Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktLetting us in on a secret
By Dana Milbank, Published: October 10
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 last month 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, the 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.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security 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 that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite. “I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that “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, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted. “I would direct that that chart be taken down,” he said, 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, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that 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? Well, 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.
“Other government agency,” or “OGA,” is a common euphemism in Washington for the CIA. This “other government agency,” the lawmakers’ 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.
That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request.
But on Wednesday, the withholding was on hold.
The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. 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 that has been 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 probe of the matter 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.
danamilbank@washpost.com
Filed under: Congress |
All Things in Moderation 
I have also come to agree with Brent (and Scott, and probably many others) that Dodd-Frank was so poorly thought out and so top heavy in regulations that it will not be productive. As Brent wrote the other day, it seemed they did not take any industry input or they did not take it seriously.
I come at this from having seen what D-F has done to mortgage banking b/c they did not take testimony from the honest mortgage bankers and they have now made the red tape so thick it is at least an extra 45 days and $1000 to the qualified consumer to qualify for the loan. The “fix” could have been cheaper and simpler with industry input.
And they don’t do their committee work any more, it seems, except to grandstand and give away the location of our CIA safe houses on C-span.
LikeLike
mark:
If Issa was going to have legit hearings about security of embassies they should have been closed to begin with. Right?
Sure. But in light of things like this:
A State Department official assured him that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite.
…I don’t understand why the blame lies exclusively on Congress.
LikeLike
Scott – what are you thinking? The CIA hides in plain view. We don’t mark, or remark upon, their safe houses on video and we don’t talk about them as anything but Embassy annex when they are attacked.
Nothing marks a secret target better than a blurred image.
You can bet these Congresscritters were told never to mention the CIA safe house as a CIA safe house. They were not told to point it out on national TV and refer to it as OGA. State simply followed through on the cover story.
LikeLike
what are you thinking?
That the State Department could have simply said “We can’t talk about this in an open hearing due to the classified nature of it.”
LikeLike
That the State Department could have simply said “We can’t talk about this in an open hearing due to the classified nature of it.”
No, that would be TMI.
Although someone might have passed Issa a note…probably would not have shut the other guy up in time.
LikeLike
If Issa was going to have legit hearings about security of embassies they should have been closed to begin with. Right? It is hard for me to refrain from reiterating every point that Milbank makes above. I am so frustrated with Congress.
LikeLike
If Chaffetz hadn’t opened his big mouth, followed by Issa, the State Department folks could have given a perfectly straightforward briefing and nobody would have been the wiser.
Edgar Allen Poe wrote a whole story about the perfect way to hide something.
EDIT: Corked by Mark. . .
LikeLike
That the State Department could have simply said “We can’t talk about this in an open hearing due to the classified nature of it.”
True, but it doesn’t sound to me like that would have shut Chaffetz and Issa up, and would have only fed into their stupidity in calling attention to the facility in the first place.
LikeLike
Does anybody here think that the CIA cover on that annex and it’s personnel along with any Libyan’s associated w/it hadn’t been blown long before our Ambassador was slaughtered? This is Millbank carrying water for the Admin and the Clinton’s trying to deflect blame from what has to be characterized as utter incompetence.
LikeLike
I don’t know whether it was blown. I think the terrorists might have simply followed the Ambassador there. Why do you think it was blown?
I must add, George, that you of all people defending this kind of congressional wizardry is amazing to me.
Suppose State was at fault for not having more security in the Embassy, as seems to be indicated, although the general [?] who testified also said if he had had the proper contingent it would not have been enough, either. What beyond that was necessary to be public in your eyes?
The conclusion for public consumption would have been that State should have had more security than even its military attache wanted and Congress should be willing to fund more, having cut State’s security budget world wide, last year.
In private they could have taken up the nuts and bolts of what happened, and where. But no – big mouths prevailed.
LikeLike
Frankly, if the purpose of the meeting was to discuss security lapses by State, then the meeting should have been closed from the start. Why would you ever want to publicly air specifics on embassy/consulate security? That is just asking for terrorists/spies to figure out a way around security.
LikeLike
I think it’s obvious that AQ had been watching American fascilities for some time prior to their well planned attack. I do not beleive they simply followed the Ambassador their in a haphazard fashion. It’s hard to believe that the consulate was not under observation for a long time. It they knew when Amb Strvens was going to be there, I find it very hard to believe that any other American fascilities in Bengazzi (or all of Libya for that matter) had not been identified a while ago.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on October 11, 2012 at 9:43 am said:
This is Millbank carrying water for the Admin and the Clinton’s trying to deflect blame from what has to be characterized as utter incompetence.”
is not mutually exclusive with Issa’s committee screwing up while trying to make a political point.
Responsible bipartisan oversight by Congress of the executive is mostly gone. Now, it’s either a free pass for the administration if Congress is controlled by the same party as the President, or an exercise in political point scoring if there is divided government.
I miss Jane Harman.
LikeLike
Mike:
Why would you ever want to publicly air specifics on embassy/consulate security?
To grandstand right before an election. That was the entire motivation behind that hearing.
LikeLike
That was the entire motivation behind that hearing.
Ding ding ding!!! The motivation to publicly embarrass the administration is worth substantial criticism alone. It was that driving intent that led to the eventual security disclosures. Assigning error to State is a distraction.
LikeLike
Does anybody think the Administration should not be publicly embarrassed, shamed over this? Amb Stevens asked for more security. He was denied. He was butchered. The administration was incompetent. Sunlight disinfects I thought.
LikeLike
Does anybody think the Administration should not be publicly embarrassed
So to be clear, you believe Congressional hearings should be held to publicly embrass the executive branch of the government?
I certainly agree that Congressional hearing should not be avoided for fear that the findings may result in embarassment to an administration. But this wasn’t a fact finding hearing, it was a political stunt under the guise of a fact finding hearing. Now that the stunt a) is being called out for what it was and b) blew up in Issa’s face resulting in security breaches, you are attempting to distract from that in about 5 different ways.
LikeLike
ashot:
But this wasn’t a fact finding hearing, it was a political stunt under the guise of a fact finding hearing.
I can understand criticism if classified info was inadvertantly revealed, but to believe that these kinds of “political stunts” are not standard operating procedure in the Capitol, and to be outraged over it strikes me as rather naive. Do you really think, for example, dragging Jamie Dimon up before congress was truly a “fact finding hearing” and not a political stunt?
And I still don’t understand why the State Department couldn’t/shouldn’t have simply said that a discussion of the events in Benghazi required the use of classified information, and so the hearings should not be public.
LikeLike
but to believe that these kinds of “political stunts” are not standard operating procedure in the Capitol, and to be outraged over it strikes me as rather naive.
Where did I say it wasn’t standard operating procedure? I can still think it’s wrong.
You guys are creating a false dichotomy. There are other outcomes beyond 1) public congressional hearings and 2) nobody ever finds out about the administration’s incompetent handling of the embassy security.
I think Mark adequately addressed the other points.
LikeLike
ashot:
Where did I say it wasn’t standard operating procedure?
You never said it. It was just the impression I got from your seeming outrage and surprise over this particular one. Generally when something occurs regularly, even if objectionable as a matter of principle, a singular instance doesn’t inspire such a reaction. Unless, of course, the wrong team is doing it.
LikeLike
It was just the impression I got from your seeming outrage and surprise over this particular one.
I’m not really sure why you seem to think I am outraged or surprised. I have pretty much said exactly what Michi, Mark and Yello each have said. Just like the administration should be called out for its incompetence, Issa should be called out for his incompetence in holding the public hearing. Obviously the screw up by Obama is a much bigger deal and I would submit it is appropriately getting much more attention. I just think the venue of an open Congressional hearing was not the appropriate venue for highlighting the administation’s incompetence with respect to this issue.
Unless, of course, the wrong team is doing it.
From what I have seen you and troll are making excuses for Issa’s incompetence while michi, mark, and yello have done no such thing for Obama’s. You both seem all for the public exposure of political incompetence provided the politician is a Democrat.
LikeLike
ashot:
I have pretty much said exactly what Michi, Mark and Yello each have said.
Actually they have expressed angst primarily over the idea that classified info might have been disclosed in public hearings. You seemed to be concerned not just about that, but also over the notion that the hearing was politically motivated rather than motivated simply by the need to gather information. I understand the first concern, but there is nothing particularly notable about the latter. It happens all the time.
From what I have seen you and troll are making excuses for Issa’s incompetence…
Excuses? Really? All I have said is that I don’t understand why blame for any revelation of classified info lies solely with congress. It seems to me that the State Department should share in the blame.
LikeLike
Troll:
The Administration should be reprimanded. But discussing operational aspects of embassy security in an open hearing is not the way to do it. Closed door discussions followed by a public unveiling of findings of fact that do not reveal classified or sensitive information would be my preference.
It sounds like you would rather openly discuss the details of our security arrangements in Libya to embarrass the Administration. That is not the correct way to enhance the safety of our diplomats in other countries. But perhaps their safety is of less concern to you than shaming the State Department.
LikeLike
i pretty much think we had no business even being in Libya … bu that said …
“But discussing operational aspects of embassy security in an open hearing is not the way to do it.”
It would be a short discussion. apparently there wasn’t any. the idea that this was a secret ended the second the first shot was fired. the place was shelled by mortar fire. if it was secret, it wasn’t a very good one. and everyone involved should be raked over the coals on live TV.
and publicly shaming those involved in this is exactly how you prevent this from happening again. by getting the incompetents replaced. it’s secret until the second it isn’t.
CNN is reporting that Rice personally lied to the mother of one of the dead agents. publicly shaming isn’t even starting. that’s mild.
LikeLike
Congressional hearings are political in nature, are they not? And since Congress has no real punitive ability on the Executive branch it seems obvious that public hearings in which embarrassment occurs is about the only effective way they have to alter the behavior of, er, politicians. When has this not been the case?
Also, if a Congress person thinks the Administration acted incompetently and would continue to do so if re-elected and felt information should be publicized so that the voting public was informed before they vote, a Congress person would be obligated to hold public hearings, no?
LikeLike
Dang, double corked.
LikeLike
With all due respect to Milbank who I like, this is among the worst columns he has ever written.
So the assassins knew where and when the Ambassador was going to be. They knew where the safe house was. They had a good idea the security was lax.
Somehow or other though, they had no idea the CIA was in Libya, and where, despite the fact that the WAPO itself was reporting on the fact at least 18 months ago.
The only people that they were withholding details from were the American people. Sadly the Libyans nalied it down to a certainty.
LikeLike
DJ, you have taken your eyes off the ball, too.
The public part of the hearing should have been inquiring why we did not have enough security, in broad strokes. It certainly would not have cast State in a good light. It also might have reflected poorly on Congress, as well.
As to part the of the hearing about why there was misinformation or lack of information or confusion before, during, and after the fact, or lies after the fact: all of that should have been closed, because the info gathering and dissemination or lack thereof was going to reveal CIA trade secrets, or sources.
Another area of appropriately closed testimony would have concerned plans for the armed securing of the post going forward.
Everyone knows that CIA is attached at least by liason to State at every Embassy. That is not the secret we are concerned with.
LikeLike
Wow!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/stephanie-cutter-says-libya-is-a-political-topic?s=mobile
LikeLike
Troll — you’re USMC, right?
http://www.newsherald.com/news/health/triathlon-triumph-1.27120
LikeLike
Speaking of our amazing military. Try not to cry.
LikeLike
I was, yes. Enlisted.
LikeLike
So was my grandfather — stories about Marines jump off the page for me. so i thought i’d share a feel-good one.
LikeLike
I heard about that. I love the kid’s reaction.
LikeLike
To grandstand right before an election. That was the entire motivation behind that hearing.
I read the Milbank story in the dead trees this morning and was just furious but the end of it. For days the drumbeat on Libya to try to gin it up into some colossal administration failure has been deafening. And now we have elected congressmen willing to air state secrets (although as mentioned by banned, not all that secret to the people who wanted to know) for the sole purpose of creating an issue going into the foreign policy debate.
To be clear, the events before, after, and during the attack need to be thoroughly investigated and lessons should be learned. It was a terrible tragedy which may have been avoidable, but so were the events eleven years earlier. Loss of American life is never acceptable but security can never be 100% effective. A balanced dispassionate assessment will surely show there is plenty of blame to pass around everywhere. Most shamelessly, there seems to be an effort on the part of Republicans to hammer this into some sort of narrative where the only desirable outcome is the resignation of Hillary Clinton and/or the defeat of Barack Obama.
I can’t help but think they are trying to inflate it to give cover to Romney who had a pre-packaged ‘response’ ready and waiting for the first foreign crisis opportunity. Mitt prematurely jumped the gun on this one and all his water carriers now have to follow his lead. Grandstanding is the right word here and it doesn’t serve anybody to try to spin a serious event into political fodder.
LikeLike
like, yellow, i read Milbank in hard copy with my morning coffee. and i had the exact opposite reaction. i thought it was a weak attempt to turn attention from Exhibit A, the colossal administration screw up.
The second they said “you tube” this became political — because they went on TV and told a lie. an obvious lie.
Nobody has to “gin this up” they stepped in it and have no idea what to do about it,but their first and only instinct was to circle the wagons. I think they seriously though this would go away. and the only way a situation like this changes it public ridicule in front of a hearing.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/10/opening-salvos-at-house-libya-hearing.html
We had locals protecting our “secret” in Libya. unarmed locals. some secret.
“Unarmed Libyan guards employed at the U.S. Benghazi mission were warned by their family members to quit their jobs in the weeks before the assault, “because there were rumors in the community of an impending attack,” they said.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-libya-security-idUSBRE88J18R20121002
Who guards an embassy and/or secret base with unarmed locals? and who declines request for help? they basically have some out with the Washington monument response. oh we had cutbacks, so we declined to adequately staff in Libya, one of the most dangerous places on earth, instead of Berne.
LikeLike
I certainly do not think the Ds can make hay out of the screwed up hearing, because an Ambassador who asked for more security and did not get it was assassinated. There is the very bad inattention to security in a tough locale on the one hand – call it negligent, call it reckless, call it incompetent – and the stupid disclosures by Chaffetz and Issa on the other. They are not equivalent. The screw-up at State is bad and worthy of oversight scrutiny.
But the conduct of the hearing was bullshit.
Jane Harmann used to keep this stuff under control in her committee. But there are others on both sides who have not. This is just one more example of congressional dumbness, to me.
LikeLike
great video ash == thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
I saw the ending of that video coming a mile away and it still choked me up.
LikeLike
mark
I don’t disagree that it should have been a closed hearing, only that Milbank went nuts as if the Libyans were sitting in a room watching the testimony and smacking themselves in the forehead saying:
If only we’d known!”
Personally i think their mistake, if the reports were true, was to light the building up with diesel fuel, which prevented the attackers from being more effective as well as giving some cover for escape.
LikeLike
Actually they have expressed angst primarily over the idea that classified info might have been disclosed in public hearings. You seemed to be concerned not just about that, but also over the notion that the hearing was politically motivated rather than motivated simply by the need to gather information.
It’s the combination. Grandstanding is to be expected. But to throw the CIA under the bus in order to do so is what is particularly appalling. Even if their operation in Benghazi was known by many, there is a difference between plausibly deniable and public knowledge. The ghost of Valerie Plame haunts this sordid exercise.
LikeLike
The ghost of Valerie Plame haunts this sordid exercise.
An apt reference, although not in the way I imagine it was meant. Plame’s husband goes public with a mission that she, as a CIA agent, secretly got for him, thus raising obvious questions about why he was involved at all and thereby jeopardizing her cover, but somehow he escapes any scrutiny or blame when she gets “outed” as a result.
LikeLike
The photo wasn’t classified. Revealing that it masked a CIA facility was. Simple as that.
BB
LikeLike
The photo wasn’t classified. Revealing that it masked a CIA facility was.
Yes, exactly!
It’s the combination. Grandstanding is to be expected. But to throw the CIA under the bus in order to do so is what is particularly appalling. Even if their operation in Benghazi was known by many, there is a difference between plausibly deniable and public knowledge.
Also exactly right.
And, Scott, you and McWing do seem to be protesting that Issa did nothing wrong, when actually the shoe is on the other foot. The State Dep’t rep did nothing wrong in showing that photograph. Chaffetz, and then Issa, were the ones in the wrong at that hearing.
Name one hearing that Issa has held that wasn’t simply grandstanding. I can’t think of any, especially since he announced before he wielded the gavel the very first time that he was out to get the Administration however he could.
LikeLike
Mark – “…because an Ambassador who asked for more security and did not get it was assassinated.”
That was not what I heard from the VP last night – “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,”
LikeLike
JB was wrong or lied, take your pick Dave!.
LikeLike
“ime that he was out to get the Administration however he could.”
exactly what you want in a chairman. how many administration scalps can you pin to the dais? that’s the only reason for the oversight committee.
LikeLike
nova:
that’s the only reason for the oversight committee.
Funny, I thought it was for, you know, oversight rather than witch hunts. Or did that go out with the Whitewater bath water?
LikeLike
The White house is saying they didn’t know about the requests. which is more disturbing than a lie.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/12/white_house_obama_and_biden_were_never_aware_of_requests_for_more_benghazi_security
LikeLike
The White house is saying they didn’t know about the requests. which is more disturbing than a lie.
Agreed, and WTF?
LikeLike
The only effective oversight of the executive branch is public embarrassment to the point that someone high enough up has to resign. grilling a bunch of GS-14s and 15s is pointless, which would be the effective way to conduct real oversight. but that doesn’t happen in public, but at the staff level.
having a polite conversation with political appointees is worthless. making them fear for their jobs, careers and reputations is effective.
LikeLike
nova:
The only effective oversight of the executive branch is public embarrassment to the point that someone high enough up has to resign
I’m not disagreeing with you, but Issa isn’t doing oversight, he’s conducting witch hunts.
LikeLike
LikeLike
This meeting was no different than what has been happening for the last couple of years – public discussions of things which should remain non-public. It is not limited to Issa or Congress. It has happened with HRC and the comments on the hacked Yemen al-Qaida sites, with the discussions on the Iran computer virus program, with the discussions on the bin Ladin raid, with the discussions on the drone programs, with this…
LikeLike
nova: 🙂
I was wondering how long before somebody posted that clip!
LikeLike