A House of Lies

Discuss architecture, planning, interiors, landscape, and environmental design related-topics. Moderated by the ArchitectureWeek editorial and support team.

A House of Lies

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Thu May 23, 2013 1:13 pm

Architects endure history, but Architecture is shaped by it.

For once with good reason, the GOP is exorcised with the scandals involving the IRS targeting political groups and the FBI's spying on A.P. reporters. The broader public is legitimately concerned. However, in its classic overblown breathlessness at all things related to Obama, the gleeful Republican leadership is already calling for impeachment. To support that idea, they are dragging out desperate comparisons to Nixon's Watergate. It is in fact revealing and destructive to the credibility of the GOP now seated in the Congress of the United States.

What will be revealed here is an application of Design Intelligence. Facts and comparisons will reveal that a clear and superior path to governing the nation was available and overlooked. Facts before actions, is basic Design intelligence. The errors of the Congress could not be more valuable to illustrate the problem clearly.

Despite cogent caveats from its own parties sages not to overplay Republican good fortune, they have overextended the threshold of reason. "We overreached in 1998," Newt Gingrich admitted recently. He counseled restraint to the Tea Party jihadists he helped spawn. Gingrich recalled how the GOP's scandal mongering against Clinton had only amplified Clinton's popularity and cost Republicans the 1998 mid-terms and Gingrich his speakership. But this new generation of hysterical House members immune to that wisdom, are headed straight for the feinting couch, replete with fits of anti-Obama hysteria.

Distortion and lies are the same animal, even if one is more difficult to spot.

How bad is it? Here is a quote that brings time to a standstill by the vindictive nature of it’s exaggeration. In a characteristic spasm of partisan apoplexy, Iowa Congressman Steve King offered a shrill algorithm:

"add Watergate and Iran Contra together and multiply by ten" to calculate the tyrannical evil of the Obama scandals."

Napoleon Bonaparte once famously observed "history is a set of lies agreed upon."

For Example: LBJ's mystery money: In 1963, Life magazine was preparing a bombshell exposé on how Vice President Lyndon Johnson had amassed a fortune through his connections to Texas oil barons. The article, which biographer Robert Caro says would have linked LBJ to the Bobby Brown Scandal, was set to drop in late November. Kennedy's assassination killed the story and a planned Senate investigation.

For those who look for the truth, it is often far too easy to believe in fraudulent history and politics when they tell us what we want to hear. For this reason Design Intelligence requires that the facts be rigidly established. These recent "scandals" demonstrate two major factors involved in the success of a "hoax or forgery" greed and the desire to believe.

Sure, we have cause for a conversation, factual or not, it is considered good politics by those who manipulate consensus, it is in fact flawed Design Intelligence to shape outcomes with lies.


Lies are often the tools of profit and political advantage. It is important to tackle history's enduring questions, examining the evidence behind each and dispelling lingering myths in order to explore the interplay of history and politics to uncover how facts and falsehoods vie for belief. The congress of the United States is engaged in another witch hunt that seeks to divide the nation between lies and distortion. That is the Republican goal.

There are two kinds of myths that one finds in history: those that arise spontaneously, and those that are manufactured.

The line between these two is extremely fine and can often become confused. These three controversies, linked to world events, are some of the most amazing twisted distortions and frauds ever. Though all of these Republican distortions, are unfounded, the power of wanting to believe in something can overcome rational thought and hard evidence, leading many of these distortions and falsehoods to remain fixed in people's minds as truth. Climate Change is of course just one example of such monumental lies.

(See the previous post.)

The success of these frauds highlights the disturbing fact that if true history fails to entertain the public, it is likely to be ignored or forgotten. We have never experienced such a swarm of desperate liars in Congress. Design Intelligence will now be engaged to demonstrate and expose the structure of these political lies and the liars who utilize them.

SO FAR THIS MONTH, President Obama has been called potentially "worse than Nixon" on freedom of the press issues, been accused of running an administration guilty of "outrageous, totally inexcusable" conduct, and has endured calls for the proverbial head of his handpicked attorney general, Eric Holder.

On May 16, Reuters'Jeff Mason interrupted Obama's press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan to ask the President, "How do you feel about the comparisons by some of your critics with the scandals of the Nixon Administration?" Obama responded with calm contempt; he would leave those comparisons to the journalists. But he urged Mason to "read some history."

The clear intent (of Republicans) is to GET Obama at any cost. We commend the president. History is precisely what needs most to be read regarding these “scandals of convenience”

The conduct by these Republicans is an embarrassment to America. It is so easy to reveal their true colors it is ridiculous. Here are some of the historical tidbits the Tea Party might consider.


President Richard Nixon was aware that the IRS had audited him in 1961 and 1962. Naturally he presumed those audits were politically motivated by the Kennedy White House. However, early in his Administration, Nixon learned that his friends and political allies John Wayne and Rev. Billy Graham, had both endured recent audits by his own IRS.

Nixon exploded! He ordered White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, "Get the word out, down to the IRS that I want them to conduct field audits on those who are our opponents." Nixon then ordered that its investigator begin with, John F. Kennedy's, former campaign manager and White House aide, then Democratic Committee Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien. He assumed that the audits had been political in nature. Similar assumption are made by the Tea Party.

The problem is that the Republican congress today is infected with serious distortions of fact across a broad spectrum from Climate Change to Economics.

Nixon's many minions had the IRS set up a special internal arm "the Activist Organization Committee" in July of 1969 to audit an "enemies list" provided by Nixon. This is recorded history.

Senator Ted Kennedy was at the top of that list along with a small army of well-known journalists. The IRS later renamed its political audit squad "Special Services" or "SS" to keep its mission secret. The SS targeted over 1,000 liberal groups for audits and 4,000 individuals. The SS staff managed their files in a soundproof cell in the IRS basement. (My father …was on that list.)

On September 27, 1970, Nixon ordered Haldeman to get the IRS to investigate Ted Kenedy who was then the presumed frontrunner in the 1972 presidential contest, sharing the field with Edmond Muskie and Hubert Humphrey who Nixon also ordered audited. This is the nature of the Republican leadership in 1972.

Nixon personally assigned the White House special projects & master of Draconian politics Tom Charles Huston, to the task. He was the former president of the Young Americans for Freedom, in charge of setting up the new IRS "anti-radical squad" to make sure that the laggards in IRS's bureaucracy didn't drop the ball. Huston prepared a 43-page blueprint for Nixon outlining a government agency campaign targeting Nixon's enemies. They sustained Teddy Kennedy at the top of that list. They were out to get him at any cost. The scheme included tapping phones without warrants, infiltrating organizations that had been critical of the President and, purging IRS agents who refused to tow the Republican line.

As a Nation State we endured that in much the same way that we endure the Tea Party today. Huston told the President, "we won't be in control of the government and in a position of effective leverage until such time or we have complete and total control of the top three slots" at the IRS.

Consequently Nixon enthusiastically authorized a series of "black bag jobs" including breaking into offices, homes and liberal think tanks like the Ford Foundation and the Brookings Institute which Nixon believed was home to many former Kennedy Administration officials.

This is all recorded history. It does not resemble the Nixon administration. If this were all iot would be enough to silence the Tea Party and their lies. Unfortunately there is much more.

Huston cautioned that the "use of this technique is clearly illegal; it amounts to burglary. It is also highly risky and could result in great embarrassment if exposed. However, it is also the most fruitful tool and can produce the kind of intelligence which cannot be obtained in any other fashion."

According to historian and Nixon biographer, Rick Perlstein, Nixon "found the document splendid." Haldeman ordered Huston to draft a formal decision memo outlining the illegal plan as a mandate to the heads of the intelligence and tax collecting agencies. Nixon ordered Haldeman and Huston to order the IRS, the FBI and the CIA to proceed with the plan.

In May 1971, Nixon used an IRS investigation of Alabama Governor George Wallace's brother, Gerald Wallace, to pressure Gov. Wallace to run for President on the Democratic ticket as a spoiler rather than on a third party ticket as he planned.

The blackmail scheme succeeded and most of Wallace's white male supporters fled to the Republicans after the Democrats nominated civil rights activist George McGovern. Nixon's tactic of having Wallace run as a Democrat was an indispensable element of the White House's "southern strategy". We endured this as we now endure similar tactics by the Tea party and their financial supporters.
Four months later, on September 8, 1971, Nixon raged at his counsel and Chief Domestic Policy Advisor, John Ehrlichman, about the IRS's lack of progress on finding dirt on his enemies.

"We have the power but are we using it to investigate contributors to Hubert Humphrey, to Muskie, and the Jews? You know they are stealing everybody.... you know they really tried to crucify Ho Lewis [Reader's Digest editor, Hobart Lewis, a Nixon supporter who had been audited]! Are we looking into Muskie's return? Hubert's? Hubert's been in a lot of funny deals. Teddy? Who knows about the Kennedys? Shouldn't they be investigated?"

History is unforgiving.

The following week he pleaded with Haldeman to light a fire under the IRS. "Bob, please get me the names of the Jews, you know the Big Jewish contributors of the Democrats.... Could we please investigate those cocksuckers?"

The following day he replayed that tune for Ehrlichman. "You see the IRS is full of Jews that's the reason they went after Graham." Haldeman recounted in his diary, "There was a considerable discussion of the terrible problem arising from the total Jewish domination of the media. Graham has the strong feeling that the Bible says there are Satanic Jews and that's where our problem arises."

The "Jewish-controlled media" and the "liberal media" were never far from Nixon's limbic system. Nixon also bugged reporters and used bribery, blackmail attempts, forgery, spying, burglary, and extensive bugging by national police agencies and by his own "plumbers squad" to monitor and manipulate the press for political purposes. Many of the top twenty names on Nixon's political enemies list (which eventually included 47,000 Americans) were reporters. They included Daniel Schorr, Mary McGrory, Edwin Guthman and Walter Cronkite.

Reading history illuminates the mind and empowers comparisons that are accurate. Obama is not a Richard Nixon.

Nixon's staff and agencies bugged their phones, investigated their sex lives, rifled their trash, and had them watched and followed. Nixon directly ordered the investigation of imagined homosexuality by columnist Jack Anderson, a devout, teetotaling Mormon with a happy marriage and nine children.

On March 24, 1972, a group of Nixon's trusted operatives including former CIA spy E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, a murderous former Dutchess county, New York prosecutor and Adolf Hitler admirer, huddled in the basement of Washington's plush Hay-Adams Hotel, across from the White House with Dr. Edward Gund, a CIA physician, poison and assassinations expert.

Nixon had complained darkly to top staffers including Special Counsel Chuck Colson that Anderson was "a thorn in his side" and that "we have to do something about this son of a bitch." According to Hunt and Liddy, Colson deployed them that day saying that Nixon had ordered Colson to "Stop Anderson at all costs."

History has possession of extraordinary power. It reveals that radical thinking leads directly to corruption and oppression of the people. By comparing Obama to Richard Nixon these Tea Party Republicans have shown their true colors for all to see. They resemble the conduct of Richard Nixon not President Obama.

The three spooks plotted out the best way to murder Anderson including running him off the road, spiking his drink with venom, breaking into his home and lacing Anderson's aspirin bottle ("aspirin roulette") with a special toxicant undetectable by autopsy or simply shooting him with Liddy's untraceable 9mm pistol. The plot is detailed by Mark Felstein in his 2005 book, Poisoning the Press, and elsewhere. Liddy suggested painting Anderson's steering wheel with a massive dose of LSD which would cause Anderson to crash in a hallucinogenic craze. Dr. Gund warned them that the LSD would be traceable in an autopsy. They finally elected to stab Anderson outside his house. Liddy volunteered to do the bloody work and make the crime look like a bungled robbery. Luckily for Anderson, the plot fizzled and was forgotten when both conspirators were arrested shortly thereafter in the Watergate scandal while endeavoring to reset a bug in Larry O'Brien's office.

On October 6, 1971, Nixon ordered Haldeman to have the IRS audit Los Angeles Times publisher Otis Chandler who had transformed the Times from a right wing rag into a universally respected paper by recruiting top journalists from across the nation. Chandler and his very large family were close friends of the Kennedy family and had spent the summer prior to Bobby Kennedy’s death, running the Colorado River rapids.

" Nixon told Haldeman; "I want Otis Chandler's income tax, Nixon then called his Attorney General and former law partner, John Mitchel, and ordered Mitchel to fire the Los Angeles Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. "The fellow out there in the Immigration Services is a kike by the name of Rosenberg." The President explained to Mitchel, "He is to be out." Fulminating on, Nixon told Mitchel, "I want you to direct the most trusted person you have in the Immigration Service to look at all the activities of the Los Angeles Times... let me explain as a Californian, I know everybody in California hires them... Otis Chandler... I want him checked with regard to his gardener. I understand he is a wetback. Is that clear?" When the Attorney General replied, "Yes, sir." Nixon crowed triumphantly, "We're going after the Chandlers! Every one, individually and collectively, their income taxes... every one of those sons of bitches."

They were looking for dirt on Teddy Kennedy.

In August of 1972, Edmund Muskie withdrew as George McGovern's Vice Presidential running mate. Ted Kennedy was reluctant to accept McGovern's request that he join the ticket, McGovern recruited Sargent Shriver. On August 9, Nixon had a meeting with his staff to discuss how to destroy the Democrats.

Turning to Haldeman, he asked,
"What in the name in of God are we doing on this one? What are we doing about the financial contributors? Now those lists there... are we looking over the financial contributions to the Democratic Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? Is the Justice Department checking to see if there are any anti-trust suits? We have all this power and were not using it. Now what the Christ is the matter? In other words I'm just thinking for example if there is information on Larry O'Brien. What is being done? Who is doing this full-time? What in the name of God are we doing?" Nixon abruptly narrowed his sights on McGovern's top contributor, Henry Kimmelman, and said emphatically, "Scare the shit out of him," He repeated the order to Ehrlichman, "Scare the shit out of him. Now there are some Jews with the mafia and they are involved with this too!"

History certainly adds clarity to an odious comparison! Design Intelligence uses facts to deliver enduring quality. As architects we know that a building must be engineered to stand the test of time.

George Schultz was now Treasury Secretary. Nixon directed Haldeman to order Schultz to audit Kimmelman.
"Everybody thinks George is an honest, decent man," Nixon observed contemptuously.

"George has got a fantasy... what's he trying to do say? That you can't play politics with the IRS? Just tell George he should do it."
Three days later Nixon had Kimmelman's tax returns as well Larry O'Brien's who had by then agreed to manage McGovern's faltering campaign and whose office would be the target of the Watergate break-in.

On March 12, 1973, even with the erupting Watergate scandal and its related Congressional investigations incinerating his presidency, Nixon was still intent on using the IRS to disable his enemies.

That day he asked Haldeman,
"What happened to the suggestion that the IRS run audits on all the members of Congress?"

Do you remember “Spiro Agnew”?
http://naveenrnair.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... w-scandal/

Those who bother to read these historical snippets will find many important departures and only tenuous parallels between the Obama Administration's IRS affair and Richard Nixon's Watergate-era IRS scandal. Tenuous parallels should actually be read as LIES.

LIES and GOVERNMENT are not going to create an enduring structure that adds benefit and stability to the nation and it's people!

A principal distinction is the ingredient of direct presidential involvement. President Nixon was the fulcrum, the visionary and the principal conspirator in his various capers to use the IRS as a political weapon. Nixon personally directed and persistently harangued his staff to audit, investigate and gather dirt on his enemies for personal purposes. Nixon went to reckless extremes even punishing IRS agents who refused to participate in his vendetta. A mean-spirited viciousness and his contagious enthusiasm for law breaking were also distinctive Nixon bailiwicks.

The TEA PARTY does not hesitate to tell lies of this nature. Get the point?


Three scandals have converged in the past week to preoccupy Congress and the press. Benghazi was the first to come, and it has surprised by its staying power. The larger issue in the background -- the wisdom of the NATO destruction of the government of Libya which left an open field for anti-American militias -- will probably never be discussed; and within the bounds of the intervention policy, it is unlikely that a satisfying American culprit will emerge. The abuse of power by the IRS may be, in the long run, the most damaging of these cases for the Obama presidency, but its outlines are only beginning to emerge. Clearly very close scrutiny of the top ten percent is warranted; there is something very wrong going on when the distribution of wealth is so distorted.

It is possible that IRS functionaries acted as they did without any systematic guidance from the top of the service; and possible, too, that over the many months of the harassment of anti-Obama groups, the executive branch never caught wind of the trouble and is as stunned as the rest of us. But the ugliest of the scandals has come from the revelation of the justice department's seizure of two months of phone calls by 100 Associated Press reporters. This was done to investigate the leak of a thwarted terrorist plot which the government itself had already decided to disclose in public.

It is of course political. Make no mistake, the loudest voices calling for sweeping probes of Obama and even impeachment - among a few hard-core conservatives, anyway - are still his sore-throated critics on the political right, on talk radio and on Fox News. No surprise there but some substance exists.

There have been sharper-than-usual blasts this week from liberals - especially on news that Holder's Justice Department conducted a broad and potentially chilling probe of phone calls to journalists at the Associated Press - may prove more critical. The controversies may determine whether Obama has any remaining chance of pursuing an ambitious progressive agenda of immigration reform and gun-safety laws - or if he's just the latest president with a cursed second term. It appears as though the president is now to be vilified.

E-mails released by the White House that describe how the CIA's assessment of the Benghazi attack was edited to exclude any mention of terrorism appear to be part of a routine process by Washington bureaucrats, says a former CIA agent who used to take part in such processes.

"There's no conspiracy here that I can see," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, now an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "It's just how the U.S. government works." But Republicans say the editing process wound up misleading Americans when the final version of the CIA assessment made no mention that the attack was a pre-planned assault by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

Clearly had we known that, there would not have been a successful attack!

At a Rose Garden news conference this week, Obama brushed off critics from both the right and left who've questioned whether probing journalists' phone records and reports that IRS workers targeted tea-party groups for extra tax scrutiny meant that he was at least headed down a Nixonian path, if not quite approaching the crimes of the Watergate scandal. Yet, offshore accounts do and should catch the attention of the IRS.

There are assertions by some critics that would reduce the problems of government to a simple remedy. The assertion that the scandals all point to a single disorder that afflicts the Obama White House and the Holder justice department are simply not supported by fact. Propaganda engages in such reductionism to influence the population by addressing generalities and avoiding specifics; such as this paragraph by David Bromwich

“ The name of the disorder is paternalism, and its leading symptoms are suppression and secrecy. Paternalism is the ideology proper to a government that treats the governed as children. The duty of a parent toward a child is, above all, to protect him and assure his safety. Similarly, the duty of the paternal state is to prolong the lives and secure the health and prosperity of the people. The happiness of children also depends on conditions that favor a long life with minimal risk. Children, of course, may want to know many things they are not yet ready to know; but the role of the parent, when an inappropriate question is asked, must be to inform the child that there is a kind of knowledge he is not yet capable of using well. So too, there are risks to a people that only a government can rightly measure.”

Is this an assertion that we are not worthy of the truth?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/1 ... ly%20Brief

Clearly, the problem is not obfuscation arising from paternalism, but rather simply, that politics and lies are now the tools used to hollow out government and paralyze progress by the regressives.

"My concern is making sure that if there's a problem in the government, that we fix it," the president said. "That's my responsibility. And that's what we're going to do."

It's important to understand that the three issues, that have dominated TV cable news and talk radio for the last week are not in any way created equal.

* The Benghazi controversy about the aftermath of an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya continues to smolder on the far-right side of the dial, as allegations that whistle-blowers were punished or that changes were made to TV talking points typically fall apart as soon as they surface. This is a silly waste of time.

* The IRS scandal is clearly the most serious, and the most serious political threat to Obama, raising disturbing questions about whether conservative groups were singled out for aggressive tax scrutiny solely because of their political beliefs. This boondoggle has re-energized moribund tea party groups, and provoked calls for investigation from liberals. Obama has launched an effort to contain the blame to midlevel bureaucrats in one office in Cincinnati and to get ahead of the scandal by ousting the acting IRS commissioner. This tactic should in fact be delayed.

* The AP scandal - centering on the sweeping Justice Department probe of the AP wire service over its sources on a story about a foiled terror plot in Yemen - is the one that has provoked the most sustained outrage on the left, even leading stalwarts like Esquire political blogger Charles Pierce to call for Holder to get sacked.

Lies and scandal are the natural consequence of failed Design Intelligence. Where the truth is a bit fuzzy someone is always going to attempt clarification by accusation.

GOP scandal-chasers have been obsessed with the Obama administration's talking points about the attack on US facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, and the White House on Wednesday tried to put the pseudo-scandal to rest by releasing a batch of interagency emails related to the talking points. The accusations go nowhere. The problem is in the dogma of the far right.

Is it possible that the sensitivity over the message to be delivered to the public in the wake of the attack was very much caught up in what could not be said about certain elements of the mission in Benghazi?

These emails thoroughly undercut the conservative charge that the White House massaged the talking points to whitewash the attack and protect President Obama's reelection prospects. The truth is that the scandal the conservatives generated and have promoted is make believe. One email from a CIA official noted that the White House "cleared quickly" the talking points drafted by the CIA but the State Department had concerns. Poof—there goes the conspiracy theory that Obama's aides excised references to terrorism and an Al Qaeda-linked group for campaign-related reasons.

The matter should now be behind us, but questions about the Benghazi episode remain, particularly this one: Has the CIA avoided scrutiny for its central role in this affair?

Is it possible that Ambassador Stevens rejected General Ham’s offer a military security force because the troops offered may not have been ones cleared for participation in a mission that we may know nothing about—a mission that the CIA has every intention of keeping secret from us along with the rest of the world? Hmmm…. really?

What is the actual truth of these circumstances? The intelligence agency's assessment was alluded to by the Obama administration in claims, that proved to be false, that the attack was not terrorism but sprang from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video on the Internet. The press covered that story.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says the editing represented "grappling" between the State Department and the CIA, which wanted it known, that the CIA had warned the Obama administration of terror threats in the region. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in the e-mails that her "leadership" didn't want to appear to have ignored the warnings.

The appearance that someone was misrepresenting the facts arise from a misinterpretation of the truth. There was a film and it did provoke an incident and there was a terrorist threat. The claim now is that this resulted in more inaccuracies, according to Chaffetz . "It's right before the election, nobody wants to take the blame, and the casualty is the truth. Truth was not the primary motivator or we wouldn't have gotten this fiction." Both causes created this incident.

In the latest news, House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., issued a subpoena Friday for former ambassador Thomas Pickering to testify about his role in the State investigation of its actions before, during and after the Sept. 11 attack. This will accomplish…. what?

Last week, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler noted that the revised talking points indicated that Obama administration officials in various agencies were inhibited by one key fact; they were grappling with what could be said publicly about the attacks in Benghazi: The assault had targeted a CIA annex in addition to a temporary State Department mission. That made the job tough for the drafters of the talking points. It was a planned attack but also a spontaneous uprising as a cover maneuver.

As Kessler wrote, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador [Chris Stevens] tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

Keep in mind that there were two facilities involved in the September 11th Benghazi attack. Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith lost their lives at the consulate while the two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed in the nearby CIA annex.

Accordingly, we know that Benghazi was a center for CIA activities in the region.

Now it needs to be said that Mr. Pickering co-chaired the Accountability Review Board, which Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appointed to look into allegations that State failed to protect its staffers and refused added security in the weeks leading up to the attack. This is a grave charge that insufficient efforts to secure the mission were authorized.

In a letter to Pickering, Issa called the board's investigation process "opaque" and says he had to subpoena Pickering because he refused to submit documents requested by the committee or appear before committee staffers for a transcribed interview.

What normally causes that reaction in a career politician? As of Wednesday this week.... now they will have a closed door meeting instead.

House Republicans want to know how the White House and State Department came up with a false narrative about an attack by al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three others.

The narrative wound up in talking points given to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who insisted the attack was a protest gone awry. Why is this convoluted? Because it was both.

The CIA's first unclassified assessment of the Benghazi attack said "we believe… the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo," which occurred on Sept. 11.

That wording, which proved to be false, was kept in the final CIA memo on the attacks. References to the attack being the work of al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, which U.S. counterterrorism officials say is what happened, were removed. Why?

Kessler emphasized an obvious point: The initial talking points drafted by the CIA implied that "State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation." Naturally, at the time, Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, objected to this. So here was a bureaucratic tussle—not White House skullduggery.

The talking points were made in Langley. Yet the CIA's attempt to duck blame may be the more important story than what UN Ambassador Susan Rice was handed in preparation for her Sunday talk show appearance.

According to a spokesman for Rep. Issa, there are members of Congress who may have been previously aware of Ambassador Steven’s exchange with Ham where Steven’s denied Ham’s offer of additional security. So we need all parties involved to sustain clarity and balance in the matter.

So, why has General Ham not been called to testify before Issa’s investigative committee?

Where is the Design Intelligence? The more skeptical among us could answer that question by noting that the last think Mr. Issa wishes to do is allow the presentation of exculpatory evidence that would, ultimately, be supportive of the White House and the State Department.

However, it is also possible that there are highly classified bits of information involved here that investigative committee cannot ask about as to do so could threaten deeply held CIA secrets. As of Wednesday this week it is now a closed door meeting......

One of the early iterations of the made-in-Langley talking points contained this paragraph:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic] previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

This version also contained another line from the CIA: "On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy [in response to an anti-Muslim video] and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy." And the CIA drafters noted that the "currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests" in Cairo and "evolved into a direct assault" on the "US Consulate and subsequently its annex."

Obviously electronic communications are involved on all sides of the conflict. What appears to coordination certainly is possible and in fact very probable.

Either way, should Congressman Issa not be called upon to tell us why he is not bringing General Ham before his committee to give testimony about his interactions with Ambassador Stevens and to confirm, on the record, that the Ambassador rejected the General’s offer of assistance?


As pointed out in the McClatchy article—

“There have been fewer questions, however, about the months leading up to the attack and how the State Department, the CIA and defense officials addressed a growing security problem. Among the questions that have not been probed is why the Benghazi mission, with its large CIA contingent, remained open when other Western countries, most notably Great Britain, had pulled out of Benghazi in the weeks preceding the attacks because of security concerns.”

The editing process shows administration officials, such as Nuland, questioning the basis of that and other assertions in the CIA assessment. They show White House officials, such as Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, then-spokesman for the national security adviser, insisting that State's concerns be addressed.

At least 16 named officials and 13 unnamed officials or offices in the departments of Justice, State, CIA, the National Directorate of Intelligence and the White House participated in the process.
"They're deleting references to Ansar al Sharia," a Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate whose members the CIA said it knew were involved in the attack "because that's what government bureaucrats do," Gerecht said. "They're trying to be precise, to be overly meticulous. Unless you know for sure you don't say it."

Put this all together, and here's what the CIA was saying: We told you there was possible trouble in Benghzai; we warned you about the mess in Cairo; the assault in Benghazi was initially related to the video-sparked protests in Cairo; and the attack hit two State Department facilities (not one of ours). This is, as they say in the business, a cover story— for the CIA, this is not a cover story for the White House.

Again, the explanation for this lack of focus on what happened in these preceding months might well be the result of a political decision by the congressional leadership to use the hearings to embarrass the administration by attempting to make a case for a cover up.

However, even the staunchest critics among the anti-Obama forces surely cannot help but notice that the hearings have attempted to shed no substantive light on why those who attacked the outpost might have been so anxious to take down these facilities and why, in light of the decision by other countries to pull out of the area, the United States did not close the doors to the installation. Was there a mission underway that required that we keep the facilities operating? Is this not a question we should be asking? Analytically this is a bubble that needs to be popped.

And yet, nothing on this from Mr. Issa and his friends.

To be sure, these thoughts and concerns constitute little more than connecting the dots to speculate on whether there is far more to this story than what meets the eye—speculation born of seeing certain things at work in this story that are neither being questioned nor examined by the government officials who have sworn to do precisely that.

Consequently, this is a scandal made out of selected facts to serve a political purpose.

Fully recognize that there will be those who will argue that any theory suggesting that there is more to this story than what the administration is able to reveal , is only a thinly disguised effort to create a diversion. It would be only an attempt to steer the conversation away from any White House culpability. Certainly, those most interested in harming the Obama presidency have shaped the matter for political advantage, rather than seeking and gaining insight into the truth. Nobody will be swayed by the suggestion that an examination into the CIA and Ambassador Stevens reasons to have acted in such unexpected ways, might be a worthy cause for review. An honest review of the matter might end up casting the White House in a more positive light. The facts are being hollowed out of the matter.

To any objective observer, it appears that there is no longer any need for anyone who might be interested in protecting the interests of the administration to do so. The only reason is a political one. In view of the emails now available for all to see—the “scandal approach” to Benghazi has now entered its final phase as the efforts to discredit the administration via the cries of cover-up are well into the final death spasm.

The IRS "SCANDAL" is now clearly overblown for political reasons.

There is possibly more to what happened in Benghazi than we know. We do not suggest improper cover-ups perpetrated by any branch of government. Improper politics, if such exists at all in this political climate certainly do exist in all three cases presented.

It may be a very long time before more substantive information is revealed. We advocate pressure be applied to Congressman Issa’s House Oversight Committee to dig into why the CIA was so deeply concerned about what was excluded from the talking points. We want to know why Ambassador Stevens twice rejected General Ham’s offer of security assistance.

Those who are not asking why, have no real interest in learning the whole truth as to what went wrong on that terrible day in Libya.

We now examine the unclassified version of the report of the State Department's Accountability Review Board for Benghazi and consider this finding:

The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.

That is a very fuzzy paragraph. This seemingly contradicts the self-protecting statement that the CIA had tried to place in the talking points (which was eventually excised at the State Department's request): the assertion that the Agency had "produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghzi and eastern Libya." Where were these numerous reports?

Were they kept from the Accountability Review Board, which was run by veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Michael Mullen?

Given that the CIA operation in Benghazi—which was reportedly trying to gather weapons—had three times the staff of the State Department temporary mission there, it could be expected that the Agency would have a better handle on the security situation in the area than the State Department. Yet the Pickering-Mullen review diplomatically criticized the CIA for "gaps" in its "understanding" of extremists in Libya.

All the outrage on the right and elsewhere focused on Foggy Bottom, not the CIA. It's possible, too, that the CIA activity in Benghazi was somehow related to the assault—if only because local extremists might have been aware of the CIA presence. A former Obama administration official notes that that best explanation for the attack is that "a bunch of well-armed creeps watched the Cairo demonstrations on television and decided to round up the boys and go after the Americans." The State Department's mission in Benghazi was assaulted before the CIA annex.

Would not a full investigation examine whether the CIA operation in the area had done anything to increase the target value of both sites.

The Accountability Review Board report was justifiably tough on the State Department—citing "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels"—but the CIA has largely escaped unscathed. "They've gotten a pass on a lot of this," a former Obama administration official says. Perhaps that's the real scandal.

In contrast, there is no evidence that Obama even knew of the IRS investigations which were presided over by Donald Shulman, a Bush appointee. The most recent evidence indicate that the Tea Party audits resulted not from intentional political targeting of conservatives from the sheer preponderous of Tea Party applications among the hundreds of 501(c)(4) tax exemption requests that deluged a tiny understaffed IRS field office.

The 200 demoralized officials, already drowning in tax exemption petitions, also audited several liberal groups including Progress Texas and Sea Shepard. Detailed reporting in Sunday's New York Times indicates that the problem arose because the Cincinnati branch is already debilitated and overwhelmed by years of personnel and budget cuts, now aggravated by the sequestration -- and confused by new rules applying to the cascade of political "charities" unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The GOP's comparisons of today's IRS blunders to the Watergate era scandals broadcast a willful blindness toward history.

The truth is they are staging a distraction to delude the public. It worked to confuse the public about climate change and it will work again to undermine tax reform.

As to the A.P. eavesdropping scandal, any spying directed at journalists should set off fire alarms in a democracy. The Associated Press is justified in its outrage at the Justice Department caper. Fear that a reporter's phone may be bugged will inhibit disclosures and discussions with the many secret sources and whistleblowers upon whom journalists rely to keep our democracy transparent and our public informed.

Obama's Justice Department's eavesdropping on the Associated Press, however, is in no way analogous to Nixon era bugging. It is in fact situation normal.

The Obama eavesdropping was an, unfortunately, legal investigation of national security leaks involving a Nigerian terrorist bomber planning to blow up an American airliner en route from Amsterdam to New York.

Nixon's bugging in contrast was illegal and his purposes were political and personal having little or nothing to do with national security.


Many states have "journalist shield" laws that make eavesdropping on reporters illegal and give a limited, but critical privilege to the relationship between journalists and their sources. Obama has long promised to support federal shield legislation. This week, apparently motivated by damage control, he finally asked Senate leaders to produce a federal shield law, a reform that could transform this scandal into a national plus for American democracy. That legislation will require GOP support.

The IRS has been hollowed out by the Republicans in congress. Republicans could also work with the White House to find adequate funding and training for the IRS and remedy the morale and governance problems in Cincinnati. The big question now, is whether Republicans will sideline genuine reform in their efforts to exploit the "scandal." Republican legislators have apparently been ordered by their leadership to hold scandal-mongering hearings but to stall any legislation for genuine reform.

This is exactly what will happen. When it does you will understand that the tactics of the Tea Party deserve tight scrutiny.

The real scandal is the Republican party's devotion to grandstanding over governance and its preference for slime over substance. It is the difference between finding a genuine smile and hiding behind one. The problem is in the quality of the man or woman and not America and it’s values.
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am

Return to Architecture Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

User Control Panel


Who is online

In this forum zone there are 9 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 9 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 593 on Sat May 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.