On the way home in my car this afternoon, Sean Hannity took a call from a military member who claims to have been the sensor operator for the Predator drone mission over Benghazi on the night of September 12, 2012. The caller, who identified himself as "John," said the UAV spent only about five minutes over the consulate before being repositioned over the nearby CIA annex. He described seeing a crowd of hundreds of fighters outside the consulate, through the drone's sensors.
John also confirmed what this blog--and other sources--have reported for months. The situation in Benghazi was actively monitored by various governmental organizations, civilian and military. He noted that the secure "chat" rooms, which allow various nodes to share information during UAV missions, were very active that night. It's also no secret that the drone's video feed was available at various command nodes, including the White House Situation Room; CIA Headquarters, the State Department and the National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC) in the Pentagon.
Now, here's the shocker. John told Sean Hannity that no one from his unit has been contacted or questioned by Congressional investigators. He was unable to confirm if the video from that terrible night still exists. According to the sensor operator, the sensor "haul" from "uneventful" sorties is eventually erased, and the storage space is used for more recent missions.
Paging Congressmen Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers. You might want to send your investigators to Creech AFB, NV and talk to the sensor crews who were "in the seat" that night. You might also issue a Congressional subpoena for the video, and send your experts to CIA Headquarters; NGA Headquarters, the NMJIC, Langley AFB, VA; Ramstein AFB, Germany, US European Command, Beale AFB, California, Hickam AFB, Hawaii and any other place it might still reside in the bowels of our intelligence apparatus. Before it's too late.
6 comments:
In addition, how about State Dept Ops Center personnel & process for handling Flash precedence messages? Or DoD, for that matter? Yeah, Hilary can't read every email - truthful, on it's face, statement; but not when a Flash message comes in. I've worked in Ops Centers & had to track down 3 stars, wherever they might be on the planet (my definition of hell is being a theater commander's aide) & reporting far less significant events than an attack on an embassy. And BTW, you don't lase a target unless there's an asset capable of expending on it.
Pooka--We did an extensive post last fall on the FLASH/CRITIC traffic that must have accompanied events in Benghazi. By regulation, any CRITIC issued by NSA must be on the president's desk within 10 minutes of being issued. An attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility certainly meets the criteria for a CRITIC. Yet, there has been no discussion by Congressional investigators--at least publicly--regarding the number of CRITICS released that night.
There's no need to divulge the contents of those messages--just the number and times they were issued. It would be very interesting to compare that activity with the "whereabouts" of BHO on that evening. Officially, there is no record of the President's activities from his late afternoon meeting with Gen Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, until the time he left for that Nevada fund-raiser the next day.
Administration stone-walling on this issue (and recent revelations about a special ops team being told to "stand down") confirms the abandonment of our personnel, and the on-going cover-up.
I worked in a comm center "Stratcom" a long time ago. Most if not all I know is probably out dated, but there still has to be one hell of a comm trail.
Spook86, Mutual support's a wonderful thing. I think Madame Sec State's tantrum over "What does matter. now?" is a drum that needs to be beaten continuously by the opposition (I'd say the GOP, but shame on them for asking nothing of any importance in the alleged hearings in the Senate). What does it matter, indeed! Why, after winning a landslide election in '72, did it matter in '74 to conduct hearings on a coverup? Hearings in which one Hilary Rodham served on the House Judicial Committee's impeachment investigation? Why did investigation of cover ups at the WH level matter then, but not now? And, BTW, Atty Rodham was fired from said committee over ethical lapses, lack of integrity, and disregard of the Constitution (ref here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/252624). The appropriate investigating committees should latch onto this and repeat it ad nauseum until it can't be ignored. Connect the dots - it characterizes every scandal she's ever been involved in. It's a trend (as they say in the safety world). The irony is that, how simple this would have been if they'd only done their duty instead of immediately beginning the coverup. Which also damns them. They aren't competent enough to do their duty. But the JCS has no excuse either. They knew what to do...and they didn't protest or resign when the incompetence/ negligence (you name it) prevailed. Hackworth was correct,. They are "perfumed princes".
Spook 86, I too have had some personal experience with CRITIC reporting, many years ago, and yes, an accounting of all Flash traffic from that evening would be instructive. But it is already well established that those in Washington knew full well that the attack was carried out by Islamist terrorists. To get to the bottom of what happened last September 11, and the Obama regime's convoluted, dishonest response we must first ask what exactly Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi in the first place. Why was he sent there, despite the warnings about inadequate security and what could have been so crucial as to risk his life, especially on that particular date.
It has been suggested that the cover-up was meant to protect the Obama reelection campaign which was trumpeting the bin Laden assassination and the wind down of "a decade of war." I think that explanation is only marginally plausible... a "modified, limited hangout" to quote Dean, Ehrlichman, and Nixon. If you think about it, that makes no more sense than Hillary's story about opening an insecure facility.
A more likely reason for the coverup is that Stevens was in Benghazi for some sort of meeting or negotiation which was never meant to see the light of day, and that the "meeting" was really a setup and an ambush which cost Stevens and the three others their lives. This would also explain why those under attack were denied any sort of outside aid, despite Obama's later lie about having ordered every effort to save them.
Once we know why Stevens was in Benghazi, and who he was meeting, then we will understand the reason for the administration's treacherous dishonesty.
We now know that US personnel around the world were monitoring events in Benghazi in real time.
The only person in the National Command Authority who was "out of the loop" was the President.
Post a Comment