being given verbatim transcriptions. You never put summaries in quotes.

    To see what difference this makes, imagine rewriting the article as “I’ve reviewed notes taken by a source who was allowed to read but not make copies of the emails …” If he’d written it that way, the credibility of his source would have immediately become central to the story — and since investigators or Hill staffers are the kind of people who get allowed to review but not make copies of documents it would have been fairly clear that he’d gotten them from Republican staffers.

    (We seem to know definitely that the sources were Republicans since CBS’s Major Garrett said that. He must know either because Karl told him or because Garrett too was offered the same notes from the same source.)

    Again, see how the parts interlock: Falsely claiming to have reviewed the actual emails made the source’s credibility irrelevant since Karl had seen the actual emails. Had Karl not said that, this all would have been on the source who passed him inaccurate quotes. Had the quotes been accurate, none of this would have surfaced. The fact that they were inaccurate made Karl’s claim untenable.

    “We updated our story immediately when new information became available.”

    One of the most comical parts of the Dan Rather/Bush National Guard records fiasco came when Rather tried to shift gears after it was finally definitively clear that the records were bogus. Rather did one segment after this became clear where he basically said, ‘Yep, the fact that these were forgeries is a dramatic new turn in the story. And we’re on it!’ Note the single quotes; I’m paraphrasing.

    What an unfortunate journalistic ‘mistake‘.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 20, 2013, 8:36 am
  2. Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson recently released a cellphone video that she allegedly took during a government hacking incident. The video shows text getting deleted from a Microsoft Word document open on her computer in real-time. She’s saying it’s evidence that the Obama administration has been hacking her in order to thwart her, ummm, super awesome reporting on Benghazi. As one might expect, the video is creating quite a media stir. A fraudulent media stir:

    Crooks and Liar
    BUSTED: Sharyl Attkisson’s ‘Hacked’ Video Made Nine Months After Alleged Hack
    By karoli November 1, 2014 6:00 am

    If Sharyl Attkisson’s anti-vax reporting is as accurate as her claims about being hacked by the government, she’s got a big problem.

    Attkisson’s ‘Hack’

    In a nutshell, Attkisson claims the government hacked her computers in December, 2012 and she reported it to CBS at the time. She claims a PC and her personal Mac were hacked, and the media has accepted this claim with no skepticism. Mediaite went with the assumption that she shot it in December, 2012.

    Fox News, of course, is hailing her like a conservative heroine for being so bold as to take on the government.

    Howie Kurtz quotes Attkisson’s book:

    Kurtz said that the book explains an anonymous source was called in to look at Attkisson’s computers and was flabbergasted at both the extent and the sophistication of the hacking.

    As evidence, Attkisson released this phone video she claims shows of the ‘hack’ in process.

    Media Matters took on the assignment of debunking it, and their experts said it really looked like the delete key was stuck.

    Busted!

    A sharp-eyed commenter over at Media Matters observed that Attkisson’s video was shot during the Valerie Harper debut on Dancing With the Stars in September, 2013. Here’s what WiscoJoe observes:

    Attkisson shot this video on or sometime after September 16, 2013. The episode of “Dancing with the Stars” that is playing in the background features Valerie Harper dancing a Foxtrot to “Some Kind of Wonderful” and first aired live on the evening of that date.

    According to Attkisson’s own timeline her computer was ‘hacked’ in October 2012, she came forward with this allegation in May 2013, but then waited until September 2013 to take video ‘evidence.’

    Has Ms. Attkisson provided an explanation of when this video was taken or why she waited for a year, and until after she went forward with public allegations, to take video documentation of her computer being ‘hacked’? Is this the standard of investigative journalism that she was doing while at CBS? If that’s the case it may explain why she no longer works there.

    Here are a few more questions to go with those. If you’re hacked, do you leave your computer hooked up to the Internet while you’re writing a book with what you allege is sensitive information about how the current administration has failed? Do you open up all of your research to said ‘hackers’ who you allege are from the very government that you are trashing in your book?

    Why on earth wouldn’t you turn over those computers to forensic analysts, and why on earth would CBS leave the work computer hooked up to the Internet and the internal company network after said hack was reported?

    We are supposed to believe that Sharyl Attkisson was hacked by the government and just said, “Oops, I’m hacked!” while she went merrily along with no additional examination, security and a nine-month lag between when she originally believed she was hacked and when she shot the video?

    Valerie Harper did debut on Dancing With the Stars on September 16, 2013 and she did dance to Some Kind of Wonderful. You can hear the intro on the cellphone video she shot.

    Despite the fact that Mediaite and Politico uncritically assumed the video was shot in 2012, it’s clear it was shot on September 16, 2013.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 1, 2014, 5:40 pm
  3. “The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.” Eighth time’s a charm?

    GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party’s Nutty Benghazi Theories
    By KEN DILANIAN Published November 21, 2014, 5:40 PM EST

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

    Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

    In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

    The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 21, 2014, 5:53 pm
  4. A fraud on Fox News? Woah. You don’t say…:

    Washington Post
    He claimed to be ex-CIA and was quoted as an expert on Fox News. Prosecutors say it was a lie.

    By Matt Zapotosky
    October 15

    Wayne Simmons claimed to be something of an American James Bond, and if you watched TV or ran his name through Google, you’d have no reason to doubt him. In his public speaking engagements and frequent appearances on Fox News, the purported former CIA operative spoke authoritatively about terrorism and clandestine intelligence operations, which he claimed he helped run for nearly three decades.

    “Nobody knew who I was,” Simmons said at one event. “Nobody was allowed to know who I was.”

    But according to federal prosecutors, his claims of a 27-year career with the CIA were lies, and it was only by repeating such falsehoods that Simmons was able to briefly get actual security clearances and real government contracting work in more recent years.

    On Thursday, federal authorities arrested Simmons and charged him with making false statements, major fraud against the United States and wire fraud.

    Neighbors and others who knew him said they were shocked by the news — and still wondered whether their friend might have been telling the truth.

    “I wouldn’t doubt Wayne a bit,” said David Zeyher, a neighbor and close friend of Simmons. “I think he has to sometimes conceal what his purposes are, what he’s done.”

    In a brief appearance in federal District Court in Alexandria on Thursday, Simmons, dressed in jeans and a button-down shirt, sighed loudly when a magistrate judge ordered him jailed in advance of a detention hearing Friday and peered back toward the audience as U.S. marshals led him away. Simmons said little during the hearing, save for a brief discussion about who was representing him in the case. The judge twice warned him not to talk, noting that prosecutors could use any comments he made against him.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Nathanson had asked the judge to detain Simmons, noting that investigators had recovered two guns when arresting him and that he had a previous federal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    A relative of Simmons declined to comment for this report, and others could not be reached. Jean-Jacques Cabou, a lawyer with the Perkins Coie firm who had represented Simmons previously but has not been retained in the new case, said, “This was unexpected, and under the circumstances, it just wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment.”

    Though Simmons was far from a household name, he seemed to carry a certain celebrity and mystique — at least online and on cable news. He boasted on his Web site that he was recruited from the Navy to be a part of the CIA’s “outside paramilitary special operations group” and that he led “Deep Cover Intel Ops against some of the world’s most dangerous Drug Cartels and arms smugglers from Central and South America and the Middle East.”

    A Navy spokesman said the Navy could find no record that Wayne Shelby Simmons had ever served in that branch of the military. A CIA spokesman declined to comment, other than to say the agency was working with the Justice Department.

    According to neighbors, including Zeyher, Simmons, 62, has two adult children and lives on a large property in Annapolis where he cares for two dogs and two horses. His wife, neighbors said, died of cancer. Zeyher, 78, said Simmons would watch his house while he was traveling and come by if he needed help carrying heavy stuff around. He said the two talked about Simmons’s work — but only to a point. “There was only so much he could tell me in the CIA,” Zeyher said. “He was very closed-lip about what he did.”

    Zeyher said he still believes his friend and noted that a general came to the wedding when one of Simmons’s children got married.

    Simmons’s boasts of his CIA connections won him frequent commenting gigs on Fox and in other places. He even wrote a novel called “The Natanz Directive,” a thriller that he told Zeyher drew from his real experiences. On his Web site, Simmons claimed that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had said of the book: “Wayne Simmons doesn’t just write it. He’s lived it, and that’s why he and Mark Graham can tell this spy thriller in such an engrossing way.”

    A Rumsfeld representative could not immediately confirm or dispute the authenticity of the claim. Graham, the co-author of the book, declined to comment but said he had been interviewed by the FBI.

    A spokesman for Fox News said Simmons was not paid by the network for his appearances. The spokesman did not respond to a question asking how Simmons’s expertise was verified. Several years ago, Simmons met with a Washington Post reporter on at least two occasions to discuss his supposed CIA background and mission, though those conversations never produced a story.

    The Post did note in 2008 that Simmons was the keynote speaker at a GOP fundraising dinner, referring to him as “a former CIA operative and frequent guest on Fox News.”

    When he talked on TV or at public functions, Simmons did not shy from delving into the details of international affairs or from offering strong, quotable, convincing opinions. Speaking to Neil Cavuto about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ botched “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking operation, Simmons said it was “one of the most egregious, incompetent” activities he had ever heard about, according to a transcript.

    “And I can tell you I have personally been involved in these types of things,” he added.

    In a speech at an event involving the group Accuracy in Media, Simmons boasted of his 27 years “running nothing and doing nothing but special operations” to give credence to his views.

    “I’m here today because I dealt in reality, and in fact, and a whole lot of luck,” he said.

    Retired Gen. Paul Vallely, who met Simmons through their appearances on Fox News years ago and served with him on a group called the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, said Simmons came across to him as “very knowledgeable” and was able to talk “in depth about CIA operations, ­covert operations especially.”

    Vallely said he was eager to hear Simmons’s side of the story. It could be “that he was on a contract, wasn’t an employee of the CIA necessarily, but was on a highly sensitive, compartmented contract of the CIA,” the former general said.

    He said two people had approached him and authorities a few years back claiming Simmons was not who he purported to be.

    “It’s just a sad commentary,” Vallely said. “He came off to me as a very honest, down-to-the-earth guy.”

    It’s not clear precisely what prompted the criminal investigation or when it began, but the charges against Simmons are based largely on his allegedly lying on official government documents to help get contracting jobs and security clearances.

    Prosecutors alleged in an indictment that Simmons was hired as the “Human Terrain System Team Leader” for an unnamed government contractor in 2008, and in that role, he trained at an Army facility. He won an interim security clearance for that job, prosecutors alleged, by “falsely stating that he had been recruited to the CIA in 1973, that he had not previously been charged with or convicted of a felony offense, that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000.”

    A spokesman for BAE Systems, which appears to have won the contract of which Simmons was a part, confirmed he worked there from September 2008 to March 2009 but declined to comment further.

    Simmons was hired a short time later by another government subcontractor, prosecutors alleged, based on what they said were similar lies. In that role, they said, he was deployed overseas as an adviser to senior U.S. military personnel. Neighbors and Vallely said that at one point Simmons went to Afghanistan.

    So in addition to being a Fox News regular and apparently conning other Fox News commentators like retired General Paul Vallely, Simmons was also hired as the “Human Terrain System Team Leader” for an unnamed government contractor in 2008 and was later allegedly hired by another government subcontractor where he was deployed overseas as an adviser to senior US military personnel. And he apparently was able to pull all this off solely through the power of just repeating the same “I’m such a secret agent I can’t possibly prove it” shtick!

    You have to wonder how many other “super secret agents” are out there quietly getting hired by government contractors and advising government officials. You also have to wonder if Simmons’s dozens of Fox News appearances, starting back in 2004, had anything to do with those hirings. After all, dozens of TV appearance where you’re portrayed as a former CIA operative is one hell of an addition to your con artist resume:

    Media Matters
    Wayne Simmons, Right-Wing Media’s Benghazi Expert, Declared Fraud By Federal Prosecutors
    October 15, 2015 4:49 PM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    Wayne Simmons has been arrested after a federal grand jury indicted him on “charges of major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, and making false statements to the government,” including allegedly falsely claiming he worked for the CIA. Simmons was a frequent and favorite guest on Fox News, and was one of the conservative media’s purported experts on the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Simmons joined several prominent conservative activists and media figures in calling for the House to convene a Benghazi Select Committee.

    Federal Prosecutors: Wayne Simmons Falsely Claimed He Worked For CIA

    Wayne Simmons Is A Conservative Commentator. Simmons’ website claimed he was part of the CIA’s “Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Group.” He also has written for Human Events and appeared regularly on Fox News. [WayneSimmons.us, accessed 10/15/15; HumanEvents.com, accessed 10/15/15]


    Conservatives Turned To Simmons For Benghazi Expertise

    Conservative Activists Joined With Simmons To Demand A Benghazi Select Committee. A March 5, 2014, letter signed by Simmons and other conservative activists urged House Speaker John Boehner to “create a House Select Investigative Committee on Benghazi — fully resourced with staff and subpoena powers — to conduct a thorough, coordinated investigation.” Boehner announced plans to form a select committee on May 2, 2014, and the House approved it on May 8, 2014. Activists who signed on to the letter with Simmons included Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, Fox News contributor Thomas McInerney, Fox News contributor Allen West, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, Veterans for a Strong America president Joel Arends, Secure America New president Allen Roth, Ginni Thomas, and Freedom Center president David Horowitz. [JudicialWatch.org, 3/5/14; Speaker.gov, 5/2/14; Washington Post, 5/8/14]

    Fox News Promoted Simmons’ Call For A Benghazi Select Committee. Fox News hosted Simmons to promote his call for a committee. From the segment:

    UMA PEMMARAJU: Former CIA operative and author Wayne Simmons is one of those who signed that letter to the speaker of the House and he’s joining us this now. Tell us more about why all of you have come together to sign this letter and do you think it’s going to put more pressure to get the answers that you guys are looking for?

    SIMMONS: The answer is we hope so. We hope that the pressure that we can continue to put on from the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi and along with Judicial Watch by delivering this very, very strong letter to Speaker Boehner, helps motivate him to begin this House Select Committee on Investigations.

    […]

    We know that, of course, Hillary Clinton is the genesis of this. [JudicialWatch.org, 3/5/14; Fox News, America’s News HQ, 3/8/14; Speaker.gov, 5/2/14]

    Appearing On Fox News, Simmons Said The White House Decided “To Not Rescue Our Former CIA Operatives And Our Military” In Benghazi. During a November 2012 appearance on Your World with Neil Cavuto, Simmons criticized the Obama administration over the Benghazi attacks. He wondered why the White House “made the decisions to not rescue our former CIA operatives and our military” — a frequently referenced conservative media falsehood. He also suggested only a Mitt Romney win — which he said he was hoping for — would allow the country to find out what happened in Benghazi.

    [see Fox clip]
    [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/2/12; Media Matters, 7/10/14]

    Simmons Was A Member Of Accuracy In Media’s Citizens’ Commission On Benghazi. In 2013, the conservative group Accuracy in Media (AIM) created the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi “to attempt to determine the truth and accuracy of what happened in Benghazi.” The commission included “Wayne Simmons, former CIA officer.” Simmons also participated in AIM’s Benghazi commission events in July 2013 and April 2014. [AIM.org, 7/30/13, accessed 10/15/15; Media Matters, 7/30/13; YouTube, 7/31/13, 5/2/14; Media Matters, 4/23/14]

    Fox News And Other Conservative Media Promoted The Commission’s Report When It Was Completed In 2014. [Media Matters, 4/23/14; Daily Mail, 4/22/14; Newsmax.com, 4/23/14; American Thinker, 5/3/14]

    Simmons Praised Fox News For Its Benghazi Coverage. During the July 2013 AIM event, Simmons praised Fox News’ coverage of Benghazi in an interview with Media Matters. Simmons stated: “I would suggest that fortunately for the country that Fox had the foresight to recognize early that there really was something dramatic and very important to the country that happened in Benghazi and the decision makers at Fox chose to not allow that to fall to the wayside. And I think that was, in fact I’m certain that was a big benefit to the nation and hopefully we can continue to move that investigation forward.” [Media Matters, 7/30/13]

    Simmons Was A Frequent Guest On Fox News

    Simmons Appeared On Fox News Dozens Of Times. According to a Nexis search, Simmons has made dozens of appearances on Fox News since 2004. He was regularly identified as a former CIA operative.

    Fox News Declined To Comment On Simmons’ Arrest Because He Was Not A “Fox News Contributor.” CNN reported that “Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti told CNN that he ‘was never a contributor for Fox News,’ and that he appeared on the network only as a non-paid guest. She therefore declined to comment further.” During an April 22 appearance on Fox News Radio, host Brian Kilmeade incorrectly called Simmons a “Fox News contributor.” A Fox News spokesperson told The Huffington Post that “Kilmeade falsely identified Simmons as a contributor.” [CNN.com, 10/15/15; Fox News Radio, Kilmeade & Friends, 4/22/15; Huffington Post, 10/15/15]

    Simmons Once Appeared On Fox News To Criticize A Former CIA Agent For Committing Fraud. [Fox News, The Big Story, 11/13/07]

    Simmons Said The United States Should Profile Students From Muslim Countries. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/2/13]

    Simmons Claimed “If The Democrats Come Into Power … We’ll Have 9-1-1s Unabated.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 11/15/05]

    Simmons: America’s Enemies Don’t Fear “Boy King” Obama. [YouTube, 12/29/09, via WayneSimmons.us]

    Simmons Claimed There Are “At Least 19 Paramilitary Muslim Training Facilities In The United States.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/16/15]

    Simmons Called The Obama Administration The Worst Administration Ever. [FoxNews.com, 4/22/15]

    Simmons Said Nancy Pelosi Is A “Pathological Liar” Whose “Attacks On The CIA” Have Sent A Chill “Through The CIA And To Guys Like Me.” [Crooks and Liars, 5/15/09]

    “Simmons Once Appeared On Fox News To Criticize A Former CIA Agent For Committing Fraud.”
    That must have been a fun one for him. Not as fun as it could have been, but still fun.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 17, 2015, 11:49 am
  5. The following information suggests that Benghazi was used by propagandists to discredit Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Not that Obama administration did not use their best PR efforts to minimize the political damage before the election. The administration politicized and delayed revealing their knowledge of what happened in order to minimize the damage on election day.  

    Here is the Washington Post interview with “Bob”, the local CIA Annex chief in Benghazi.
    We’ve heard several versions (FOX NEWS) of the supposed CIA stand-down order at around 10 PM Benghazi time September 11, 2012.
     
    One alleged stand-down order came from CIA HQ in Langley. Another from CIA or State Dept. Security chiefs at the S Embassy in Tripoli. A third from “Bob” the local Annex chief in Benghazi
     
    In each case, security contractor’s eager to rescue Ambassador Stevens reportedly complained that superiors initially refused to let them rush immediately to the consulate that was under fire.  Reasons offered: Ambush expected, need to first arrange for heavy weapons and armored vehicles from friendly Libyans before rushing to the rescue, friendly Libyan militias in the area would do the rescue on their own and US contractors would only get in the way and be mistakenly targeted themselves (the friendly Libyans did get to the consulate and retrieve Ambassador Steven’s body).
     
    Why so many stories of stand-downs in Washington, Tripoli and Benghazi? Sources of these stories were always groups of security contractors on the scene.  None of the stories blames Petraeus, Clinton or Obama for issuing any kind of stand-down order.
     
    The State Department Administrative Review Board (accepted as neutral by intelligence committee Republicans and Democrats alike) found no stand-down orders. The ARB supposedly held three mid-level State Department Diplomatic Security managers to be negligent in sending enough security to Tripoli or Benghazi long before the attack. 
     
    Where are the bodies of the dead and wounded attackers in the 9:45 pm to 5 am firefights? No enemy rifles, bullet shells with fingerprints or DNA to compare to suspects apprehended by Libyan authorities afterward? No video tapes retrieved from the nearby hospital where wounded attackers were reportedly taken for treatment (same hospital where Ambassador. Steven’s body was taken).
     
    On the other side, the Obama Administration did politicize the event by delaying the reporting that it was a Terrorist attack by using carefully chosen words like “act of terror” rather than labelling a terrorist incident and taking an excessively long time, until after the election to report it clearly as such. They did this because they feared the ramifications of the attack on the election results. The Jan. 15, 2016 Washington Post article “Former CIA chief in Benghazi challenges the story line of the new movie ‘13 Hours” stated:

    “The other major controversy surrounding Benghazi has focused on how the attack on the diplomatic compound was initially portrayed by the White House as a violent protest rather than a terrorist attack.”

    “Bob said there was “some reporting” even in the midst of the attacks that a terror group known as Ansar al-Sharia was involved, but he said he played no role in shaping White House talking points about the attacks that came under harsh criticism.”

    See: Former CIA chief in Benghazi challenges film’s claim of ‘stand-down’ order

    EXCLUSIVE | It is the most fateful moment in the movie “13 Hours,” which purports to present a searingly accurate account of the 2012 attacks. Speaking publicly for the first time, the officer in charge that night said it was entirely untrue.
    ¥ By Adam Goldman and Greg Miller

    Posted by Sojourner Truth | January 16, 2016, 2:58 pm

Post a comment