Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."



President Barack Obama has been adept at deflecting Republicans’ continuing questions about the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Still, the story won’t go away because the explanations he and his administration have provided don’t add up, and a strong odor of cover up lingers in the air. It’s been five months since the Benghazi attack. Even if we accept the Obama administrations explanations for what happened before, during and after the attack, we still don’t know full story. What difference does it make, at this point, whether or not we know the full story? It makes a difference whenever the President of the United States attempts to deceive the American people.  (Read the full column at EWRoss.com)


Filed under: Terrorism, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses

  1. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    @ Ed, taking the position that the people on the ground in Benghazi at the consulate on 9/11/12 are unable to talk to Congress because of a “on-going criminal investigation” – (direct quote from Senator Lindsey Graham this morning) tells you two things:

    1- They are still trying to turn the Global War On Terror into a law enforcement matter like the Clinton Administration did in the 1990s instead of a war. We know where that led.
    2- Sensitive information can be dealt with in closed door session with the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate instead of this stalling tactic.

    Benghazi on 9/11/2012 will not be put to rest until the participants in this 7 hour firefight tell all of us what happened although there is enough conflict in the testimony given so far to cast much doubt on the story given.

    By Patrick O’Donnell

  2. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Excellent Mr Ross. Where are the UAV video recordings and the audio of former SEAL stating he had the mortar site “lasered” requesting air support ? And what about the firing of Gen. Hamm that night ? He allegedly had dispatched a USMC FAST team (the world’s 911)…

    By Michael E. Homer

  3. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Let us hope that the Obama White House fails to bury this issue. We need to know the truth.

    By Bret Rivers

  4. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    ‘Relieved?’ It was my understanding he was called back to DC to brief and explain his end of things to the Pentagon, and then sent back…

    By Eric Husher

  5. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    He actually was relieved but, then reinstated. There is still a hell of a lot not explained, like doing nothing!

    By Dusty Kitzmiller, CHS-III, SMEMS, RSO

  6. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Well, when you consider General Hamm is still in command, and NOT fired, and you keep reading words like ‘allegedly,’ then you have a lot of ‘explanations’ already explained.

    By Eric Husher

  7. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    My understanding from numerous colleagues is that he attempted to take action under General Military Authority and his role in a COCOM and was ordered to shut down the operation, and ordered to report to DC to answer for why he tried to act without being ordered to do so.

    By Dusty Kitzmiller, CHS-III, SMEMS, RSO

  8. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    The press corps jumped all over this, and the rumor mill, not to mention purveyors of all SORTS of ‘conspiracy theories’ have been pumping out the rubbish at such a pace, it is hard to keep track of it all. But when you track down these tales, you find there is very little to them, and it is interesting to watch journalists (at least, reasonably honest journalists) back down from their previously hysterical positions as ‘rumor’ gets replaced with facts. Here is a good example of that (and be sure read all the way to end to pick up the ‘corrections!’): http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/#ixzz2AhRbOZ2k

    By Eric Husher

  9. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Thanks for sharing, and after reading the entire thing, it doesn’t change much. The various statement changes sound eerily familiar to those that DoS and the WH put out when they could no longer keep their original ruse ongoing.
    There is a lot more to this whole thng, and I do not presume to know even half of it but, it is obvious that at the higher echelons, much information is being hidden, and most of it is not a risk to National Security, unless you look from the opposite angle that setting such a precedence, can be very harmful to our national security, and to those serving overseas in any posting.

    By Dusty Kitzmiller, CHS-III, SMEMS, RSO

  10. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Yeah, well, you see that’s the PROBLEM. You ‘heard from numerous colleagues,’ but never bothered to VERIFY any of that. Now look, in this business, you ALWAYS have to verify these things, and the more absurd and outrageous the claim, the more verification is NEEDED. I have seen this as an increasing problem for the past several years, and this endless repetition of what is in fact, nothing but ‘I heard’ is fundamentally wrong on so many levels as to constitute something of a ‘conspiracy’ all by itself. Perhaps you might want to check into that?

    By Eric Husher

  11. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Read the ‘updates,’ and note the DATE of the ‘updates.’ There is no ‘ruse,’ just a bunch of journalists digging for a ‘story’ which does not exist.

    By Eric Husher

  12. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Oh, and lets not forget “leaders” who make crap up to fit their agenda even while watching live video.

    By Dusty Kitzmiller, CHS-III, SMEMS, RSO

  13. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Did you note WHO was quoted in the denials of the ‘relieving of General Ham? The Pentagon Press Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Do you think THEY might have a better handle on reality than some ‘rumor-mongers?’ Let’s not get into a pissing contest over this, I am merely suggesting you do the ‘legwork’ to find out what the TRUTH is, and from somewhere other than ‘I heard.’

    By Eric Husher

  14. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    I also reall at the time that Admiral Gaouette was ALSO relieced of command and sent home as the result of an internal investigation. this was ‘spun up’ into ALSo being a part of the benghazi affair, even though the Admiral and his task force were in the vicinity of GUAM at the time, and completely unable to do ANYTHING to affect events in Benghazi. Not content with this, the media THEN came up up with a sordid tale that they ‘heard somewhere’ that ‘actually’ there was a coup plot against the government! It is all NONSENSE, and the fact that folks like YOU are so quick to believe it, and worse, pass it on, is a big part of the PROBLEM.
    @Roland, if you had actually watched and paid attention to any of the testimony given, instead of what you ‘heard’ from ‘other sources,’ you would already know the ANSWERS to your questions.

    By Eric Husher

  15. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    And even the RESPONSIBLE people within the Libertarian/Conservative movements know this whole ‘tale’ is nothing but rubbish: http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/2012/11/2/debunking-foreign-born-rumors-about-rear-admiral-charles-m-g.html

    By Eric Husher

  16. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    I agree 100% legwork needs to be done, and that doesn’t include press. And while the Pentagon Press Secretary and CJC, are close, at least the CJC, the SecState, the POTUS, and others in DoS and WH were very close to it, and chose to tell blatant lies. So, do I trust they are all telling the truth, especially with the number of GO/Flag Officers that have gone away in the past few years, NO I do not!
    I will continue to push from my side as I have been but, colleagues are typically my primary source these days since I am out of the primary loop. And, I will certainly take many of their words over the Administration and stooges.

    By Dusty Kitzmiller, CHS-III, SMEMS, RSO

  17. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Oh Eric, How much are they paying you? No one can be that naive. I did watch the testimony and must have fallen asleep. Since you have all the answers, can you, please provide them for me and the rest of us uninformed. You are so on top of all of this from factual reporting. It seems you get to read the traffic that the rest of us are denied. Here is your chance to set the record staight.

    By Roland St. Germain

  18. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    What is not being mentioned is who had the security contract to guard Benghazi? It was apparently a British firm who hired Local Nationals with no American ex pats, if that is true, as reported by the Canadian press, then why wasn’t it an official WPS III contract that hired American expats (Cleared American Guards) to guard the consulate when sensitive operations were taking place there? A lot of us work in these environments and what happened in Benghazi could happen to us at anytime. It seems to me that DoS RSO did not have WPS III level security there even though the Ambassador had requested that level in emails and official cables. The when the events kicked off apparently the rescue operation was stopped, and for some reason, they found a much much much better place to put Carter Hamm.

    By George McMillan

  19. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    I saw a link this weekend to a book published in France had predicted the Benghazi incident long before it happened as well as some others…what the article noted is that due to the seriously explicit details, some people couldn’t get through reading it.

    Here is a quote:

    The book was the latest by Gérard de Villiers, an 83-year-old Frenchman who has been turning out the S.A.S. espionage series at the rate of four or five books a year for nearly 50 years. The books are strange hybrids: top-selling pulp-fiction vehicles that also serve as intelligence drop boxes for spy agencies around the world. De Villiers has spent most of his life cultivating spies and diplomats, who seem to enjoy seeing themselves and their secrets transfigured into pop fiction (with their own names carefully disguised), and his books regularly contain information about terror plots, espionage and wars that has never appeared elsewhere. Other pop novelists, like John le Carré and Tom Clancy, may flavor their work with a few real-world scenarios and some spy lingo, but de Villiers’s books are ahead of the news and sometimes even ahead of events themselves. Nearly a year ago he published a novel about the threat of Islamist groups in post-revolutionary Libya that focused on jihadis in Benghazi and on the role of the C.I.A. in fighting them. The novel, “Les Fous de Benghazi,” came out six months before the death of the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and included descriptions of the C.I.A. command center in Benghazi (a closely held secret at that time), which was to become central in the controversy over Stevens’s death. Other de Villiers books have included even more striking auguries. In 1980, he wrote a novel in which militant Islamists murder the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, a year before the actual assassination took place. When I asked him about it, de Villiers responded with a Gallic shrug. “The Israelis knew it was going to happen,” he said, “and did nothing.”

    By Leah Roberts

  20. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    …and from what I saw of the testimony of Ambassador Clinton in the Senate, it was obvious that the Senate Democrats didn’t want to know anything, and the Republicans don’t know anything about this type of business and didn’t know what to ask. They did a very poor job in preparing for the hearing.

    By George McMillan

  21. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    “STRONG ODOR?” This has been the problem the Republicans have in delivering every message! They pussy-foot around and sugar-coat everything instead of coming out with what NEEDS to be said immediately. Romney did it during the campaign, they did it during the interogations, they let Hillary throw a goddamn tantrum – and get away with it, and not once did anyone state the obvious and use the words – COVER UP!

    Oblamer LET our American citizens die and COVERED IT UP and HID from it so it would not become a negative issue late in the campaign. His teleprompters were pre-loaded with bullshit about the Taliban being decimated and he couldn’t let anyone know the truth. The families of our 4 dead Americans deserve to know what a coward Oblamer truly is. This COUNTRY deserves to know what a coward he is.

    It’s nice to see McCain finally calling the cover-up a cover-up, but it’s several months too late and now Oblamer has four more years for us to pay for his golf.

    More Republicans need to get pissed off about how this country is being ruined – and SAY SO.

    Excuse me for now, I have to go watch for drones for speaking the truth.

    By Don Kiepert

  22. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    combine that with the knowledge of how many in congress or senate READ EVERY PAGE AND UNDERSTAND what they are signing…don’t get me started!

    By Leah Roberts

  23. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    George, the ‘rescue operation’ you speak of was incapable of arriving in time to accomplish anything, and was not in fact available to General Ham (AFRICOM at the time HAD no such force yet, though it does now). This is WHY General Ham was not requested to ‘send help,’ because he HAD no ‘help’ under his immediate command to send. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/4/behind-crisis-in-benghazi-a-lack-of-firepower/?page=all
    An SF force WAS sent to Sigonella which came from EUCOM, but that force was in Cenral Europe doing training at the time, and was unable to be in place at Sigonell until Sep 12, TOO LATE to intervene in Benghazi. Once again, why don’t you examine some harsh realities, and not ‘what you heard?’
    As for the guard force in Benghazi, WHICH guard farce are you referring to? The ones at the actual Consulate were Libyans, not ‘Canadians.’ The forces at the Annex couldn’t get to the Consulate in time, by which time they were engaged in their OWN forefight shortly after.
    To me, the BIG question is why the Ambassador didn’t spend the night in the Annex, rather than the Consulate, and as it would appear that all those who might actually know are now dead, I don’t think we will ever get an answer to that question.

    By Eric Husher

  24. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Roland, once again, if you are a professional, you will do your OWN legwork, which you obviously have not done.

    By Eric Husher

  25. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    A crime against the citizens of the united states This should never go away History will tell all future generations of the latitude allowed this liberal president and his Chicago gangster like leadership The coverup has to continue or the first black president would be impeached and in the world of diversity and political correctness this just will never happen My thoughts and prayers go out again to the families of the victims of the greatest coverup of a treasonous crime in the united states of America ever God save us from the voters Amen

    By Paul Daly

  26. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    I never said it was a Canadien firm, even though Garda World does have some US contracts, I said it was reported via the Canadien Press. The Canadien Press said it was a British firm that had the contract who hired local nationals. This is okay for perimeter security, but the interior security is typically done by CAGs, so this was unusual.

    Also, the attack apparently took 7 to 8 hours and Sciliy is not that far. We are well aware of the type of operations going on at the Annex and the consolute, and so were the Russians and the Iranians, and it just doesn’t take a vivid imagination that they tipped off the insurgents when the best time to strike was. This stuff goes on all the time, and for some reason, Security at the consulate was not beefed up at either place. That is what we would like answered.

    Also, the security cameras now are on satellite feeds to the TOCs all over the world. That is pretty much standard now that the internet and satellite feeds makes this very easy to do–even for private citizens with ADT service–let alone by the US who has thousands of DoS personnel devoted to that task…and this still happened. Like I said, it could have happened to anyone of us working anywhere in the region.

    By George McMillan

  27. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    yeah, and at the time everyone was on high alert in the region expecting an attack, the previous commentor had it right, FAST teams were standing by (we all got the same email). There were created after 9/11/2001 and kept in the area for this express purpose.

    By George McMillan

  28. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Sorry George, you are correct; you said it was a British firm that hired local nationals… As i said, Libyans were the guard force at the Consulate.

    One thing I never seem to see amongst all these imprecations and accusations is any rationale for WHY there might be some sort of ‘cover-up.’ What do you suppose there might that REQUIRES a ‘cover-up,’ and just how do you think it MIGHT be ‘covered-up?’ You would think that anything at the Consualte would have quickly fallen into the hands of local nationals and therefore the press, since it was WEEKS before a forensic FBI team could get in…. What POSSIBLE reason would there be to ‘allow’ a consulate to fall and an Ambassador to be killed, if there was ANY way to prevent it?

    By Eric Husher

  29. Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!

    Enough already. I thought with the publication of the Benghazi investigative report, and the Clinton hearings, Republicans might come to their senses, but here we go again ranting away about the Benghazi tragedy before the Armed Services Committee. Isn’t it time we stop playing politics with the lives of four American heroes?

    Mistakes were made. Those responsible should be reprimanded. And hopefully lessons learned will increase the security of U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. But we can’t forget these four were not the first foreign service officers to give their life for their country, and unfortunately they will not be the last. Surprises happen. Nothing we say or do can change that.

    For those who continue to think incidents like Benghazi are the major dangers facing the United States, all I can say is: Wake up. America is facing real foreign policy and national security threats, threats worthy of spending your time and attention on. Don’t go all Don Quixote on us now. While you are fiddling around with Benghazi, China and Japan could go to war, Iran might fool someone into believing it is willing to give up its nuclear ambitions, North Korea might even decide to sell one of its nukes, or Pakistan could implode. And then there is Syria. These are real challenges. Why aren’t we shouting about them? America needs leadership, not carping from the sidelines. A vision of how to  deal with these sort of threats is required, not our legislators concentrating on problems usually left to deputy assistant secretaries at the State Department and Pentagon. Aim higher. Get out of the weeds. Think strategically.

    After the last election, exit polls indicated the American people trust Democrats on national security matters more than Republicans. Let me say that again: On national security issues the party of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II has been ousted in the eyes of many, in favor of the party of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. How did that happen? It sure wasn’t because “leading from behind” is such a great idea. We have been lucky in Libya, and it is still a mess. The verdict on whether our withdrawal from Afghanistan is too hasty is still out. So too is the fallout from U.S. inaction in Syria.

    Syria, like the other threats we face, of course, is truly complicated, but that is not an excuse for doing nothing. Thankfully, direct U.S. military intervention has so many downsides nobody is pushing for another war. But Syria is an instance when “leading from behind” might make sense. What the President is doing now, however, is definitely not the answer. In fact, recent Senate testimony suggests State, Defense, and CIA had a plan to make “leading from behind” more than humanitarian aid and rhetoric, but the White House quashed the idea.  Here is an issue worthy of a legislator’s time and attention. If you want to take on the President, Syria would be a good place to start. Stop playing small ball. Set your sights on the big leagues. You are not deputy assistant secretaries.

    Finally, for those of you are quick to tout American exceptionalism, tone it down a bit. It’s true our history is filled with exceptional moments, and Republicans have made many contributions to these achievements — unfortunately just not lately. Instead, making incidents like Benghazi our top priority speaks volumes. Exceptional comes from having a vision of the future, and finding solutions to real problems, not cleaver sound bites. Let’s stop talking, and do something important for a change.

  30. Lu Pierce says:

    If only the Republicans will stick with this one, we will win so that the other channels of 2,5,7,and 9 will have to report it!!!!

  31. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    You know, I’m am profoundly shocked by this!! :O

    You mean the president of the US and it’s administration actually LIED to the people? And they decieved the pulic and then covered it up? This is a claim unheard of, and literally the very first president of the US that is ever accused of this! Why aren’t we seeing marches on the streets?

    And then, to add to the shock you tell us that some parts of the administration reacted to certain events with “negligence and incompetence”! This is too much for words!

    Ed, let me whisper something to you that may come as a shock: seen and heard it all before, and before, and before
    The same things can be said about ush and the 9/11 attacks, and about just aout any president before them. I really am intrigued about the republican vs democratic war that is raging in the US. Everything that goes wrong during the reign of a democratic president and the republicans are crawling out of the woodwork to put a magnifying glass to it, and inevitably the same happens in reverse with a republican president. To us here in Europe it is bordering on amusing, but I can imagine for a lot of average americans it can be quite exhausting to always see the party-card being played.

    I mean, please, is there a US citizen here, that is not a republican nor democrat, that can shed some light on this for me? I have literally dozens of friends and collegues who genuinly are curious.

    Also, it is a general rule online that CAPITAL writing means SHOUTING. Just for future reference Ed 😉

    But thanks for the article, I needed a smile today, it has been a long day, I’ll keep your blog in mind for the future.

    By Darnal Vanheste

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: