Ex-security officer in Libya on State Dep’t bureaucracy: “The Taliban is on the inside of the building”

posted at 8:08 pm on October 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

The devastating soundbite du jour from today’s House Oversight hearings, courtesy of Eric Nordstrom. There’ll be some faux-trage aimed at him for his choice of metaphor here, if only in the interest of changing the subject politically, but don’t get bogged down in it. He’s not calling State an enemy, he’s saying that their persistent bureaucratic excuse-making in refusing to give him the manpower he needed to protect Stevens was ultimately his chief problem in Libya. More from ABC:

Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, the commander of a Security Support Team (SST) sent home in August – against his wishes and, he says, the wishes of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens – said “we were fighting a losing battle. We couldn’t even keep what we had.”

Nordstrom agreed, saying, “it was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is again, ‘How thin does the ice need to get until someone falls through?’”

Wood said that when he heard of the attack on the Benghazi post on September 11, it was “instantly recognizable” that it had been a terrorist attack.

Why?

“Mainly because of my prior knowledge there,” Wood said. “I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time.

An obvious terror attack, according to security pros who had just returned from the country, and yet your Secretary of State went out there three days later as Stevens’s body was arriving at Andrews AFB and denounced “rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” If personnel like Wood knew it was terrorism and the State Department allegedly never concluded that there was a protest in front of the consulate, why was Hillary talking about an “awful Internet video” in the aftermath?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Resist We Much on October 10, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I know, same here, in general am farther away from the wide spread conspiracy theories as one can get, very rarely give credence to any..but Benghazi is definitely a botched cover-up op, no idea for what exactly, there are a lot of speculations, mostly point to weapon transfers/deals of sorts……by navy seals I meant the ones at the safe house, I kmow they were retired, it was just shorter to call them navy seals, their training and experience is still the same. One of the guys, Doherty I think, worked closely with the CIA in cover operations in Europe (Norway), helping them to ‘extradite’ (and by that you know what I mean) dangerous terrorists there. . My point is that the security firm was a cover for them, no way someone with that sort of experience is used in a small-scale ridiculous to absurd ineffectual deccommissioning operation, or in translation ‘gather weapon from wherever and whoever you can and smash them’….seriously??? First off decommissioning is a long and complicated process that takes time, it has to be large scale to be effective and it takes a lot of negotiations and trade offs with the local communities and the parties/factions/militias involved (think conflicts in africa, kosovo, IRA, etc), you just don’t send three guys employed by a private security firm, in humvees to grab them (and how do they do that without engaging and provoking incidents, who would be willing to give up their sophisticated weapons in a lawless country without a fight, as commenter bofh correctly pointed out)…. Sure, people do all sort of things for money, but I really doubt that’s what Doherty and the other navy seal was doing there….I am sure whatever their job there was it was connected to the ambassador’s presence that day in Benghazi, they may have been apart physically, but they were there for the same ‘mission’, different aspects and phases of it…something was horribly wrong…that was my point…

jimver on October 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Covert operations that is….

jimver on October 10, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Looks like the October Surprise came a month early.

Obozo is going down.

Dominion on October 10, 2012 at 11:15 PM

jimver on October 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I agree that such would be small-scale, amateurish, etc, but then so was the administration’s approach to securitising the Benghazi consulate and its response to the desperate pleas of Stevens and the security personnel in Libya.

In fact, “amateurish” is an apt characterisation for much of the Obama administration.

Resist We Much on October 10, 2012 at 11:42 PM

In comparison to nearly every other country in the world where we have an embassy or consulate, what is and has been the situation in Libya?
The last year in Libya has been outright civil war / revolution between terrorist supported rebels and a sadistic terror supporting dictator – both of which hate the US.
How on earth could ANY other location require more security than that?

dentarthurdent on October 10, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Was Stevens working for the CIA? I watched the hearings today, and at one point a dem rep was asking questions about who was in the area that could protect the consulate and the Republicans shut down Kennedy’s response and implied that that information was classified. When the dem rep complained he shut up after it was pointed out the info might be classified. Something fishy was definitely going on in Behghazi.

txmomof6 on October 10, 2012 at 11:43 PM

This is a potent example of how the media are protecting the Obama Administration. Any one singular story over the last few weeks about the Benghazi disaster would have been played on infinite loop by the media and it would have cratered the reelection prospects of any President [insert name here] with an (R) after his name.

And yet, in the RCP average of polls, Obama and Romney are at a virtual tie.

Sad.

powerpickle on October 11, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Nordstrom agreed, saying, “it was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is again, ‘How thin does the ice need to get until someone falls through?’

This statement essentially accuses the administration of waiting for someone to die before taking seriously the security concerns of the people in the field. They all have the blood of these brave Americans on their hands. They are despicable.

susietwo on October 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Another powerful reminder that the Democrats are completely out of their depth on military and national defense issues, and never to be trusted with people’s lives.

Pretty much exactly as Americans have viewed the party for the past 40 years.

Jaibones on October 11, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Sooo… The kinder gentler peace-seeking Taliban from Afghanistan-Pakistan is now in Libya and involved in terrorist attacks on the US on Sept 11? Ooops. It’s déjà vu all over again.

farsighted on October 11, 2012 at 7:54 AM

If personnel like Wood knew it was terrorism and the State Department allegedly never concluded that there was a protest in front of the consulate, why was Hillary talking about an “awful Internet video” in the aftermath?

Because she was told to.
The smart thing for her to do is resign in protest, and throw Teh Boy King under the bus.

Dexter_Alarius on October 11, 2012 at 8:55 AM

There’s an admitted Muslim in the White House and I’m sure most have seen the 2008 video of him stating that fact and we are all aware of the ruling of the Koran and the nonexistence of the word terrorist in the White House or its use by the main stream media. We have for the first time in our history a President not vetted by Congress which is by passed to the appointed czars. Our Country is in a mess, murders in the offices of our Ambassadors, wars and yet we have a ho hum attitude coming out of Washington DC not only from the POTUS but both Houses of Congress. We are supposed to be a Country of laws…BS Show me some.

mixplix on October 11, 2012 at 9:06 AM

If personnel like Wood knew it was terrorism and the State Department allegedly never concluded that there was a protest in front of the consulate, why was Hillary talking about an “awful Internet video” in the aftermath?

Because she had to tow the party line and not want to admit that this was a terrorist attack, a result of the administration’s mideast policy failures (appeasement). To admit to the truth would be political suicide for her. Both she and Sec. Rice need to testify under oath before the committee.

RMCS_USN on October 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Thanks to the White House the world of Islam knows our security at our Embassies is minimal and any terrorist attacks will not be named as terrorist attacks. When the POTUS gets his new address in January something must be done about this muslim problem, maybe by then the msm will be permitted to use the word terrorist and we can do something about the terrorist at Ft. Hood who murdered thirteen American soldiers. Why is it the politicians are walking around on broken glass? Are they that afraid of their jobs that they won’t do their jobs?

mixplix on October 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2