post-template-default single single-post postid-13765 single-format-standard

Milbank Seeking to Shame Obama, Republicans Blow CIA’s Cover

Alex Constantine - October 13, 2012

By Dana Milbank

The Columbian, October 13, 2012

When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA's cover.

The purpose of Wednesday's hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why "congressional intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a "consulate" and a nearby "annex," was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

"Point of order! Point of order!" Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, called out as a State Department official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. "We're getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this."

A State Department official assured him the material was "entirely unclassified" and the photo was from a commercial satellite. "I totally object to the use of that photo," Chaffetz continued. "I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you're showing here today."

Now that Chaffetz had alerted potential bad guys that something valuable was in the photo, chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said, "I would direct that that chart be taken down," although it already had been on C-SPAN. "In this hearing room, we're not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities."

May still be a facility? The plot thickened and Chaffetz gave more hints. "I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate," he said, adding that "the activities there could cost lives."

In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose there was a seven-member "rapid response force" in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that "not necessarily all of the security people" at the Benghazi compounds "fell under my direct operational control." And whose control might they have fallen under? Presumably it's the "other government agency" or "other government entity" the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI.

This "other government agency," the questioning further revealed, was in possession of a video of the attack but wasn't releasing it because it was undergoing "an investigative process." Or maybe they were referring to the Department of Agriculture.

Mixed Message

Republican lawmakers alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.

Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday's hearing, having a televised hearing was absurd.

The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that "the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon" in Benghazi. Good idea. Too bad he didn't think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.


No comments yet.

  1. Good old Skull and Bones/Yale Dana Milbank.
    Gee, who do you suppose he works for in the CIA media?
    Funny think about the 9/11/12 Benghazi events.
    Something coincidentally killed the CIA’s Edwin Wilson on the day befor, 9/10/12. Edwin Wilson had been jailed in 1984 for providing Libya with C4 explosives for the CIA, he claimed. CIA denied his claims. 2003 he was exonerated by a judge for having actually been working for CIA while he did this odd deed.
    So he’s dead. Next day, ‘Libya explodes.’
    Edwin Wilson’s death is conveniently sublimated in the news cycle until 9/20/12 after lots of coverage of the US as ‘victim of terrorists in Libya.’ Hmmm. So many birds with one stone, that stone being the CIA’s ‘Innocence of Islam’ video, the ability to dispose of an ambassador in a fracas, and control of the media to reinforce the cover story of 9/11/01 – crazy violent religious extremists! – and bury that old Edwin Wilson- CIA-terrorism problem. During the VP debate this week the first subject was the death of a US ambassador in Benghazi. Both the ‘moderator,’ Martha Raddatz, and the current VP, Joe Biden, are high-level spooks pretending to play civilian roles and needing, for the satisfaction of the many US State Department/CIA foreign service officers, to smooth over the sacrifice play that was made of one of their own (just like Welch in Greece during the Church Committee hearings of ’75-’76) to keep The Big Game in play and out of the understanding of the masses.

    1. Keep up the good fight Josh. Been following a bit of your writings. Can’t say as I know all the details but definitely see the big picture too. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *