What's new

Stevens warned State Dep’t on day he died about deterioriating security in Benghazi

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,750
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Stevens warned State Dep’t on day he died about deterioriating security in Benghazi
Stevens warned State Dep’t on day he died about deterioriating security in Benghazi « Hot Air

Not just on the day he died, mind you. Multiple times before, too. I’m near the point now where I want to abandon the whole “pre-planned attack versus spontaneous protest” line of inquiry just because it’s steering us away from the more important topic of State’s negligence on his security. Besides, we already know, more or less, why Carney and Rice pushed the “spontaneous protest” theory. Ask Saxby Chambliss:


“Talking points distributed by the administration [in the immediate aftermath] are nearly identical to intelligence assessments within hours of the attack, except in one important way: the intelligence judgment that the attackers had ties to al-Qa’ida was excluded from the public points,” [Saxby] Chambliss said in a statement on Friday.

“The administration omitted the known links to al-Qa’ida at almost every opportunity … Whether this was an intentional effort by the administration to downplay the role of terrorist groups, especially al-Qa’ida, is one of the many issues the Senate Intelligence Committee must examine,” Chambliss said.

The guy who got Bin Laden and knocked out Qaddafi didn’t need a storyline in the middle of a campaign about AQ affiliates killing the American ambassador in the heart of the “new Libya.” That’s straightforward, and that’s almost certainly why the “spontaneous protest” theory got traction initially. (“Al Qaeda is on the run” used to be part of Obama’s standard stump speech, in fact. That line has been quietly dropped lately.) What’s not straightforward is why State refused to boost Stevens’s security despite countless warnings about the danger, some from the man himself. It’s inexplicable. It’s not a budget issue, either: Charlene Lamb testified to that before the House. She also testified that State had “the correct number of assets in Benghazi,” which literally no one but her seems to believe is true. So, once again: Why didn’t Stevens have more security? What were they waiting for before making a decision to either send him a more professional force or end the American presence in Benghazi? Was that politicized too, i.e. State didn’t want abandon the consulate over security fears because that would have made for some bad headlines about conditions inside the “new Libya”?


On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”…


Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”


“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”…

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote [on June 25], adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

Libyan guards at the consulate also thought security was too thin to meet the challenge from local mujahedeen, but were reportedly told by the Americans they spoke to that everything was cool and that no one would dare approach the consulate — even though, as noted above, even the Red Cross wasn’t spared from attack. (That may have been part of a jihadi strategy to push all western outfits out of the city.) I’d sure like to know which Americans said that; based on his increasingly dire reports to the State Department, it doesn’t sound like Stevens was one of them.

I’ll leave you with this. Funny how Susan Rice is capable of detecting a terrorist attack right away in some cases. Is she sure that Beirut bombing this morning wasn’t a reaction to the Mohammed movie?


We condemn in the strongest possible terms the terrorist bombing in #Beirut & extend our condolences to the victims’ loved ones. #Lebanon

— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) October 19, 2012
 
Last edited:

SniperFire

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
13,627
Reaction score
1,226
Points
48
Location
Inside Your Head
We weren’t told they wanted more security’

- Joe Biden, baldface lying to the American public during the VP debate
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
26,442
Reaction score
6,472
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Obama continued to blame the video weeks after the State Department and the CIA knew it was a terror attack without any reference to the video. They KNEW about the 200+ attacks on the Libya area western atargets including the embassy itself.

Security professionals at the embassy had asked to stay stating that the violence was getting worse. The State Department dismissed these requests and took them away one month before 9/11.

This administrating screwed up in their assessment of the needs at the embassies, their assessments of AL Qaeda and they lied to the American people about what they knew afterwards. They lied about theoir own incompetence. It cost the lives of four good men. The president called it, " a bump in the road."
 

Dante

On leave
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,365
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
We weren’t told they wanted more security’

- Joe Biden, baldface lying to the American public during the VP debate
Biden was not speaking for the State Dept.


next
 

Dante

On leave
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,365
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Obama continued to blame...
what?

More reinforcements

In the night, a team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reaches the security compound.

Around 4 a.m.

The compound's building is hit by mortar fire. The roof is hit and two security personnel are killed. One agent involved in the attack from the beginning is severely wounded. The men decide to evacuate the city entirely. They spend the next hours securing the annex and moving a large convoy of vehicles to the airport. They evacuate on two flights.

Sept. 12. The president, in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, uses the word "terror." He says: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Romney accuses the administration of showing weakness in the face of the attack, prompting the president to say his rival "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

The CIA station chief in Libya reports to Washington within 24 hours of the attack that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about the anti-Islam video.

Timeline of events, comments surrounding Benghazi - CBS Atlanta 46
 

Dante

On leave
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,365
Points
1,825
Location
On leave

SniperFire

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
13,627
Reaction score
1,226
Points
48
Location
Inside Your Head

SniperFire

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
13,627
Reaction score
1,226
Points
48
Location
Inside Your Head
Biden was not speaking for the State Dept.


next
LOL

Um, yes, he absolutely was speaking for the Obama State Department.
yeah and heads will roll in the Obama State Dept


Heads will not roll in the Obama State Department, because they were simply doing Obama's bidding and were under orders to reduce the security footprint in Libya.

'Eric Nordstrom, the former Regional Security Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, told congressional investigators looking into the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, that the State Department was eager for the American diplomatic presence in Libya to reduce its American security footprint and to rely more on locals, sources tell ABC News. A senior State Department official denies the charge.'

Security Officer in Libya Refers to Post Being Directed to “Normalize” Operations and Reduce U.S. Security Presence - ABC News
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,456
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
Biden was not speaking for the State Dept.


next
LOL

Um, yes, he absolutely was speaking for the Obama State Department.
yeah and heads will roll in the Obama State Dept
well we'll see, they are calling Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb , the sacrificial Lamb :lol:but, I think IF obamas team is smart they will have to lay this at the feet of the intel apparatus, becasue his only out is to say that they did not tell him it was a terrorist attack.

Maybe to pull the plug on all of the embarrassing questions obama will face Monday night they will sack or accept the resignation of a VERY high intel chief before the debate, this way obama can stand their and say hey, we got to the bottom of it, we have asked for or accepted the resignation of our chief of whatever there by pulling the pin from some of Romneys attack.


now of course that flys in the face of the facts there after- what he said last debate where in he claims a general statement on terrorism was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack yet he went on Letterman, the View and the UN saying different......this is what comes from covering up, in the end, given enough time, you get outted, ala Watergate etc. etc...
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
LOL

Um, yes, he absolutely was speaking for the Obama State Department.
yeah and heads will roll in the Obama State Dept
well we'll see, they are calling Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb , the sacrificial Lamb :lol:but, I think IF obamas team is smart they will have to lay this at the feet of the intel apparatus, becasue his only out is to say that they did not tell him it was a terrorist attack.

Maybe to pull the plug on all of the embarrassing questions obama will face Monday night they will sack or accept the resignation of a VERY high intel chief before the debate, this way obama can stand their and say hey, we got to the bottom of it, we have asked for or accepted the resignation of our chief of whatever there by pulling the pin from some of Romneys attack.


now of course that flys in the face of the facts there after- what he said last debate where in he claims a general statement on terrorism was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack yet he went on Letterman, the View and the UN saying different......this is what comes from covering up, in the end, given enough time, you get outted, ala Watergate etc. etc...

But Lamb testified before Congress last week that she was in real time contact witht he embassy before and during the attack, and she/they both knew it was not a mob protesting a video but instead was a terrorist attack. AND the CIA guy there sent info up his chain to Washington within 24 hours that they believed it was a terrorist attack. It's kinda hard to lay this at the feet of the intel people, especially if they have documents that say otherwise.

So, are we to conclude that somebody between them and the president blocked that information from reaching them? Or is it that the president did have that information but elected to withhold it from us and instead run with the video fiction because it supported his political position that he had Al Qaida on the run? Either way is not good, a US Ambassadr and 3 others were murdered, and we were not told the truth about it from the WH for weeks.
 
Last edited:

Dante

On leave
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,365
Points
1,825
Location
On leave

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top