Benghazi security unarmed when attack started?

posted at 8:01 am on December 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How well prepared was the security team at the Benghazi consulate on the night of September 11th, in an area known to be rife with terrorist activity, on the anniversary of the al-Qaeda attacks that killed almost 3,000 people eleven years earlier?  According to a source who heard the closed-door testimony in the Senate about the attack, they hadn’t even armed themselves — and had to race to find their weapons when the attack started.  Kerry Picket reports at Breitbart News that the decision to remove the military security in August didn’t prompt State to ramp up their own security at all:

A source with personal knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi told Breitbart News that Senators who listened to closed door testimony about the Benghazi attack were shocked to learn State Department security personnel agents were not immediately armed.

Additionally, agents separated from Ambassador Chris Stevens left to retrieve their M4 weapons in a separate building. Only one returned to protect the Ambassador, while the other two hunkered down in the barracks, the source relayed.

“From the accounts I read, those guys were not ready. When the attack came that night, they had to go back to the other room and grab their weapons. Then the worse part about it was they never even returned to be with the Ambassador. One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle. The other two went back to where there were [sic] barracks. And two stayed in that same building where there were radios and other weapons and the safe and other stuff was there.

There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador—nothing.”

Even if they had been armed, they wouldn’t have known how to coordinate a defense, Kerry’s source explained:

According to the Breitbart News source, the State Department security agents are “six week temporary duty assignments.”

The source explained, “When they’re there, they are not working together. They don’t know one another. They probably all got there and one guy had been there for two weeks another guy had been there for four and then another three came in from Tripoli. None of them ever worked with each other before. So when a shooting incident occurs, they hunker down and hope and pray that it goes away instead of reacting like a military trained force.”

Let’s refresh our minds on the context in which this attack occurred.  Riots had erupted at the US Embassy in Cairo, a fact that the Obama administration used to insist that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous demonstration run amok rather than the planned terrorist attack it turned out to be.  It was the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  The consulate was in eastern Libya, where Islamist terror networks were well known to operate with impunity, especially after the fall of the Qaddafi regime and the collapse of internal security in the region.  And the US Ambassador had arrived to conduct diplomatic talks and events, who had been pleading for more security resources for months.

With all that going on, no one thought to arm the security staff and prepare for trouble that evening?


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

What is this Benghazi thing you keep talking about?

Didn’t that happen, like, years ago?

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:05 AM

With all that going on, no one thought to arm the security staff and prepare for trouble that evening?

Na, see Bush would have armed them and made them wear scary masks to frighten the locals, Obama wanted none of that, so they had no guns, only candy and water to hand out to the protesters that spontaneously appeared on the 11th.

Gatsu on December 11, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Set up gone wrong.

OldEnglish on December 11, 2012 at 8:14 AM

And in spite of all of this, the Secretary of State during this debacle is still slated to be “tough to beat” in 2016?

Forget about the 3 am phone call, it seems like she missed the call in the middle of the afternoon.

Sgt Steve on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Interesting juxtaposition of Hot Air stories. According to Sarah Palin’s choice for the GOP nomination, the person who failed to provide any security for the Benghazi Consulate is going to be really tough to beat in 2016.

Basilsbest on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Heads to roll?

Cripe if actual reporting occurred prior to the election

cmsinaz on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 10, 2012

QUESTION: Lucas Tomlinson, Fox News. Has the U.S. in any way facilitated the movement of weapons out of Libya to arm Syrian rebels?

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: Okay –

QUESTION: There was a report yesterday in the Sunday Times –

MS. NULAND: It was a false report.

QUESTION: It’s a false report. Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. I’ve got just two very brief ones. There’s a lot of chatter on the Hill that the ARB report is imminent. Do you have any update on when that might happen? Is it going to – do you expect them to meet their statutory deadline? Or if there is – there is some leeway there. If they need more time, they can have it. Do you expect them to meet the deadline or do you think they’ll ask and get a little bit more time?

MS. NULAND: Well, just to recall that there’s no – in statute, there’s no deadline for when they have to complete their report. In this case, when the Secretary formed them, she asked them to try to meet a 60-65 day timeline. And they pledged to try to do that, which would take you into the middle of December. I don’t have any reason to think that we are off base there, but obviously, we want them to do it, do it right. And we’ll have – we’ll let you know when there’s something to announce.

QUESTION: Can you rule out this week?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to – I don’t have anything to announce one way or the other. I think we’ll know when we know.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/12/201751.htm

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Meanwhile the security force at the embassy in Switzerland has enough firepower to hold off a Russian armored division.

Bishop on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Hillary for President!!!!

She loves America

Electrongod on December 11, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Benghazi security unarmed when attack started?

This question was answered the morning after the attack – so why is it being asked again – now?

jake-the-goose on December 11, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Most of the roads lead to the DoS.

They denied the additional security funding.

They denied lengthening the tour for security personnel.

They ignored pleas from the DSS.

They set diplomatic policy and tried to enforce the Presidents meme that all was safe in Libya and AQ was “on the run”.

They refused to hear the ambassadors pleas and concerns about safety.

The Secretary of State was present when the decision to deny aid, when these men were under attack, was made.

The blood and trail for these murders is on Hillary’s hands.

But Hillary for President and all that.

RIP brothers. We will never let this go.

Marcus Traianus on December 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM

This is how the boinking out come should of been!

Major airstrike hacked survalence(IRAQ).mp4
*******************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_9AitqfaMc

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:25 AM

They brought pistols to a rocket, mortar, and AK47 fight? The head of this dept wants to be our next protector in chief and is touted as being tough to beat. We’re headed for more cliffs, folks.

Kissmygrits on December 11, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Le stinks of BlackHawk Down!
(sarc)

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Interesting juxtaposition of Hot Air stories. According to Sarah Palin’s choice for the GOP nomination, the person who failed to provide any security for the Benghazi Consulate is going to be really tough to beat in 2016.

Basilsbest on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

.
Really tough to beat ? The First potential Woman President Evah ?
Nate Silver has her at a 100% chance.

Think a white, female Barak Obama, in a pant suit.

Sing it Dandy Don !

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:26 AM

This question was answered the morning after the attack – so why is it being asked again – now?

jake-the-goose on December 11, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Interesting…isn’t it..

Also Steven mentioned that night…
That he may not survive the night seeing one of the guards taking pictures of the grounds a few hours before the attack..
Obviously this guy was armed with something other than a gun..

Electrongod on December 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Interesting juxtaposition of Hot Air stories. According to Sarah Palin’s choice for the GOP nomination, the person who failed to provide any security for the Benghazi Consulate is going to be really tough to beat in 2016.

Basilsbest on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Wow, that’s a lot of twists and turns to get to your personal attack on Palin…LOL

idesign on December 11, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Yahoo News voter reacts: Ben who?

PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM

This is Hillary Clinton’s responsibility and it’s her screw up/cover up.

forest on December 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Hillary for President!!!!

She loves America

Electrongod on December 11, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Electrongod:

Well,she does have Combat experience,dodging
sniper fire,darting and strutting across the
tarmac!)
========

Hillary WASN’T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered…
**********************************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM

No shots fired… the fix was in…

Khun Joe on December 11, 2012 at 8:32 AM

We need Huma Abedin in the White House!!!

Hillary 2016

PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Meanwhile the security force at the embassy in Switzerland has enough firepower to hold off a Russian armored division.

Bishop on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Bishop:Now that,is Truth to Power!:)

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM

What’s this have to do with the free stuff and taxing those rich guys?

docflash on December 11, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Benghazi security unarmed when attack started?

Bob Costas was unavailable for comment

Electrongod on December 11, 2012 at 8:34 AM

We need Huma Abedin in the White House!!!

Hillary 2016

PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 8:32 AM

PappyD61:

Oh gawd,terrific,Weiner would be tweeting his
litte brain,with the Oval Office as a back-drop!
(snark):)

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:35 AM

This whole discussion is racist and sexist because it implicates far too many minorities and women to be discussed as we would if a bunch of white Republican males were involved.

Among the cast of characters that make any criticism off limits.

Susan Rice- who lied her ass off to cover up the truth.

Hillary Clinton- who lied about the situation on 9/12/12 and then clammed up. Hard for any woman to do but she knows a few things about the fifth amendment from previous scandals.

The rat-eared wonder- who also lied on 9/12/12 and has yet to fully acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack brought about by failed foreign policy.

In short, we can’t talk about Benghazi the way it should be discussed because that would mean holding blacks and women to the same standards we do other professionals and if there is anything we’ve learned from this past election is that the parasites of this nation have two sets of standards. One for real professionals and one for minorities and women who clearly can’t perform up to the same level.

Happy Nomad on December 11, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Right. But if you visit the US embassies in Rome, Paris, or London you will see a visible (and not so visible) Marine force.

Because you know, it wasn’t that long ago that the embassy in Rome was stormed by Albanian strippers.

CorporatePiggy on December 11, 2012 at 8:38 AM

According to the Breitbart News source, the State Department security agents are “six week temporary duty assignments.”

The source explained, “When they’re there, they are not working together. They don’t know one another. They probably all got there and one guy had been there for two weeks another guy had been there for four and then another three came in from Tripoli. None of them ever worked with each other before. So when a shooting incident occurs, they hunker down and hope and pray that it goes away instead of reacting like a military trained force.”

…yeaaaaa!!!!!

Hillary for President!!!!

Baxter Greene on December 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM

The Benghazi story is not going anywhere, nobody cares except conservative blogs. Sad but true. Thanks to the LSM the public now sees this as a partisan issue.

celticdefender on December 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Because you know, it wasn’t that long ago that the embassy in Rome was stormed by Albanian strippers.

CorporatePiggy on December 11, 2012 at 8:38 AM

CorporatePiggy:

O.M.G,….it was a Pussy Riot,er,I mean the band,er…..:)
(snark)

canopfor on December 11, 2012 at 8:46 AM

…no one thought to arm the security staff and prepare for trouble that evening?

Don’t forget, just before the attack the Turks had relayed the Russians final warning to Stephens that running guns to Syria would not be allowed to continue.

It now appears Russia’s intel knew the US was running guns that were ending up in the hands of radical Islamists and AQ.

So the question is: Why is the US arming our avowed enemies?

MarkT on December 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Apparently the kumbaya armor doesn’t work if you can’t sing it loud enough to go over gunfire. Next up we will have huge loudspeakers set up in our embassies to get the kumbaya message out.

Of course the loudspeakers will be the first thing to go…

And don’t mind the Libyan MANPADs showing up in Syria via Turkey! Really you would need someone who knew the players, like Amb. Stevens, to be able to get something like that set-up.

And set-up he was.

ajacksonian on December 11, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Hey, Where are all the trolls acknowledging Obama’s (and Hillary’s) ownership of this debacle?

Over to you lester….

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM

And in spite of all of this, the Secretary of State during this debacle is still slated to be “tough to beat” in 2016?

Forget about the 3 am phone call, it seems like she missed the call in the middle of the afternoon.

Sgt Steve on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Indeed. The Stupid Party should’ve been laying this clusterfark at Clinton’s doorstep this whole time, instead of focusing their attention on the other admin lackey, Rice. Clinton was actually the one running State, and she’s also the one most eyed as the Dem nominee in ’16. Why wouldn’t you try make her accountable?

changer1701 on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I’m so sorry for my country, having incompetent and arrogant people in charge has really taken it’s toll in the last four short years. We won’t remain a leading nation, not under this president’s command. He’s weak, ineffective, lazy and cowardly and that can only embolden our enemies. It already has.

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 9:10 AM

The two SEAL’s fought with captured weapons, the machine gun they used on the roof was Russian-made.

In a sane world there should have been a rain of American fire from the skies around the embassy, a constant shield of explosions ringing the place. Instead our guys had to steal weapons from dead terrorists to make a stand.

Bishop on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 AM

One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle. The other two went back to where there were [sic] barracks. And two stayed in that same building where there were radios and other weapons and the safe and other stuff was there.

There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador—nothing.”

First, most of these DSS agents are just college graduates with no prior military experience. Some do, but most do not. I had thought that the DSS agents that were left behind were an MSS team, but it looks as though that is not the case.

Second, it doesn’t surprise me that only one went back for the ambassador. The High Threat training that these guys get is not what it should be. It is a gentleman’s course, with no real test-out procedures – everyone passes. If they were the MSS team, they would have worked together for quite a while, recieving even more and advanced training on top of their basic High Threat course. That doesn’t seem to be the case from reading this excerpt:

When they’re there, they are not working together. They don’t know one another. They probably all got there and one guy had been there for two weeks another guy had been there for four and then another three came in from Tripoli. None of them ever worked with each other before.

I know this because I trained them for High Threat environments. I saw how ill-prepared they were as a Service, and as a training command. It had been brought to the attention of the division head, only to be ignored. All of the people training the Agents are prior military; SF, Ranger, Marine and SEAL (me). More questions need to be asked of their training for environments like this, since that is what I believe was lacking in Benghazi. I can’t go into specific detail about training, but in my opinion, it did not give them the tools to survive in a situation like this. Several of us at the training center had even said something like this would happen, giving them a false sense of security should an incident arise. As I have said before, I knew Glen and worked with him while we were both in the Teams. The congress needs to get to the bottom of this, before the administration leaves in four years.

Patriot Vet on December 11, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Hillary for President!
But President of what?
I really don’t think there is going to be anything left.

ORconservative on December 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM

And in spite of all of this, the Secretary of State during this debacle is still slated to be “tough to beat” in 2016?

Forget about the 3 am phone call, it seems like she missed the call in the middle of the afternoon.

Sgt Steve on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Indeed. The Stupid Party should’ve been laying this clusterfark at Clinton’s doorstep this whole time, instead of focusing their attention on the other admin lackey, Rice. Clinton was actually the one running State, and she’s also the one most eyed as the Dem nominee in ’16. Why wouldn’t you try make her accountable?

changer1701 on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM

One of the truly fascinating things about a study of history is that turning points become distinguishable only when looking back at them in context. It’s only when you see how things play out that it becomes apparent what was truly a turning point.

It’s also fascinating how seemingly insignificant events become these turning points on which history hinges.

As we look back it’s becoming more and more apparent that the moment in presidential debate in which Candy Crowley interceded on the dear liar’s behalf and the presidential debate that followed seem to be the turning point in the election and most likely a turning pint in the history of this nation.

If Romney had been more aggressive in those debates instead of playing it safe with the prevent defense the outcome could have been quite different.

This isn’t a case where I’m lamenting what happened, I ‘m just point out these facts as a reference for future contenders in what they need to do.

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Interesting juxtaposition of Hot Air stories. According to Sarah Palin’s choice for the GOP nomination, the person who failed to provide any security for the Benghazi Consulate is going to be really tough to beat in 2016. Basilsbest on December 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Wow, that’s a lot of twists and turns to get to your personal attack on Palin…LOL

idesign on December 11, 2012 at 8:29 AM

The twists and turns are all yours. Noting the poor judgment involved in Palin’s choice for nominee is not a personal attack. It is reality.

Basilsbest on December 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Clinton was actually the one running State, and she’s also the one most eyed as the Dem nominee in ’16. Why wouldn’t you try make her accountable?

changer1701 on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Wasn’t she supposed to start testifying this week?

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 9:37 AM

In a sane world there should have been a rain of American fire from the skies around the embassy, a constant shield of explosions ringing the place. Instead our guys had to steal weapons from dead terrorists to make a stand.

Bishop on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 AM

In a sane world our leaders would hide their heads in shame, too.

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM

In a sane world there should have been a rain of American fire from the skies around the embassy, a constant shield of explosions ringing the place. Instead our guys had to steal weapons from dead terrorists to make a stand.

Bishop on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 AM

In a sane world our leaders would hide their heads in shame, too.

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM

In a sane world our leaders would hide their heads in shame as they were led off to a Federal penitentiary.

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:46 AM

What’s this got to do with the fiscal cliff?!

Akzed on December 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The Benghazi story is not going anywhere, nobody cares except conservative blogs. Sad but true. Thanks to the LSM the public now sees this as a partisan issue.

celticdefender on December 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Correct

It took the huge effort of the Swift Boaters to get past the MSM on Kerry.

The families of Benghazi victims, as much as they have shared, would have to go into full war mode, and they are the only ones who have the credentials to break past the MSM vapor trail

1. Survivors of the incident have never been named, and are hidden under a barrel somewhere. Hard to believe they were all mil and therefore all legally muzzled

Without them, only the families have the power. If they exercise it, they will be attacked viciously, with the full weight of the WH. The Clintons also have no problem taking down the little people

It is hard enough to have the Clintons on you, but add the WH, all blacks, and the political-entertainment complex

Where is Cindy Sheehan today?

2. Most assume that State, WH or whomever wanted the embassy secure. I am one of few who do not discount the possibility it was left unsecure, to create a magic election news moment, rescue and resolution. A magic moment gone wrong when someone disobeyed orders and tried to stop the attack.

People give State and WH too much credit, assuming they would want to protect the embassy, and were simply too silly and naive to know how to do it

The youtube video no one ever saw was ready and waiting to create a riot when needed. Hillary had no trouble recording her apologetics and bloharding them throughout – Pakistan?

Whooda though that one day, Obama and Hil would be working as one. Gotta keep the path to the WH open. Shows water is thicker than blood

entagor on December 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM

In a sane world there should have been a rain of American fire from the skies around the embassy, a constant shield of explosions ringing the place. Instead our guys had to steal weapons from dead terrorists to make a stand.

Bishop on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 AM

One of the many outrages of this story is the fact that there would have been a much higher American death toll, but for the extraordinary heroism of the two former SEALS. Obama was willing to sacrifice the dozens of Americans in the consulate; the only reason they all did not die was because Woods and Doherty refused to let them.

AZCoyote on December 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Really tough to beat ? The First potential Woman President Evah ? Nate Silver has her at a 100% chance.
Think a white, female Barak Obama, in a pant suit.
Sing it Dandy Don !
FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Prepare for Secretary of State Huma Abedin.

Akzed on December 11, 2012 at 9:55 AM

In a sane world our leaders would hide their heads in shame as they were led off to a Federal penitentiary.

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:46 AM

In a sane world, these corrupt and incompetent fools would not be our leaders.

AZCoyote on December 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM

We need Huma Abedin in the White House!!!
Hillary 2016
PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 8:32 AM

You’re a genius!

Akzed on December 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM

In a sane world our leaders would hide their heads in shame as they were led off to a Federal penitentiary.

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:46 AM

In a sane world, these corrupt and incompetent fools would not be our leaders.

AZCoyote on December 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Yup, 100%

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM

It’s also fascinating how seemingly insignificant events become these turning points on which history hinges.

As we look back it’s becoming more and more apparent that the moment in presidential debate in which Candy Crowley interceded on the dear liar’s behalf and the presidential debate that followed seem to be the turning point in the election and most likely a turning pint in the history of this nation.

If Romney had been more aggressive in those debates instead of playing it safe with the prevent defense the outcome could have been quite different.

This isn’t a case where I’m lamenting what happened, I ‘m just point out these facts as a reference for future contenders in what they need to do.

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I’m not so sure the election hinged on those debates. At the end of the day, not many people cared about Benghazi, period, and even if the press were doing their due diligence I think people would’ve been willing to give Obama a pass on it. After all, they apparently didn’t mind his economic record.

As for Romney’s performance in them, I think he was taken aback by Crowley’s embarrassing interjection on Obama’s behalf, and he clearly wasn’t aware of that phrase referencing terror in Obama’s statement. It wasn’t a good moment for him, which probably made him hesitant to pursue it in the final debate. I think that’s human nature…the stakes are high, the moderators clearly aren’t on your side, and you’re trying desperately to avoid miscues, so you become a little gun shy. He should’ve known about that Rose Garden statement in it’s entirety and and been prepared for that response, though.

changer1701 on December 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

In a sane world our leaders would hide their heads in shame as they were led off to a Federal penitentiary.

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:46 AM

It really turns my stomach sometimes, the cowardice in this administration. How do they sleep at night?

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

With all that going on, no one thought to arm the security staff and prepare for trouble that evening?

“Smart Diplomacy” requires no thought at all.

GarandFan on December 11, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I’m not so sure the election hinged on those debates. At the end of the day, not many people cared about Benghazi, period, and even if the press were doing their due diligence I think people would’ve been willing to give Obama a pass on it. After all, they apparently didn’t mind his economic record.

As for Romney’s performance in them, I think he was taken aback by Crowley’s embarrassing interjection on Obama’s behalf, and he clearly wasn’t aware of that phrase referencing terror in Obama’s statement. It wasn’t a good moment for him, which probably made him hesitant to pursue it in the final debate. I think that’s human nature…the stakes are high, the moderators clearly aren’t on your side, and you’re trying desperately to avoid miscues, so you become a little gun shy. He should’ve known about that Rose Garden statement in it’s entirety and and been prepared for that response, though.

changer1701 on December 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

He played it safe and it blunted his momentum. Had he been will to go for broke the BSM would have been hard pressed (pardon the pun) to keep it under wraps.

In the future we would be well advised to not listen to the enemy (that usually doesn’t work out for the best oddly enough)

And go after them for their incompetent ideology, corruption and everything else – supposedly that turns off leftists (go figure)

But they have no qualms about going after our side (why doesn’t that turn off the “moderates”?)

Galt2009 on December 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The Benghazi story is not going anywhere, nobody cares except conservative blogs. Sad but true. Thanks to the LSM the public now sees this as a partisan issue.

celticdefender on December 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Not only that, but the sheeple (those that noticed it at all) think that the whole thing was finished as of Nov 6th. After all, it was nothing but a GOP pre-election smear against dear leader.

bofh on December 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Wasn’t she supposed to start testifying this week?

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 9:37 AM

It was announced that Hillary will testify (in public) before the House and Senate foreign relations committees, but no date has been given yet for her appearance. After three months, I’m sure she will be very well rehearsed.

The report from the Accountability Review Board may be released as soon as this week.

lynncgb on December 11, 2012 at 10:33 AM

EDITORS’ NOTE: According to a source close to Breitbart News and high up in the intelligence community, the Obama administration’s policy following Muammar Gaddafi’s death has been to keep a “low profile” during a chaotic time.

For this reason, according to the source, American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a “low profile,” the administration didn’t even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the “no bullets” Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE.  

As stated above, that the guards were unarmed is old news. There was a reason for that…a lousy reason, but the ROE was dictated by Obama and applied by none other than her royal Hillary.

marybel on December 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Really tough to beat ? The First potential Woman President Evah ? Nate Silver has her at a 100% chance.
Think a white, female Barak Obama, in a pant suit.
Sing it Dandy Don !
FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I’m not optimistic enough to think we’ll be having ‘elections’ of any kind in four years.

Midas on December 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You would think that what with all that chanting and protesting about that lame Mohamed video right outside, that the security agents would get the hint that maybe, just maybe, possibly, that protest outside the gate would turn into a full frontal assault at some point, right? /

Most State ‘security” officers I’ve met over the years were very familiar with setting combinations on safes, scheduling the local nationals for cleaning or maintenance,and maybe once in a while running through a shred and burn exercise, maybe. Most of the time they were sources for hard to find “stuff” on the local market, as they all had a Roledex of expeditors wherever they were posted.

But, to engage in active defense of a facility under attack? Not a chance.

Maybe they’ve changed a bit over the years, but, after reading this, I really do no see that, either.

Now…as to who to go after….well, Obama said we couldn’t go after Rice, then Hillary said she took responsibility, but Obama said to come after him and he was responsible, that the buck stopped in the Oval Office…but a buck isn’t worth what a buck once was worth, so we are looking at the chump change stopping in the Oval Office, or maybe just the chump-in-chief.

Face it, we will never get to learn the facts, and nobody, other than one or two GS-nothing state employees will ever see anything written into their personnel jackets…and America apparently could not care less.

Now, where’s the free stuff Obama said we were gonna get, after we tax the rich?

coldwarrior on December 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

The Corrupt Legacy Media: no one is interested in this…it could hurt Hillary political future.

d1carter on December 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

“Only one returned to protect the Ambassador, while the other two hunkered down in the barracks, the source relayed.”

Objection, Your Honor. That statement paints a negative image of those two men.

“none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle”

“Blasted a single bullet?” Strange way of saying that. Who were they interviewing, Jimmy Cagney?

a rifle and a side pistol

‘scuze me whilst I strap on this side pistol.

each armed with M4 long guns and side pistols

OK, long guns is not inaccurate, but still a weird usage in that context.

justltl on December 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM

So now would be a perfect time to send 20 more F16 jets to Egypt, right?

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Like that’s gonna happen. :-)

The Moslem Brotherhood has a brand new air force….thank you, Obama…smart power?

coldwarrior on December 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

justltl on December 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Bear in mind this is the same kind of journalism that calls any firearm with a visible magazine and black finish an “assault rifle.”

CurtZHP on December 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM

coldwarrior on December 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Just another WTF moment! :)

scalleywag on December 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM

This has become a story that needs to be solved in reverse. Syrians have just acquired new weapons, lets find out the origins and history of these new weapons.

DDay on December 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

CurtZHP on December 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Yep.
And not just journalists.
Meet Kelven Crenshaw, BATF Agent and Board Certified Moron.

justltl on December 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Sadly, Drew M over at Ace’s place has it correct: we are no longer a conservative country. It is no accident that the majority of voters elected Zero twice. We now have a majority electorate that is narcissistic and lazy. They are willing to keep their heads in the sand as long as they don’t have to think for themselves and the ‘free’ goodies keep coming. They have graduated from who is winning on American Idol being their chief concern in life to actually being the American Idle. It has been my experience that even otherwise conservative people have begun to give way to the liberal onslaught of class warfare by buying into the ‘rich people’ hatred. This straight out of Alinsky 101.

Benghazi perfectly illustrates the marriage of the ill-informed, don’t-want-to-know electorate and the Potomoc Pravda. The cruelest cut of all is that men like Woods and Doherty are the reason the slacker voters can sit on their collective duffs and pretend they see and hear nothing.

ghostwalker1 on December 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM

A simple question.

Who gave the order to stand down ?

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Media, most all of you, suffocate from the Obama sh*t you consume. It’s not Beluga caviar.

The question to ask, until somenone official answers it – why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11, officially and unofficially?

Schadenfreude on December 11, 2012 at 12:52 PM