Skip to comments.Stevens warned State Depít on day he died about deterioriating security in Benghazi
Posted on 10/19/2012 2:50:46 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Not just on the day he died, mind you. Multiple times before, too. Im near the point now where I want to abandon the whole pre-planned attack versus spontaneous protest line of inquiry just because its steering us away from the more important topic of States 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-Qaida was excluded from the public points, [Saxby] Chambliss said in a statement on Friday.
The administration omitted the known links to al-Qaida at almost every opportunity Whether this was an intentional effort by the administration to downplay the role of terrorist groups, especially al-Qaida, is one of the many issues the Senate Intelligence Committee must examine, Chambliss said.
The guy who got Bin Laden and knocked out Qaddafi didnt need a storyline in the middle of a campaign about AQ affiliates killing the American ambassador in the heart of the new Libya. Thats straightforward, and thats almost certainly why the spontaneous protest theory got traction initially. (Al Qaeda is on the run used to be part of Obamas standard stump speech, in fact. That line has been quietly dropped lately.) Whats not straightforward is why State refused to boost Stevenss security despite countless warnings about the danger, some from the man himself. Its inexplicable. Its 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 wasnt spared from attack. (That may have been part of a jihadi strategy to push all western outfits out of the city.) Id sure like to know which Americans said that; based on his increasingly dire reports to the State Department, it doesnt sound like Stevens was one of them.
Ill 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 wasnt 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
19 Oct 12
How could Obamagabe insist during the debate that he called it a terror attack (and asked Ms. Candy to show the transcript) then spend the next three weeks giving the US another story???
Either he thinks Americans are not paying attention or he thinks the MSM still has the power and credibility they had before he was elected OR he thinks we're stupid.
and every year there is an increase in security for 9-11 because alqueda loves anniversaries. Nothing on that either. Obama stays close to home on the anniversaries...Does a wreath thing at the Pentagon...and disappears.
He lives in a bubble. Even my Aussie friends who watched the debate with me asked how was that possible if the questions were not known before hand. I think Romney blew it when Obamagabe started interrupting Romney and walked towards Candy telling her to show the transcript. What was she doing with it? The whole debate was a joke.
Hillary killed Ambassador Stevens.
She admitted it.
He was killed by being sent to a dangerous place without enough security, after requesting more security several times, and being ignored and/or rejected.
The person who sent him there was Hillary.
The person who received his requests for more security was Hillary.
The person who rejected his requests for more security was Hillary.
The person who ignored his requests for more security was Hillary.
That is HOW he was killed.
Hillary admitted to personal responsibility for ALL of this.
Hillary is LITERALLY standing there saying, “Yep, I did it. I’m Secretary of State, and these issues are my personal responsibility, and not the White House.”
But John McCain then immediately organized RINO senators to THANK Hillary for her honesty, BUT shift the blame to Obama!
And what happens? Everyone rushes to Obama!
You know, after all these years, it’s getting so that I can see Hillary’s point.
Americans really DON’T want good government.
In fact, they don’t even want justice.
Apparently (and I can see Hillary nodding here), what they WANT...
... is chains.
Things get curiouser and curiouser. Maybe we need to step back from this attack for a minute. Nobody has really explained the Democrat’s interest in seeing the regimes in Libya, Egypt and Syria fall. The Democrats usually could care less about foreign affairs unless they affect the Democrats in the US. And that usually means elections. Remember Carville’s big motto “It’s the economy, stupid!”. They really only care about domestic policy and money. We’ve been brushing over Obama’s and Hillary’s messing around in Libya, Egypt and Syria. They’re self-centered, self-serving money-grubbing Democrats, not some freedom fighters. What’s in it for them in these countries? Campaign donations? Somebody wrote that Gadaffi had money that is missing, but Egypt and Syria? Who has an answer? I don’t get it.
WASHINGTON | Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:21pm EDT
Locals in Benghazi wanted the Americans to stay permanently in the eastern Libyan city, the cradle of last year's revolution against Muammar Gaddafi, according to one memo written by the former top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman.
The documents were made public on Friday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has been investigating the September 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that took the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Other lawmakers raised more questions about the aftermath of the Benghazi events. The leading Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned why U.S. spy agencies and government spokesmen initially played down suspected al Qaeda links to the September 11 attack on the mission there.
In public statements soon after the September 11 attack, administration officials said it could have been a spontaneous protest against a U.S.-made anti-Muslim video. Ultimately the administration declared the Benghazi incident to be a "deliberate and organized terrorist attack" carried out by "extremists" affiliated with or sympathetic to al Qaeda.
The Obama administration's statements have "been strange from Day One on this," the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Saxby Chambliss, said in a telephone interview with Reuters on Friday.
Chambliss said the intelligence committee would investigate further. Another panel, the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent letters on Friday to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, demanding information about Benghazi.
The Benghazi attack has turned into election-year fodder in the United States, with Republicans charging that the Democratic Obama administration was caught unprepared for the assault, and Democrats claiming that Republicans are trying to exploit tragic events for political gain.
"A SALUTARY, CALMING EFFECT"
Feltman's memo, written December 27 to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, urged the U.S. to continue its presence in Benghazi - which began during the anti-Gadaffi revolt - through the end of 2012. Feltman said this would emphasize U.S. interest in the eastern part of Libya, which he said sometimes feels ignored by Tripoli.
The ambassador was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. The imposter-in-chief didn’t want to annoy his buddies so he refused the security.
The North American and South American continents are being combined to form the new SOCIALIST CALIPHATE of the WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
Valerie Jarrett will be head of the Western Hemisphere.
Coming to you December 21, 2012. Agenda 21.
“Responsibility” without consequences for the responsible party is meaningless. Reminds me of Janet Reno taking responsibility for Waco.
Yes - it’s only republicans who actually face responsibility.
They resign - or they are fired.
Sometimes they even get arrested and face legal consequences.
Democrats? They say the words then proceed on as if nothing happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.