podesta_email_00608.txt

podesta-emails 5,527 words email

V15 P19 D6 P22 P21

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *[image: Inline image 1]* *Correct the Record Saturday July 12, 2014 Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Will Republicans Stand by the Benghazi 'Stand-Down Order' Conspiracy?* <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/will-republicans-stand-by-the-benghazi-stand-down-order-conspiracy-20140711> “The White House is pleased with the news, because it backs up the view that the military's decision to remain in Tripoli and protect Embassy personnel there, rather than fly to Benghazi after all the Americans had already been evacuated, made a whole lot of sense. What's more, it makes GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, who has suggested Hillary Clinton personally gave this alleged conspiratorial ‘stand-down order,’ look particularly silly. (As secretary of State at the time, Clinton wasn't even in the chain of military command.) But it isn't just Issa and pundits on Fox News who've bolstered this theory. It's also been promoted by serious-minded Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the somewhat newly minted select committee investigating Benghazi, along with the majority of Republicans serving on it.” *AP: WHAT THE MILITARY DID WHILE BENGHAZI POST BURNED* <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-military-did-while-benghazi-post-burned> “The nine officers shed light on the nature of the attacks; speculation that the military was ordered to ‘stand down’ from helping Americans; suggestions that the U.S. should have rushed jets or a special operations team to Benghazi; and early misperceptions that the attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.” *Clinton's Potential 2016 Rival: We Can't 'Send Children Back to Death' <http://time.com/2978026/martin-omalley-minors-immigration/>* “Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley broke publicly with President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary ClintonFriday, calling for a more humane policy toward the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who have illegally crossed into the United States.” *Rubio: I can beat Hillary* <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/212038-rubio-i-can-beat-hillary> “‘I'd ask her: You were the secretary of State during the first four years of the Obama administration, name one significant foreign policy achievement, now or after you left?’, [Rubio] said.” *CBS News: Hillary Clinton’s book sales barely edging out Ben Carson's* <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-book-sales-barely-edging-out-ben-carsons/> “Despite the hubbub surrounding the release last month of Hillary Clinton's memoir ‘Hard Choices,’ new data shows it's barely edging out Ben Carson's ‘One Nation’ in book sales. Nielsen Bookscan figures provided to CBS News for the week ending July 6 show the former secretary of state clocking in at 177,000 copies sold; Carson has sold 162,000 copies.” *Huffington Post Blog: How the Republicans Could -- But Won't -- Beat Hillary Clinton in 2016* <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/how-the-republicans-could_b_5578635.html> “The most obvious way to neutralize this advantage is for the Republicans to nominate a woman for president. Nominating a woman for president is something very different from finding a previously obscure female politician, putting her on the ticket at the last minute and hoping for the best. This is what John McCain did in 2008 and what the Republican nominee, whoever he is, will likely do in 2016. This strategy will not work against a Democratic ticket that will be led by a woman, particularly a woman with the experience and appeal of Hillary Clinton.” *Clinton takes hit in NH poll, but still leads Dems* <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/211939-clinton-ahead-in-nh-but-lead-narrowing> A Granite State/WMUR poll released Thursday found 59 percent of Democratic voters there prefer Clinton over other party contenders. That number stood at 74 percent in January, a drop that reflected in other recent polling. *Articles:* *Will Republicans Stand by the Benghazi 'Stand-Down Order' Conspiracy?* <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/will-republicans-stand-by-the-benghazi-stand-down-order-conspiracy-20140711> Lucia Graves July 11, 2012 One of the many threads in the tapestry of Benghazi conspiracy theories is the contention that, faced with a terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate there, the American military didn't do what it could have to save lives. Specifically, that a "stand-down order" was issued from on high that prevented the use of military assets that could have saved the four Americans who died the night of Sept. 11, 2012. But hours of transcribed interviews with nine military leaders, conducted by the House Armed Services and Oversight and Government Reform committees—and made public for the first time Wednesday night—have yielded some news. Namely, that this contention appears to be a bunch of hooey, according to a close examination by the Associated Press. "The senior military officer who issued the instruction to 'remain in place' and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized," the report found. (More details about why that's the case are laid out nicely in the AP's report.) The White House is pleased with the news, because it backs up the view that the military's decision to remain in Tripoli and protect Embassy personnel there, rather than fly to Benghazi after all the Americans had already been evacuated, made a whole lot of sense. What's more, it makes GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, who has suggested Hillary Clinton personally gave this alleged conspiratorial "stand-down order," look particularly silly. (As secretary of State at the time, Clinton wasn't even in the chain of military command.) But it isn't just Issa and pundits on Fox News who've bolstered this theory. It's also been promoted by serious-minded Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the somewhat newly minted select committee investigating Benghazi, along with the majority of Republicans serving on it. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who has discussed the "stand-down order" as if it were fact, is perhaps the most pronounced example of this. "We had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed, about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi, and they were told to stand down," Chaffetz said over a year ago. "That's as sickening and depressing and disgusting as anything I have seen. That is not the American way." Politifact rated that claim as patently false in May of 2013. But it didn't stop Gowdy, who has been praised by House Speaker John Boehner for his "zeal for the truth," from alluding, albeit more cryptically, to the same unsupported points later that same month. "I think I'm asked about [Benghazi] because it kind of involves what we believe about our Republic," he explained in an interview with the Daily Caller, "which is that we're not gonna send anybody into harms way, under our flag without adequate protection, and if they get in trouble we are gonna go get 'em. We're gonna save 'em. Or at least we're gonna make a heck of an effort to do it. So Benghazi kinda undercuts that." And it didn't stop Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, from suggesting to Hugh Hewitt that the military "had the opportunity" to take action, but didn't. Nor did it discourage Republican Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois from suggesting in a press release that the military was up to something fishy. "We all want to believe that our government would do everything to come to the aid of Americans under threat abroad," said Roskam, before transitioning to why he couldn't. Another member of the Benghazi select committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, suggested that during the attack, there was little effort to fight back, according to The Columbus Dispatch. "Why weren't we running to the sound of the guns?" he asked. Never mind that a House Armed Services subcommittee report from several months earlier had found there was no way the U.S. military could have responded in time to save the four Americans killed in Benghazi. GOP Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama still delivered the subcommittee's report—which, by the way, also found that no "stand-down order" was issued—with a hint of conspiracy. "We did a very thorough job," she told the Montgomery Advertiser, "but we did leave the door open when we said this was an interim report and that if information surfaced that there were others we needed to talk to, we would." Asking whether these new military testimonies (which largely just confirm what's been found previously) will change these Republicans' rhetoric feels something akin to asking what it takes to end a conspiracy theory. A better conspiracy, perhaps? *AP: WHAT THE MILITARY DID WHILE BENGHAZI POST BURNED* <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-military-did-while-benghazi-post-burned> By Connie Cass July 12, 2014, 9:41 AM One by one, behind closed doors, military officers explained what they did and didn't do the night the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, burned. Together their 30 hours of testimony to congressional investigators gives the fullest account yet of the military's response to the surprise attacks that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and early the next morning. Transcripts of the interviews, with some names and classified information blacked out, were released Wednesday The nine officers, including retired Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's U.S. Africa Command, described making on-the-fly decisions with only sparse information about the crisis unfolding at a diplomatic post and the nearby CIA compound. None of them was in Benghazi. The closest? Some were 600 miles away in Tripoli, the Libyan capital; others gave orders from command headquarters in Germany or Washington. They did not witness what went on in the White House or at the State Department. Ex-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and others have testified about Benghazi. More hearings are coming. The nine officers shed light on the nature of the attacks; speculation that the military was ordered to "stand down" from helping Americans; suggestions that the U.S. should have rushed jets or a special operations team to Benghazi; and early misperceptions that the attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video. Some lingering questions about the Benghazi attacks and what the officers told the House Armed Services Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this year: DID MILITARY LEADERS INITIALLY BELIEVE THE TROUBLE RESULTED FROM A STREET PROTEST? Some heard that, some didn't; nothing was clear about events on the ground at first. One of the earliest reports came from Ambassador Chris Stevens, who told his deputy in a phone call cut short: "We're under attack." "We started calling it an attack from inception," said Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, who was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. "We never referred to it as anything else." Another military official in Tripoli, whose name was withheld, said he wasn't sure how to interpret that word — "attack" — at first. He had heard about protesters who scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier that night. "It could be, you know, vandals are attacking," he said. Retired Vice Adm. Charles "Joe" Leidig Jr., deputy commander of AFRICOM, said he was awoken in the night at his headquarters in Germany with word that "there had been protesters, and they had overrun the facility in Benghazi." But Ham, who was alerted while visiting the Pentagon, said he heard no mention of protesters. So he's sure he didn't pass on anything like that when he informed Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of the attack. Dempsey and Panetta personally took word to President Barack Obama at the White House. Speaking for the Obama administration, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows five days later and suggested the attacks were born from regional protests against an anti-Islamic video. The administration later recanted that position but never thoroughly articulated what they believe happened. Republicans say Obama soft-pedaled a terrorist attack to protect his re-election. Over the two days when the attacks were occurring, there was "very, very little discussion that I can recall about why did this happen." Ham said. "There just wasn't time for that, frankly." WAS A FOUR-MAN TEAM HEADED FOR BENGHAZI ORDERED TO STAND DOWN? Technically, no, the team was not ordered, as some have asserted, to stand by as militants attacked Americans 600 miles away. But they were told not to go to Benghazi and instead to stay and protect personnel in Tripoli. In hindsight, the attacks were over by then, anyway. The special operations officer leading that team and the commander who gave him the order both told investigators that it was the right decision. The team, led by Gibson, was in Tripoli to help train Libyan special forces. When the Benghazi attack began, Gibson's first duty was to protect the embassy in Tripoli amid fears that it also would be targeted. He helped evacuate the staff to a classified, more-secure location. Once he felt they were safe on the morning of Sept. 12, Gibson was ready to rush to Benghazi to help. One Libyan plane carrying a six-man U.S. security team already had taken off. Gibson wanted his group on the second chartered flight. He called the special operations command center for Africa to say they were heading to the airport. He was told, "Don't go. Don't get on that plane." "Initially, I was angry," he recalled. "Because a tactical commander doesn't like to have those decisions taken away from him. But then once I digested it a little bit, then I realized, OK, maybe there was something going on. Maybe I'm needed here for something else." Rear Adm. Brian Losey, who gave the order, said he needed Gibson's team in Tripoli in case trouble started there. Although some Republican lawmakers have suggested the team might have helped repel attackers in Benghazi, their flight would have arrived after the final assault that killed two CIA contractors. Losey dismissed the notion that the foursome could have been much help in Benghazi, where Americans already were moving to the airfield for evacuation with the aid of Libyan forces and the U.S. security team from the first plane. Losey noted that Gibson's group consisted of a communications specialist, a medic and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast. "That's not a security team," Losey said. Sending them in "didn't make a lot of sense." Gibson said if his group had flown to Benghazi, their flight would have crossed paths with the first plane as it returned bearing wounded Americans. Because they stayed, his medic was there to meet two seriously injured people at the Tripoli airport. The medic is credited with saving one's life. RIGHT OR WRONG, WASN'T THAT AN ORDER TO "STAND DOWN"? Not according to Losey and Gibson. Civilians might say that Losey ordered Gibson to stand down from his race to the scene. But Losey and Gibson say in their military parlance, standing down means ceasing operations. "It was not a stand-down order," Gibson said. "It was not, 'Hey, time for everybody to go to bed.' It was, you know, 'Don't go. Don't get on that plane. Remain in place.'" "It was never an order to stand down," Losey said. "It was an order to remain in place and continue to provide your security role in Tripoli." DID CLINTON GIVE A "STAND DOWN" ORDER, AS SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE THEORIZED? "No," said Losey. "I never received any orders from the secretary of state or heard of any orders from the secretary of state," said Leidig, also based in Stuttgart, Germany. "No," said Ham, who commanded the Africa operations. "And we would not receive direct communications from the secretary of state." Ham said no one else ordered him to stand down, either, and no one tried to stop him from helping the Americans in Benghazi any way he could. "The conversation really was more along lines of, you know, 'What do you need? What can we do?'" he said. "And every request for forces that I asked of the secretary of defense was approved." WHAT DID THE MILITARY DO TO HELP? Following the first report of trouble about 9:40 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, officials began looking for military planes that could head to Benghazi for evacuations. None would be available for hours. An unmanned drone already in Libya was quickly sent to survey the situation at the diplomatic post. Nighttime darkness limited its usefulness. Two military members — both from Special Forces — were in the six-man team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi aroundmidnight and aided with the defense and evacuation of the CIA base. An Air Force C-17 transport plane flew the Benghazi evacuees from Tripoli to Germany the night of Sept. 12, about 24 hours after the attacks began. A U.S. anti-terror team sent from Spain arrived in Tripoli after the evacuees had gone. Two military teams — one in Croatia and the other in the U.S. — prepared to go but, as the situation changed, weren't brought to Libya. They would have arrived too late. Not until the morning of Sept. 12 was the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, ordered to get four F-16 jets and four pilots ready to respond if needed. The call to Benghazi never came. WHY DIDN'T THEY SCRAMBLE THE F-16 FIGHTERS? Military leaders decided early on that jets armed with 500-pound bombs were unsuited for the chaotic crisis in an urban area. "Ultimately, it was my decision that said no, not the right response in this circumstance," Ham said. He didn't have anyone on the ground to provide target information for airstrikes. He didn't want to harm innocent people or risk inflaming more Libyans to join the attack. He believed some militants had missiles capable of downing a plane. "Had I made a different decision, had strike aircraft deployed, we don't really know what the outcome would have been," Ham said. "Maybe it would have been positive, but maybe it would have got shot down. Maybe it would have killed civilians." Brig. Gen. Scott Zobrist, then the wing commander at Aviano, had similar worries. He said that, even if called right away, it would have taken 20 hours to get jets to Benghazi from the base in Italy normally used for training flights. Pilots would have to be recalled from their homes, bombs loaded onto planes, the 1,000-mile route planned. The jets would need refueling along the way, which meant coordinating with tanker planes stationed in England — something that typically takes days to plan. COULD THE MILITARY HAVE DONE MORE? Perhaps. In hindsight, Ham said, he should have reached out to his Libyan contacts and other U.S. officials to get Americans evacuated from Benghazi faster. That might have saved the two lives that were lost hours after the first attack at the diplomatic post. While the evacuation from Benghazi was being planned by the embassy and the CIA, Ham said, he switched his focus toward gearing up a possible hostage rescue mission, because the ambassador was still missing. Meanwhile, surviving U.S. personnel were gathered at the CIA base in Benghazi. Ham said he believed they were relatively safe. He and other military leaders said they weren't told that the CIA compound already had come under gunfire and rocket-propelled grenade attacks in the middle of the night. The U.S. security team that arrived at the Benghazi airport after midnight was detained by Libyan officials for several hours. That delayed the evacuation, Ham said, and "allowed sufficient time for the second attack to be organized and conducted." During that attack, around 5 a.m., mortar fire killed two CIA security contractors on the roof and wounded other Americans. Less than an hour later, the evacuation of all American personnel from Benghazi began. *Clinton's Potential 2016 Rival: We Can't 'Send Children Back to Death' <http://time.com/2978026/martin-omalley-minors-immigration/>* By Zeke Miller July 11, 2014 Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley broke publicly with President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary ClintonFriday, calling for a more humane policy toward the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who have illegally crossed into the United States. “It is contrary to everything we stand for to try to summarily send children back to death,” the Democratic lawmaker told reporters. O’Malley also criticized the “kennels” in which those who have been detained are being kept and calling for the children to be placed in “the least restrictive” locations, including foster homes or with family members in the U.S. “Through all of the great world religions we are told that hospitality to strangers is an essential human dignity,” O’Malley said. “It is a belief that unites all of us. And I have watched the pictures of young kids who have traveled for thousands of miles. I can only imagine, as a father of four, the heartbreak that those parents must have felt in sending their children across a desert where they can be muled and trafficked or used or killed or tortured. But with the hope, the hope, that they would reach the United States and that their children would be protected from what they were facing at home, which was the likelihood of being recruited into gangs and dying a violent death.” Speaking to reporters on the margins of the National Governors Association, O’Malley, who is weighing a bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, declined to talk about his political future. Still, his response was a clear effort to distinguish himself from his leading rival and the incumbent president. Clinton told CNN last month that most of those detained should be sent back. “They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are,” she said. President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the parents of the migrants need to know that “it is unlikely that their children will be able to stay.” O’Malley went so far as to call the children “refugees,” a term with legal weight that would allow most of them to remain in the U.S. He called on Congress and the President to avoid modifying the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. That measure requires that children who are not from Canada or Mexico who have crossed the border to be given an opportunity to see an immigration judge to make their case for amnesty. Lawmakers on both sides, as well as the White House, are reviewing ways to amend that law to ease deportations of the tens of thousands of migrant children, who are largely from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. O’Malley said “the whole world is watching” how the U.S. responds to the humanitarian crisis. “We have to do right not just by these kids but by our kids and protect the children who are here, put them in the least restrictive settings, get them out of these detention centers and these kennels where they are being cooped up, and operate as the good and generous people that we have always been,” he added. “That’s what’s at stake here, as well as the lives of these kids.” *Rubio: I can beat Hillary* <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/212038-rubio-i-can-beat-hillary> By Rachel Huggins July 11, 2014, 7:59 PM Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) believes he can beat Hillary Clinton in the race for the 2016 presidency. "Multiple people can beat her. Hillary Clinton is not unbeatable," the GOP presidential hopeful told radio host Hugh Hewitt in an interview Friday. When asked whether he's concerned about Clinton's extensive foreign policy background if he or another Republican candidate ran against her, Rubio quickly slammed the potential Democratic frontrunner. "I'd ask her: You were the secretary of State during the first four years of the Obama administration, name one significant foreign policy achievement, now or after you left?", he said. "The reset with Russia has been a disaster, the Middle East is more unstable today than it's been in I don't know when, our relationships with Latin America and democracy have deteriorated…our partners around the world view us as less reliable." The Florida lawmaker also weighed in on Lebron James' surprise move back to the Cleveland Cavaliers after four seasons with the Miami Heat. "I read the article he wrote in Sports Illustrated and it's actually very compelling. And I have a lot of respect," he said. "The way I view it, he gave us four extraordinary years in Miami, a very special experience and on a personal note he allowed me, along with his teammates, to share with my sons memories they'll treasure for the rest of their lives." *CBS News: Hillary Clinton’s book sales barely edging out Ben Carson's* <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-book-sales-barely-edging-out-ben-carsons/> By Lindsey Boerma July 11, 2014, 12:27 PM It's not 2016 yet, but the early frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination and one favorite being ardently recruited by Republicans are already contending for the top spot - on the bookshelf. Despite the hubbub surrounding the release last month of Hillary Clinton's memoir "Hard Choices," new data shows it's barely edging out Ben Carson's "One Nation" in book sales. Nielsen Bookscan figures provided to CBS News for the week ending July 6 show the former secretary of state clocking in at 177,000 copies sold; Carson has sold 162,000 copies. "One Nation," released May 20, has been on the market about three weeks longer than Clinton's chronicle. But considering the discrepancy in name brand as well as the flourish and fanfare that led Clinton's ultimately tumultuous book tour out of the gate, the marginal sales gap is striking. Simon & Schuster reportedly shelled out a $14 million advance for Clinton's account of her time at the State Department, which critics have largely written off as safe and "stodgy." The figures are good news for Carson, the neurosurgeon credited as the first person to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. Carson saw his star rise in 2013, when he openly lashed out against President Obama while standing several feet away from him. Ever since, conservatives starved for diversity have been building the case for the African-American doctor as a grassroots option for a 2016 White House bid, going so far as to mount a "Draft Ben Carson" movement. As for Clinton, who's been unsuccessfully fending off speculation that her book tour is merely a soft rollout for her own anticipated presidential run, the relatively sluggish sales could be an indicator that she's not quite the stimulating public figure she'll need to be if she expects to win the Oval Office. Another, somewhat ironic, red flag: On Friday, "Hard Choices" was bumped from first to second place on the New York Times bestseller list by Edward Klein's "Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas," a garish if sensational telling of the alleged tensions between Bill and Hillary Clinton and the current first family. *Huffington Post Blog: How the Republicans Could -- But Won't -- Beat Hillary Clinton in 2016* <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/how-the-republicans-could_b_5578635.html> By Lincoln Mitchell July 11, 2014 2:21 PM Hillary Clinton's increasingly likely candidacy for president in 2016 must be extremely frustrating for Republican strategists. Clinton is a strong candidate, but she is not invincible. If Clinton runs, she will face nominal opposition within her own party, but obviously a Republican will run against her. The most recent polls show her defeating any Republican challenger by between 7 to 9 points. What makes Clinton's candidacy frustrating for Republicans is that while the formulas for beating her are relatively straightforward, the party is unable to implement them. Much of Clinton's strength comes from her support among white women, a constituency that Mitt Romney carried in 2012. Clinton does not, and probably will not, win a majority of these voters in 2016, but if she comes close, her victory will be all but certain. The most obvious way to neutralize this advantage is for the Republicans to nominate a woman for president. Nominating a woman for president is something very different from finding a previously obscure female politician, putting her on the ticket at the last minute and hoping for the best. This is what John McCain did in 2008 and what the Republican nominee, whoever he is, will likely do in 2016. This strategy will not work against a Democratic ticket that will be led by a woman, particularly a woman with the experience and appeal of Hillary Clinton. With the first primaries only about 18 months away, it is hard not to notice that there are no women in the field of likely Republican candidates for president. This reflects the failure of the Republican Party, over the last decade in particular to recruit and elect women to high level offices. For example, of the 20 women in the senate, only four are Republicans. Although there are four Republican governors who are women, none have made any indication of interest in the presidential race. Although a woman might provide the best chance for the Republicans to defeat Clinton, it is unlikely that a strong female candidate will emerge between now and the primary season, meaning that Clinton's vulnerability from another female candidate will almost certainly not be exploited by the Republicans in 2016. Clinton's second vulnerability is not so much a vulnerability, but a potential Republican strength that is unlikely to be used in 2016. To win in 2016, the Republicans will have to get a lot of things right. One of these will be repositioning themselves by moving away from the far right on every issue and promoting a more libertarian brand of conservatism. There is increasing support among the American people for a less interventionist approach to foreign policy and a great deal of anger at the government that could be harnessed by the right conservative politician. These sentiments are particularly strong among younger voters. The problem for the Republican Party is that they remain, at least on the surface, dominated by social conservatives. This, if left unchecked, will drag down the Republican Party regardless of its positions on the economy and foreign policy. The party of opposition to marriage equality, draconian drug laws, limiting access to contraception and abortion will have a very difficult time broadening its appeal, particularly among younger voters in 2016 or beyond. It is unlikely that a Republican candidate will emerge who has the courage and resources to challenge the social conservatives who are so influential in the party. The only candidates among the front-runners who might be able to do this are Chris Christie and Jeb Bush who are, in the context of their peers, moderate Republicans, and Rand Paul. Paul's libertarian views, not surprisingly, do not extend to issues involving women's reproductive health. Christie and Bush will have to exhibit the kind of political courage that Romney could not summon, and take on the social conservatives during the primary season. If they don't do this, they will cede the center, on these issues, to Clinton. A woman or even a man with moderate views on social issues would be a formidable candidate against Clinton. In that campaign, Clinton's record would be scrutinized more vigorously because of the presence of a legitimate and viable opponent. Finding a candidate like that who at the very least could make a serious bid for the nomination should not be too difficult for the Republican Party, but this Republican Party will not be able to find such a candidate, very likely paving the way for a victory by a strong Democratic candidate, but one who is a creature of the political establishment and conventional policy thinking at a time when anti-government views are quite strong. This will be a missed opportunity for the Republicans, and probably a win for Clinton and the Democrats in 2016. *Clinton takes hit in NH poll, but still leads Dems* <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/211939-clinton-ahead-in-nh-but-lead-narrowing> Mario Trujillo July 11, 2014, 7:16 AM Hillary Clinton remains the favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination in the early primary state of New Hampshire — but her rating has dropped 15 percent since January, according to a new poll. A Granite State/WMUR poll released Thursday found 59 percent of Democratic voters there prefer Clinton over other party contenders. That number stood at 74 percent in January, a drop that reflected in other recent polling. Clinton, who has been making a series of media interviews to promote her new book, is still by far the favorite candidate on the Democratic side. Some 14 percent of Democrats prefer Vice President Biden, and 8 percent favor Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) receives 3 percent and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo receives 1 percent. Another 9 percent say they are undecided. The race is much closer on the Republican end. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie leads, with 19 percent of Republicans saying they prefer him. He is trailed by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (14 percent) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (11 percent). All other candidates receive less than 10 percent, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (8 percent). Fifteen percent say they are undecided. The poll surveyed 669 New Hampshire residents from June 19 to July 1. On the Democratic side, it has a margin of error of 6.1 percent. On the Republican side, it has a margin of error of 6.2 percent.