Green Room

The Million Dollar Question On Benghazi No One Is Asking

posted at 7:35 am on November 21, 2012 by

On Hugh Hewitt’s show Tuesday, we had the pleasure of speaking with Vince Flynn, America’s preeminent thriller writer. His latest in the Mitch Rapp series, The Last Man, deals extensively with the relationship in remote parts of the world between the dipomatic corps and CIA operators. And while you would think since they’re isolated and technically on the same side, those relationships are often times strained at best.

During Hugh’s interview, the parallel between the book and the 9/11 attack on our consuate, and the CIA annex buiding in Benghazi, came up, and here’s what Flynn had to say:

VF: These people, most of them, almost, exclusively have Special Forces or special operations training – Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Rangers, Marine Recon. And the CIA recruits them for a reason. And what you saw happening in Benghazi is one of those reasons. They are brave enough to run to the sound of gunfire. And you know, on the Benghazi note, there’s been a lot of people, and this actually figures into the Petraeus story as well, there were, you know how Washington works, Hugh. These various groups love to try to spin it. And the truth of the matter is this is 100% the State Department’s fault that this happened. And they were trying to spin their way out of it, and they were loving that the CIA was getting beat up on, and Defense was getting beat up on. Well, guess what? The CIA never has and never will be in charge of protecting diplomatic missions overseas. In fact, if you went and talked to the State Department prior to 9/11, and asked them do you think it would be a good idea to have the CIA protect your diplomatic mission, they’d tell you you were crazy.

HH: Right, right.

VF: They don’t, there is, now every outpost is different, but there is often an extremely tense relationship between the diplomatic corps and the clandestine service at the CIA at these various outposts. And I’ve witnessed it in countries where you’d think they’d be getting along. So it’s a serious problem. The Benghazi deal? Oh, man, I just…nobody’s asking the million dollar question, which is why on 9/11 does an ambassador who has already written in his journal that he’s feared for his life, has already reached out to Foggy Bottom back in Washington, D.C., State Department headquarters, and said I need more security. Why on 9/11 does he leave our fortress-like embassy in Tripoli and go down to Benghazi with a light detail? Why? Nobody’s asking that question, and it blows my mind away that I haven’t heard anybody push the State Department on that issue or the White House.

It really is an interesting question, isn’t it? If the Libyan government warned something bad was coming, and security there had asked for for help multiple times before 9/11, and Ambassador Stevens was concerned enough to journal his fears about the situation falling apart, what in the world was he doing on that day going there with no security?

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Tryst?

OldEnglish on November 21, 2012 at 7:45 AM

I’ve heard the question asked a few times, with vague answers. Didn’t Stevens meet with a Libyan official as the attackers were setting up road blocks? No one has said what that meeting was about. The story has went that he went back to his sleeping quarters after walking the Libyan official to the front gate. The attack began shortly thereafter.

But I’ve seen the question asked by bloggers a few times, but our journalists have lost their journalistic sense of curiosity. No one has pressed the state department t for answers. Sad really.

h a p f a t on November 21, 2012 at 7:53 AM

good question!!! amongst the hundred others..

ted c on November 21, 2012 at 8:04 AM

If the Libyan government warned something bad was coming, and security there had asked for for help multiple times before 9/11, and Ambassador Stevens was concerned enough to journal his fears about the situation falling apart, what in the world was he doing on that day going there with no security?

He was going to be “kidnapped” and then traded for the Blind Sheikh. Our guys who went in to save him weren’t cced on the memo.

It’s tinfoil hat stuff but it still somehow makes more sense than the variety of laughable explanations put forward so far by the Obama regime.

Kataklysmic on November 21, 2012 at 8:05 AM

The CIA never has and never will be in charge of protecting diplomatic missions overseas.

One of the most rage-inducing lies of this whole affair was when Obama claimed that the two SEAL/CIA operatives who were killed were there as security for his State Department people.

Glen and Tyrone had each served America as Navy SEALs for many years, before continuing their service providing security for our diplomats in Libya.

forest on November 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM

I’ve been asking this all along. What is the real reason for the massive cover-up on Benghazi? What is it that would be so damning to the Obama administration if it got out? The answer lies with the CIA. What was the CIA doing there? What was its mission? Who authorized it?

Trafalgar on November 21, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Ambassador Stevens was concerned enough to journal his fears about the situation falling apart, what in the world was he doing on that day going there with no security?

Now it’s all Ambassador Stevens’ fault for his own death?

rich801 on November 21, 2012 at 8:16 AM

It has been asked on HA alot. No answers.

txmomof6 on November 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Ambassador Stevens met with a Turkish official in Benghazi, by some reports to deal with weapons going to Syria. Here’s what Larry Johnson (No Quarter) about the DNI ‘background’ leak to CBS:

. . . The explanation out of the DNI’s office is total horseshit. The “intel community” does not make changes. There is a manager or an analyst who physically typed the words. If that was done in the DNI office then they will know who did it. These people need to be put under oath.

But don’t get distracted by this nonsense. Obama and his entire National Security team knew the night of 9-11 that the United States had been hit by a group tied to Al Qaeda. No doubt about that. They wanted to cover up their covert op that was shipping weapons to jihadists in Syria and did not want to disrupt Obama’s meme about having Al Qaeda on the run.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/74445/somebody-is-lying-on-the-rice-talking-points/#more-74445

We need a Select Committee to get to the bottom of all this, but it won’t happen unless a whistle blower from inside the White House forces Harry Reid’s hand.

MrLynn on November 21, 2012 at 8:34 AM

The answer is that these academic, liberals are given these positions as patronage and because of their sheltered lives, don’t believe these terrorists are evil. They are either in a position of authority and order their underlings into these death traps or the underlings themselves don’t have a clue.

Vince on November 21, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Ambassador Stevens was concerned enough to journal his fears about the situation falling apart, what in the world was he doing on that day going there with no security?

I think it was for a meeting with the guy from Turkey. I think that meeting was about running guns into Syria. I think Obama doesn’t want anyone to know about that, as well as the fact that the CIA annex was holding Libyans prisoner. That “consulate” wasn’t actually a consulate, which they have already admitted. Maybe that is why they couldn’t provide the security needed. Maybe that is why Obama was too much of a coward to send help. He doesn’t want anyone to find out he broke his own EO to end interrogations, or that he was running guns abroad as well as at home. Chicago thug.

Night Owl on November 21, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Glenn Beck has a crack investigative team, plus a high up WH informant. At least two months ago, or when this all happened, he was told that it was a terrorist attack, not a video mob, and that the ambassador was running guns with the Syrian rebels. This IS the reason for the cover up. And Obama going around the world inciting violence with his video lie. How this guy gets away with this is truly amazing. Again, Stevens was gun running. Glenn has been turning himself inside out trying to get the truth out, and yet no one will tell it, and if they do eventually, Glenn will get no credit.
Makes me very angry. He was the very first person to find this out.

Lambs On Fire on November 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Now it’s all Ambassador Stevens’ fault for his own death?

rich801 on November 21, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I don’t believe that’s what is being implied. The poor security situation at the mission outpost would make anyone think that it must have been something absolutely imperative that possibly left the ambassador with no other choice but to leave Tripoli and go to Benghazi. What was it that forced the ambassador to travel there on 9/11…more than likely against his better judgment.

lynncgb on November 21, 2012 at 9:01 AM

what in the world was he doing on that day going there with no security?

Knowing this will explain most of the other odd events surrounding Benghazi, such as why the stand-down orders and why the cover-up.

petefrt on November 21, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Lambs On Fire on November 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM

See my quote from Larry Johnson above.

The question is: If Stevens and the CIA were involved in a covert operation to get weapons to the jihadi groups in Syria, presumably via a Libyan contingent there, why in the world did the local jihadis in Benghazi decide to attack him?

Was it just internecine squabbling amongst these vicious bastards, or was it something else we’re not being told?

MrLynn on November 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Q#1: Was Stevens kidnapped?

Q#2: Where are the prisoners?

Q#3: Was there a prisoner for Ambassador exchange? Did we get bamboozled and received a dead body?

faraway on November 21, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Lambs On Fire on November 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM

He has an uncanny knack for staying ahead of the curve on this kind of thing. Has quite a track record over the last half dozen or more years. That’s why I listen.

petefrt on November 21, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Answer: Managing the transfer of arms procured during the fall of Qaddafi to Islamo-fascist Jihadis.

IronDioPriest on November 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Answer: Managing the transfer of arms procured during the fall of Qaddafi to Islamo-fascist Jihadis.

IronDioPriest on November 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Apparently, the Libyan jihadis don’t want to give them up.

Night Owl on November 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Lambs On Fire
Correct ! Glenn thought this would make Fast and Furious look like
child’s play . Running weapons to our known enemies ? Even the
most dense reportage can not ignore these events .
I hope the truth comes out .

Lucano on November 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM

It has been asked on HA a lot. No answers.

txmomof6 on November 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM

It sure has.

More important question is WHY DID OBAMA LET THESE MEN DIE?

HE.WENT.TO.BED.

dogsoldier on November 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Lambs On Fire on November 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Absolutely. This was Fast&Furious for Grownups. Played with MANPADs instead of AK popguns.

bofh on November 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Yep. As soon as I heard it was not at Embassy Tripoli but at Consulate Benghazi on a special visit, the flags went up. At a minimum, the Libyan security detail was in on it. I’m sure tons of thinking people saw this too.

321mdl on November 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The other $million question is, Who originated the movie lie? I want to see the first memo, cable, email, suggestion, report, whatever that a 3rd rate ten minute movie trailer for a non-existent movie was responsible for any riots anywhere.

Benghazi is only 150 miles from Cairo. The riots in Cairo started first, perhaps as a diversion to prompt US assets to focus or swarm there. Then the trap in Benghazi was sprung by people who knew the ambassador would be there on 9/11.

And the movie wasn’t just a meme, Obooba suggested at the UN that it was the reason for the riots and Benghazi attack, and stated that “The future cannot belong to those who disparage the prophet Mohoomoo” or words to that effect.

OIC’s anti-free speech campaign was picked up by the Leftist press and articles critical of those who “abuse” their First Amendment rights appeared in the western press.

It seems like the whole thing had a purposeful trajectory.

Akzed on November 21, 2012 at 10:37 AM

HE.WENT.TO.BED.

dogsoldier on November 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM

That was the million dollar question I was waiting for Mitt to ask during that exchange in the debate

“OK Mr. Obama, if it was a terrorist attack, why was your administration going out for two and a half weeks claiming it was a video including at their funerals? And you keep saying you want to get all the facts…well, weren’t you there watching it? There was a drone flying overhead. Why don’t you tell us all the facts right now? We’d love to know…and if you weren’t watching the drone feed, then what the hell were you doing–packing for Vegas?”

Youngs98 on November 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM

My best guess is that we were running Libyan arms to the Alqueda freedom fighters up in Syria. Probalby a bunch of shoulder fired SAMs.

One thing for sure Stevens was not up there without being ordered to be up there.

jukin3 on November 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

IMO, benghazi will be just as F&F has been? bho/holder/the whole team has stalled, ignored congress for information, did the ep thing by bho, and it seems to have been thrown under the rug with not many people talking about F&F now? It seems they are trying the same thing with benghazi? The cya, stall is full mode with the help of bhopress who refuses to report much on it? Fox has been great to keep it before the public as conservative blogs and radio!

I just pray we will get to the bottom of this for those killed, family members, as well as American’s!

I also agree that Glenn has been doing a great job from the get go on benghazi.
L

letget on November 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Good to see Duane Patterson here at Hot Air.

Hugh Hewitt is the best radio talk show host, by far.

Welcome aboard Duane.

Now if you could just bring James Lileks and Mark Steyn along with you…..

MichaelGabriel on November 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

If the Libyan government warned something bad was coming, and security there had asked for for help multiple times before 9/11, and Ambassador Stevens was concerned enough to journal his fears about the situation falling apart, what in the world was he doing on that day going there with no security?

Another layer to the onion that we will not be allowed to peel any further. National security, executive priviledge or the common stonewalling (with no repercussions) of this administration means, we will never know.

Fallon on November 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

One word:

BLACKBRIAR

Time to activate the assets.

BobMbx on November 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Stevens was meeting with a Turkish official in Benghazi the day he was murdered. Must have been a very important meeting.

OxyCon on November 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Duane, Duane, Duane… you’ve obviously not been reading comments here at Hot Air. We’ve posited that question numerous times. If we can smell a rat – why can’t anybody else? Of course people in the State Department and White House should be asked this question. But there are far too many distractions popping up. I don’t care who changed the assessment from “terrorist attack” to “protest about a movie spun out of control” – I’m not sure that really matters. (Unless you’re the poor producer of the movie, rotting in a jail cell right now.) Clearly the attack on the consulate destroyed the White House narrative that Bin Laden was dead, and AQ was on its heels. So blaming the attack on the movie, is purely political, and serves no other purpose than to distance the White House from the horrible tragedy. It’s a CYA response.
What matters is this:
Why was the ambassador in the less-secure facility at Benghazi on 9/11?
Why were repeated requests for additional security denied?
Why was the CIA told to stand down?
If the president tells Ed Henry: “I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger — whether they’re civilian or military — because that’s our number one priority.” If this is the case, then why did Panetta and others decide not to take any action at all? Are they disobeying a direct order from the president?

Hill60 on November 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I will gladly ask that question for the tidy sum of $1 Million. Who’s gonna pay up?

dczombie on November 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Answer: Fast & Furious, Al Qaeda edition.

The billion dollar question no one is asking:

Why is Obama arming the Sinaloa drug cartel and Al Qaeda affiliates?

bitsy on November 21, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The question is: If Stevens and the CIA were involved in a covert operation to get weapons to the jihadi groups in Syria, presumably via a Libyan contingent there, why in the world did the local jihadis in Benghazi decide to attack him?

Was it just internecine squabbling amongst these vicious bastards, or was it something else we’re not being told?

MrLynn on November 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM

My suspicion: the Libyan terrorists’ emotional response to all of Obama’s drone attacks — which have killed many civilians — overcame their plans (probably to kidnap the Ambassador so that (1) Obama could rescue him for a late October surprise or (2) he could be exchanged for the Blind Sheik).

ShainS on November 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Now it’s all Ambassador Stevens’ fault for his own death?

rich801 on November 21, 2012 at 8:16 AM

I don’t think that was suggested. The question remains: WHO sent Stevens to Benghazi on Sept 11th with minimal security?

Wendya on November 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Why? The answer is that he cared more about what he was doing than he cared about his life, or else that he placed more trust in the ability of his detail than he should have, or both. If he was acting as we hope, in the service of his country, then he is “responsible” for his own death in the same way that a soldier who dies in battle is–which is to say, in no meaningful way at all.

njcommuter on November 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM

He had to meet with the Turkish delegation and it could only happen in Benghazi. Come on, guys, don’t you understand how this diplomacy stuff works.

Kissmygrits on November 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM