U.S. Diplomats Killed in Libya

OK, someone REALLY screwed up regarding security at the consulate which cost the lives of our ambassador and his aides. Now, the question becomes "Who was at fault"?

House committee: security requests denied in Libya

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite two explosions and dozens of other security threats, U.S. officials in Washington turned down repeated pleas from American diplomats in Libya to increase security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador was killed, leaders of a House committee asserted Tuesday.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, ChairmanDarrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee said their information came from "individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya."
Issa, R-Calif. and Chaffetz, R-Utah said the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months before Sept. 11.
The letter listed 13 incidents, but Chaffetz said in an interview there were more than 50. Two of them involved explosive devices: a June 6 blast that blew a hole in the security perimeter. The explosion was described to the committee as "big enough for forty men to go through"; and an April 6 incident where two Libyans who were fired by a security contactor threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence.
"A number of people felt helpless in pushing back" against the decision not to increase security and "were pleading with them to reconsider," Chaffetz said. He added that frustrated whistleblowers were so upset with the decision that they were anxious to speak with the committee.
The lawmakers said they plan a hearing on Oct. 10. They asked Clinton whether the State Departmentwas aware of the previous incidents, and whether the level of security that was provided to the U.S. mission met the security threat, and how the department responded to requests for more security.
The State Department has declined to answer questions about whether extra security was sought by officials in Benghazi ahead of the Sept. 11 attack.
Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Tuesday that Clinton has received the letter and will reply Tuesday.
Nuland refused to answer questions on whether requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied — but insisted that the department intends to cooperate fully with Congress.
Read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/house-committee-security-requests-denied-libya-151542076.html

 

State Department stayed out of contractors' dispute over consulate security, letters show​

Letters obtained exclusively by Fox News appear to show the State Department refused to get involved when the company tasked with protecting the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, raised security concerns, the latest indication that warning signs may have been ignored in the lead-up to last month's terror attack.​

​

The letters pertain to a dispute between Blue Mountain Libya, the security license holder in Libya, and its operations partner Blue Mountain UK, which trained and provided the local guards. ​

​

A source with knowledge of two State Department meetings -- one in June and a second in July -- told Fox News that Blue Mountain Libya felt the security provided by the UK partner was "substandard and the situation was unworkable." ​

​

But according to the source, when the Libyans tried to bring in a third party -- an American contractor -- to improve security, a State Department contract officer declined to get involved. ​

​

"The U.S. government is not required to mediate any disagreements between the two parties of the Blue Mountain Libya partnership," contracting officer Jan Visintainer wrote on July 10 to Blue Mountain Libya, adding that to date "contract performance is satisfactory." ​

​

Asked about that letter Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the department's investigation likely would address the issue. ​

​

"Presumably, those kinds of questions will have to be looked at in the context of the work that we're doing," she said. ​

​

A representative with Blue Mountain UK has not yet responded to a request by Fox News for comment. ​

The July 10 exchange and the apparent warning that set it off are sure to be examined closely as both the State Department and Congress begin to scrutinize what may have gone wrong in the weeks and months preceding the attack, in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed. ​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/letters-show-state-stayed-out-dispute-over-security-concerns-at-libya-consulate/#ixzz28CkBzKwg​

Hillary Clinton had damn well better start explaining what happened here!​

​

 

House panel to hear from security officer who claims State rebuffed pleas in Libya​

​

Nearly a month after the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a House committee is set to hear testimony from an American security officer who claims that pleas for enhanced safety measures in the days leading up to the attack were rebuffed by higher-ups at the State Department.

An aide to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee confirmed Monday that Lt. Col. Andy Wood has agreed to testify before the panel at Wednesday's hearing.

Wood, the former head of a Special Forces security team, has already said in interviews that security officials wanted "more, not less" security staffing but that his team was pulled from Tripoli before the attack. Wood's testimony Wednesday could serve to fill in the blanks for lawmakers wondering exactly what happened in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Lawmakers' questions of late have focused sharply on whether the State Department had let security slide in a violent and volatile region.

"My understanding is that there were requests made, and those requests were denied," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News.

Also, Monday, Fox News learned that Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., had just returned from a fact-finding mission to Libya. Corker is the second lawmaker to visit there in less than 24 hours.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, was there over the weekend as part of the House probe into the attacks.
Chaffetz confirmed to Fox News that a security waiver had been signed by the State Department for the consulate, allowing it not to confirm with specific physical security requirements.

In an interview with CBS News, Wood said that when the State Department was asked for more security, they said: "You've got to do with less."

"For what reasons, I don't know," Wood said.

He said that when he learned his 16-member force was being pulled from Tripoli in August, there was "concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

A State Department official, though, said an earlier request made in February for the 16-member team to remain in Libya longer was granted. Further, the official claimed the department never received any request for a post-August extension. The official added the team was replaced without any reduction in personnel or loss of skill sets.
But Wood told CBS that the department was warned that ending the assignment and decreasing security was "just unbelievable" given how "dangerous" the region is.

An independent panel commissioned by the State Department, meanwhile, has launched its own investigation into the Libya strike. In addition, a source familiar told Fox News that White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan is expected to be in Libya on Tuesday to check in on the broader investigation.

Wood's testimony, along with that of other officials Wednesday, could fuel concerns that the State Department may not have been prepared for the mounting security threat in eastern Libya.

"We know about our troops and how important it is to protect them and to be behind them, but we have so many people, like the State Department, that are out there, and in situations where maybe they're not as protected as well as they should, and we need to evaluate that," Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/house-panel-to-hear-from-security-officer-who-claims-state-rebuffed-pleas-in/#ixzz28m6HRB59​

 

This reason alone should alone disqualify Obama from being re-elected (even if unemployment was 3% and gas was a buck fifty), This president has blood on his hands and tried to cover it up. Sickening.

“My personal opinion is that they wanted the appearance of quote, unquote, normalization there in Libya,” Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz and building up of an infrastructure, putting up barbed wire on our facility would lead to the wrong impression, something that the administration didn’t want to have moving forward.”

Chaffetz, who just returned from Libya, charged that requests for additional security at the compound were denied before the attack occurred.
“What I do think we will see at the hearing tomorrow is a denial, when they requested…more personnel, not only was that denied, but they reduced the number of people that we had on the ground and when they asked for improvements to the physical facilities to protect the infrastructure, to protect the perimeter, those, too, were denied,” he said, adding that he thought the decision to deny requests was part of a “a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department from Secretary Clinton to President Obama’s White House.”

“So the White House, it seems to me, knew that there was real danger to that ambassador,” Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said in the transcript, referencing Amb. Christopher Stevens, who died in the attacks. “Not only didn’t they provide the security necessarily, it sounds to me like they reduced the security, which is astounding. I’m not sure that’s true, but one congressman told me that. If that’s true, that’s really astounding.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82172.html#ixzz28oIq9Yz2

 

I agree with Giuliani. If this is true, Obama and Hillary Clinton will have much to answer for. As much as I don't like either one, I hate to think Obama or Clinton would intentionally decrease security and put our ambassador and his aides at risk. We'll have to wait for the facts to come out in the hearing.

 

OK. So, who do you think has been lying to us about this attack in Benghazi? It obviously wasn't an attack/protest precipitated by an anti-Muslim film. It was a determined, premeditated attack contrary to what the Obama administration and the State Department were telling us.

The American people were obviously lied to, but who do you think was behind the lies?

Clinton aide described Libya strike as terror attack day later in Capitol Hill briefing​

​

In a briefing to Capitol Hill staffers delivered the day after the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the killings appeared to be the result of a terrorist attack.

Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy -- who exercises responsibility for all department personnel, facilities, and operations, and who is one of the department's most respected civil servants, having served in his position under both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations -- delivered the assessment in an unclassified, half-hour conference call with staff aides to House and Senate lawmakers from relevant committees, and leadership offices, on the evening of Sept. 12. Capitol Hill sources described the call to Fox News.

That a State Department official of Kennedy's rank -- one with direct oversight of the installations and people targeted in Benghazi -- reached such a conclusion so swiftly stands in stark contrast to the opposing narrative pressed at that time, and for several days afterward, by other top officials at State, the White House, and the intelligence agencies.

Four days after Kennedy's conference call, for example, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows to insist that the attacks were neither coordinated nor premeditated, but were rather the result of a spontaneous mob action, inspired by an anti-Muslim video on the Internet, that spun out of control.

Rice has since told lawmakers that her comments reflected "the intelligence community's best, current assessment as of the date of my television appearances," and a spokesman to the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, has said in a statement that the intelligence community "revised our initial assessment to ... (conclude) that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists."

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/top-clinton-aide-swiftly-briefed-capitol-hill-on-coordinated-attack/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz28pY72xtE​

 

Do you have pictures of yourself there? If not, you have no proof. You really should stop slandering people!

 

More slander? Show your proof you were there.

 

Do you have any proof you were present? No? Why are you so quick to slander everyone?

 

Slander, slander, slander.

 

You need to start listening to the news - even NBC will do here.

 

Why do you have to lie and slander all the time? Or, were you there? I want to see the proof you were there. Send me your shoes and I'll have 'em analyzed for soil samples and such. Or are they too contaminated by your poop? Then I guess it's slander, after all.

 

No, you obviously jumped to conclusions again:

State Department denies concluding film sparked consulate attack in Libya​

​

The State Department denied Tuesday it ever concluded that the deadly consulate attack Sept. 11 in Libya was an unplanned outburst prompted by an anti-Islam movie, despite public statements early on by some in the Obama administration suggesting that was the case.

The Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. Most notably, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said in several TV interviews five days after the attack that it appeared to be "spontaneous" violence spinning out of protests of the film.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland backed up Rice's statements in a press briefing a day later: "I would simply say that ... the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government's initial assessment."

And White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, as late as a week after the attack, said that based on initial
information, "we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack."
Carney then went on to suggest again the violence was related to the film: "Based on the information that we have now, it was -- there was a reaction to the video -- there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi, and that was what led to the original unrest."

The new comments from the State Department further highlight the disconnect in the attack's aftermath between what administration officials were saying publicly and what intelligence officials suspected early on -- that the attack was an act of terrorism, more coordinated than a protest that got out of hand.

New documents further suggest internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration's initial -- and since retracted -- explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/state-department-denies-concluding-film-sparked-consulate-attack-in-libya/#ixzz28u7LLPz4​

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/08/an-incriminating-timeline-the-obama-administration-and-libya/

 

Biden adds more confusion to Libya story with debate claim on security​

Vice President Biden's claim at Thursday's debate that the administration wasn't told of requests for more diplomatic security in the run-up to the Libya terror attack added only more confusion to an already muddled narrative.

In addition to raising eyebrows over that comment, the vice president went a step further and threw the intelligence community under the bus -- putting the blame squarely on their shoulders for the faulty narrative, pushed for more than a week by the administration, that the attack was a protest spun out of control.

The exchange on Libya, which opened the debate in Kentucky, was among the toughest in a persistently confrontational face-off. But Biden's comment on security was drawing widespread condemnation from Republicans Friday, with Romney adviser Dan Senor saying Biden "continued the administration's pattern of misleading" on Libya.

Biden referenced the security when pressed about earlier criticism from Republican running mate Paul Ryan about the protection of diplomatic posts in Libya.

"Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again," Biden said.
However, State Department officials who testified Wednesday before a House committee acknowledged there were indeed earlier requests for more security staffing -- though they also suggested more staffing would not have prevented the Sept. 11 tragedy in Benghazi.

Two former security officers who testified at that hearing, including former top security official Eric Nordstrom, expressed frustration at how their appeals for more resources were rebuffed.

"We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn't even keep what we had," said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli.

During the debate, Ryan later challenged the vice president on his comment.
"There were requests for extra security; those requests were not honored," he said, adding that there should be Marines in Benghazi.

Biden also stated definitively Thursday that it was the intelligence community that originally surmised the attack was just a protest spun out of control -- rather than a coordinated terror strike.

"That was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment," Biden said.

State Department officials who testified Wednesday suggested as well that when U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice claimed the Sunday after the attack that protests over an anti-Islam film were to blame, she was merely basing her comments on the intelligence at the time.

However, lawmakers by that point had been publicly challenging the notion that the protests were a factor. And sources have since confirmed that some in the intelligence community were pointing to terrorism within 24 hours of the attack.

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/11/biden-says-wasnt-told-about-security-requests-in-libya-despite-state-department/#ixzz2965wNU74​

 

View attachment 654

White House moves to insulate Biden, Obama on Libya security question​

The White House scrambled Friday to explain Vice President Biden's confusing statement that "we weren't told" of requests for more diplomatic security in Libya, claiming he was referring only to "himself" and President Obama.

Biden, during Thursday's debate, had made the controversial statement in response to criticism from Paul Ryan about the protection of diplomatic posts in Libya in the run-up to the Sept. 11 terror attack.

Moderator Martha Raddatz pressed him: "And they wanted more security there."

But Biden responded: "Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again."

The comment drew swift rebukes from Republicans who pointed out that State Department officials just one day earlier had acknowledged they knew about, and turned down, requests for more security. Ryan, minutes later in the debate, corrected the vice president, saying "there were requests for extra security; those requests were not honored."

But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Biden "wasn't talking about the administration writ large," just the White House.

"He was speaking directly for himself and for the president. He meant the White House," Carney said. He claimed it was "very clear" in context, while continuing to accuse Republicans of twisting the tragedy into a "political attack."

In doing so, Carney not only came to the defense of Biden, but used his clarification to effectively insulate the White House from questions about the decision-making process. While refusing to say whether Obama and Biden were ever briefed on the security requests in Benghazi, Carney made clear that decisions on personnel were handled below them, at the State Department level.

"These kinds of issues are handled in the State Department," he said.

"What I'm saying is that matters of security personnel are appropriately discussed and decided upon at the State Department."
Biden, though, was not explicit Thursday in saying he was only talking about his and Obama's personal knowledge of the security requests.

Mitt Romney, at a campaign rally Friday afternoon in Virginia, still asserted that Biden had "directly contradicted" State Department testimony.

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/12/white-house-moves-to-insulate-biden-obama-on-libya-security-question/#ixzz2973twnr3​

 

I wish I could get 25 cents for every "cut and paste" post I made. I'd have like...............damn, I'd still be broke!

 

You were lightning-quick to believe the left-wing, liberal lies regarding this attack. The attack had absolutely nothing to do with the film, but you (like your liberal counterparts) were quick to believe the Obama rhetoric.

Four Americans died, not because of a "Right-wing Jewish fundamentalist" or because of a "koran burning Florida preacher", but because of dereliction of duty by our own government, specifically the White House and the State Department. Why are you so silent on this?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1913503465001/

 

U.S. Drone Watched Libya Attack Unfold But Washington Did Nothing​

​

October 21, 2012
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action.

But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.

“They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed.

“There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.”

The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

​

​

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/us-drone-over-benghazi-attack/2012/10/21/us-drone-watched-libya-attack-unfold-washington-did-nothing#ixzz2A01ghWCv​