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

posted at 5:21 pm on October 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

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?


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 3

O’reilly was just on and said Benghazi was the nail in obama’s coffin. He is toast in the debate Monday. With all this info out about the many requests for help by Stephens and the refusals to send security are devastating. We have 4 dead Anericans because of mass incompetence by this admin. Then you get to the many coverup lies Obama and his minions told even though the CIA sent a detailed report the next day that it was a terror attack.

Ta111 on October 19, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I suspect the reason they did not increase security is because Obama thinks an enhanced American presence is what antagonizes terrorists. Remember, the left often blames terrorism on our being there.

Daemonocracy on October 19, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I believe this is it. Somewhere in the recesses of my cloudy brain I either read something about this or heard it.
Remember there had been a recent security analysis of the facilities and everything was appropriate for what the perceived threat..?

d1carter on October 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Remember Obama is a devout Muslim. Even his ring praises Allah according to some. He did not wear it or his watch during Ramadan is a fact.

Obama set up the entire Arab Spring. He is methodically putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of all Muslim Nations in the World. AlQueda is the militant faction of the Muslim Brotherhood their armed forces in a way. Muslims throughout the world celebrated 9/11/01.

These bumps in the road are necessary as part of the plan to institute Shria Law throughout the World and especially America. This was a huge step forward towards that.

Steveangell on October 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM

O’reilly was just on and said Benghazi was the nail in obama’s coffin. He is toast in the debate Monday. With all this info out about the many requests for help by Stephens and the refusals to send security are devastating. We have 4 dead Anericans because of mass incompetence by this admin. Then you get to the many coverup lies Obama and his minions told even though the CIA sent a detailed report the next day that it was a terror attack.

Ta111 on October 19, 2012 at 8:45 PM

That is just a Rominism.

Like it will come up in any fair way in the debate. This final debate will be the real October Surprise. Each has been more biased than the previous. In the last one it was without question two against one. What could be worse than that? Monday we will see. Would not be surprised by anything at this point.

Steveangell on October 19, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Steve Angell:
O’Reilly is a blowhard and ignoramus(Ref oil and gas, Obama bla bla)You are correct about the affinities of WH mutt for Moslems. He has Islam branded on his butt.

kenny on October 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM

O’reilly was just on and said Benghazi was the nail in obama’s coffin. He is toast in the debate Monday.

Ta111

The debate Monday could be a trap. Romney needs to tread carefully. He doesn’t need a knockout there, he simply needs to avoid getting knocked out himself.

xblade on October 19, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The debate Monday could be a trap. Romney needs to tread carefully. He doesn’t need a knockout there, he simply needs to avoid getting knocked out himself.

xblade on October 19, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The Monday debate I suspect has been scripted worse than the last one .
This time the moderator will not only lie for Hussein but actively insult Romney just to protect his boy. Hussein will be hopped on coke and will be on his thuggish best.

burrata on October 19, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Stevens warned State Dep’t on day he died was sodomized and murdered… about deterioriating security in Benghazi

…there!

KOOLAID2 on October 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM

LTC Wood said that Charlene Lamb denied the requests for further security for Benghazi.

ted c on October 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Stevens in Benghazi on SEP 10 for full day of meetings. Had Wood been there, he said they may have been able to hold off attack for a time.

ted c on October 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I’m watching Brett Baier’s report on Benghazi on FOX right now and it’s just making me sick. This could have so been prevented and the point was all about making sure that the loser in the WH didn’t look bad in front of the rest of the world. Despicable and disgraceful!

stukinIL4now on October 19, 2012 at 10:31 PM

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.

Thank goodness. This has been a distraction all along. We’ve been focused on who said what when and who knew what when, but the real tragedy – and the real story – is how did some guys waltz in and assassinate a United States Ambassador in a United States embassy? I don’t care whether it’s a spontaneous demonstration or terrorism or a nuclear bomb – that sort of thing is not supposed to happen to us. Or, at least, it hasn’t happened to us but, what, twice in the last 50+ years?

jdp629 on October 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I guess everyone saw Bret Baier’s special tonight on Benghazi. That was the first blow-by-blow reconstruction I had seen of the attack, and it was a powerful presentation. LTC Andrew Wood was a powerful interview too. We knew just about everything in the 1-hour special already, but seeing it all together was hard to take.

Baier brought out the point — very clearly — that State declined to keep even the minimal level of security in Libya that we had in the summer of 2012. Wood wasn’t asking for more; he was just asking to keep the team he had in place. And State didn’t even have to pay for it. Defense was paying for it. Yet Charlene Lamb turned the request down, and the skeleton security force in Libya was cut further.

Not optimal, for sure.

J.E. Dyer on October 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM

I’m watching Brett Baier’s report on Benghazi on FOX right now and

stukinIL4now on October 19, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Most impressive piece of journalism I have seen in years. Fox News deserves a pulitzer, as well as the journalists reporting from Bengazi.

topdog on October 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM

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.

Bambi’s got to be loving everybody getting tangled/distracted in the weeds of all the ‘he said, she said’ what and when stuff. I agree the security aspects are far more important…and once Romney hits this security thing hard, he needs to shift gears and tie it into the economy, a strong defense, and leadership.

marybel on October 19, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Obama: You didn’t build that I didn’t secure that.

Rommel lost at Benghazi in November of 1942, now Obama will lose there exactly 70 years later.

profitsbeard on October 20, 2012 at 2:07 AM

It was a 6hr attack.

The United states can have air support anywhere on the planet in half of that.

Why did the president not send in support?

He let those men die without raising a finger.

There is no conceivable way the commander in chief did not have knowledge of the attack while it was going on (for God’s sake it was on TV)

If he didn’t know, it is because he was being willfully ignorant and let those men die.

IF he did know and chose to do nothing..

The security question is horrifying.
The coverup is unimaginable.

But every single citizen in this country can appreciate that the President let those men die without even trying to save them. He didn’t even TRY.

They might have died anyways, we’ll never know.

WashingtonsWake on October 20, 2012 at 2:09 AM

An unexpected calamity in September helped to put Obama in office in 08. How fitting for an unexpected calamity in September to be his undoing.

We don’t want to go back to Obama’s failed foreign policy that created this mess in the first place.

Buck Turgidson on October 20, 2012 at 2:10 AM

Can anyone spell out the terms in “strongest possible terms” for me?

Is it analogous to “take full responsibility,” for example?

Sherman1864 on October 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Rommel lost at Benghazi in November of 1942, now Obama will lose there exactly 70 years later.

profitsbeard on October 20, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Obama’s main concern that night was getting some good sleep before jetting off to Vegas for a fundraiser 9/12, knowing that the Consulate was under attack.

That reminds me of reports that Hitler’s aids were fearful of waking Der Fuehrer during the allied invasion of Normandy, causing a paralysis in German capability to launch a timely counter-attack.

BigAlSouth on October 20, 2012 at 6:51 AM

WashingtonsWake on October 20, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Did anybody ask obama directly (reporters, journalists,netc) where exactly was he during the 6-hour attack in Benghazi, and this is not sarc, or rhetorical question, am just curious. was he even for an hour or less (during that 6-hour interval) in a situation room, with his intel and military and state dept advisors, and if not, why? You are correct that they could have sent support from either Tripoli or the bases in Sicily (Sigonella – less than an hour flight to benghazi) but for that you need a president in charge. Clearly he wasn’t. why? And why nobody asks him this question? Funny how they hurried back then to put those pic out there with him in the war room during the OBL operation (not that he had any clue what was going on), why aren’t they putting pics out for the public to see how involved he wasduring the benghazi attack..oh, right, coz he wasn’t….and never mind this was his war and an illegal one, Congress never approved it or was ever asked to…looks like his kinetic shtick came bak to haunt him…

jimver on October 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM

The big question is why, why did the president who knew about the gravity of the situation, do nothing. This is much more than about the murder of Abm. Stevens and the sacking of our outposts in Benghazi. What we have here is nothing less than abdication of the roles of Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States of America. The signal that is sent is unmistakable. We have now entered the worst case situation. Seventeen more days…..

flackcatcher on October 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM

If it seems I am being callus about the deaths of our people in Benghazi, I am not. There is more raw firepower in the CENTCOM area than anywhere else in the world. Getting there is NOT an issue. Having the will to use it, is. What we have is weakness and stupidity on blinding display. Seventeen more days……

flackcatcher on October 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3