In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.
Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.
“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
So the Ambassador had TWO different chances to beef up security and turned hem both down. Certainly does NOT sound like a man who felt that his life was in danger, and whose fears were ignored by Hillary Clinton and the State Department now does it?
Don't you hate it when your big plan to get the President impeached blows up in your face? No really, don't you?
They’re so eager to get Barack and Hillary that they ejaculate prematurely and the mess is on them.
ReplyDeleteI love what you said Darlene and so true!
Deletegood one!
DeleteStevens aided the rebels in overthrowing Kadhafi and probably felt they would help defend him.
ReplyDeleteTheir transparency is laughable, it really is.
ReplyDeleteTheir meaning the Republicans.
DeleteImagine if the repubs. put even a fraction of their energy into working WITH the President, instead of tearing him down, the country would be so much better off. They act like children, all piling on a victim of abuse on the playground. Of course, maybe if things were peaceful, they would not be invited on the Sunday talk shows, spouting, sputtering and get "face time"
ReplyDeleteAll right. everyone take a deep breath. Now exhale. The rush of Obama "scandals" in recent weeks has been, well, breathtaking, and so has the rush to extrapolate, to discern a larger pattern of failure and incompetence in the Obama Administration--indeed, to make a cosmic argument about the inability of government to "organize a two-car funeral," as Bill Clinton used to say. I have a certain amount of sympathy for that last extrapolation. We may have reached a point where the federal government is so sclerotic and archaic that it needs a total overhaul. But putting Benghazi, the IRS's Tea Party targeting and the Justice Department's leak-hunting seizure of Associated Press phone records in the same basket is like comparing a mirage to a dishwasher to a diamond. There is no common thread.
ReplyDeleteBenghazi is a scam, not a scandal. It began as a political ploy during the 2012 presidential campaign. Republicans tried to pin a cover-up on the President. He'd been saying that al-Qaeda had been largely dismantled on his watch; the attack on the Benghazi consulate and CIA station by a local wannabe militia proved al-Qaeda was still a threat--and the Administration wanted to hide that fact. Except it didn't, really. The President called the Benghazi tragedy an "act of terror" the day after it happened. Al-Qaeda involvement was acknowledged three days after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice read her famous, cautious, massaged talking points on the Sunday interview shows. As the President said, "Who executes some sort of cover-up ... for three days?" The scuffle between the CIA and State over the talking points was unseemly, but bureaucratic knife fights are as old as the Republic. The hyperbolic Republican assessments of the situation--comparing it to Watergate, calling for impeachment--just seem loony.
The Justice Department's secret seizure of AP phone records is more a policy dispute than a scandal. The AP was given a great story by someone in the government: The CIA had foiled another undie bomber about to blow up a plane. But that story, one surmises, put one or more covert operatives at risk of exposure. That is a very serious crime, and the Justice Department got a secret subpoena to seize the phone records of the AP journalists reporting the story. The tension between freedom and security has been debated vigorously since Sept. 11, 2001. My prejudice--and the prejudice of the Republican Party--has been toward security. The First Amendment isn't absolute; the government has a top-tier responsibility to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. The Justice Department's leak hunting may have been excessive, or not. We just don't know yet. But it's likely that nothing illegal happened here. Justice was working within the parameters of the law. That's not a scandal. It's a dispute over a gray line.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143562,00.html#ixzz2TTKhgCyb
8:04, I have absolutely NO argument with what you stated - until we get to the last paragraph.
DeleteYes, the government does have a responsibility to protect its citizens - and not JUST from terrorists. However there are limits to how far that protection needs to go. There is absolutely NO WAY any government can protect its citizens 100% of the time! At least, not without a true Big Brother that is a true police state. And if it goes that far, it is no longer a free country.
Security is worthless if we lose our freedom to gain it! And we damned well better learn that protecting our citizens requires we also protect them from INTERNAL dangers that the majority agree ARE dangerous - and not just from terrorists!
As a country right now, we are quite concerned about arming the rebels in Syria. Why? Because we are reluctant to have weapons such as AK-47's and M-16's fall into terrorist hands.
And yet we allow them (admittedly only semi-automatic, but they ARE convertible) to be freely sold WITHOUT background checks? That's INSANE! Where's the protection from terrorist acts in that little juicy tidbit?
Um, it was Time who said that, not the poster. However, I don't see how we lose our freedom when we stop leaks about intelligence.
Delete10:54? It depends entirely on WHY the leaks were stopped and what the leaks WERE!
DeleteThese Republicans are total assholes - nothing more than racists and not wanting our wonderful President succeed! Vote them all out of office every chance you get!!!
ReplyDeleteThey cannot accept the fact he was voted in twice with a large majority!
Come now, Gryphen. You KNOW that JESUS CHRIST could tell Congress what is stated above and the Repubes wouldn't believe it!
ReplyDeleteThat is the ABSOLUTE truth Leland! Frickin lemmings won't be happy til everyone in this country is run over a cliff despite not having even the vaguest clue who is actually herding them toward disaster. I can hear Cheney/Rove Inc and the KochSuckers chuckling from here.
Deletethis says nothing really. when stevens and security finally needed emergency security, it was not given.
ReplyDeletethe president had the last word on a stand down. he is disaster and to blame for this tragedy.
What's it like inside that Right Wing bubble?
DeleteGetting enough air?
From the sound of that comment, Gryphen, I'd say definitely not enough air.
Delete9:16 - your quarrel is:
Delete1) with the military, who said they could not get there in time as it happened;
2) the GOP who refused to fund additional security for our embassies;
3) your own reading skills, since you cannot understand what Amb. Stevens wrote.
9:16 AM Is English your 2nd language? You would blame President Obama when Todd Palin is arrested for Sex Trafficking. You are anti-President Obama no matter how well he is doing. The 'RILL' disaster is Sarah Palin and her Pimp Husband. The 'RILL' disaster is the Palin personal slush fund called Sarapac. When does the Palin Grifting stop?
DeleteWe get how desperately you and your party want this 'scandal' to be true but no matter how many times you twirl in a circle and stamp your feet you won't be able to make it so other than in your ODS minds. The only thing in your words that is remotely true is that the incident was a tragedy as were so many other events that have happened to our overseas personnel. Short of deploying squads of armed units to accompany each and every person representing the U.S. on foreign soil there is no way to 100% predict or prevent random acts of terror.
DeleteWhat I'd like for you to show us are the letters, emails and comments you issued when over a dozen other attacks occurred at embassies, consulates and safe houses abroad. Then, I'll believe your outrage is real and not just manufactured for the purpose of further defaming and maligning our President as you regurgitate the party line handed out by the 'leaders' of your party. Some in your crowd have asked for the video of the ambush to be shown. See how ridiculous this gets!!!
Susan Rice has been castigated for reading a statement that was incorrect and later clarified when more facts were known. Condi Rice read a statement that was actually a 'cover' for a war that Bush/Cheney engineered and yet nary a word from your side when it was discovered there were NO WMDs after we were 'assured' they existed. I suppose you see absolutely no irony in this.
The big money funding these constant attacks on the President does not have your best interests or those of this Nation in mind. How weak and cowardly you and your ilk are to blindly accept these twisted theories without researching a bit deeper.
Obama: ‘No Apologies’ For Investigating Leaks Of Classified Information
ReplyDeleteAsked to address the controversial seizure of phone logs from Associated Press journalists by the Department of Justice, President Barack Obama on Thursday said he had no regrets for prosecuting individuals responsible for leaking classified information because they placed the country at risk.
"I make no apologies and I don't think the American people would expect me as commander-in-chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed," he said, standing alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the White House Rose Garden.
"I also think it's important to recognize," he added, "that, you know, when we express concern about leaks at a time when I've still got 60,000 plus troops in Afghanistan and I've still got a whole bunch of intelligence officers around the world who are in risky situations in outposts that in some cases are as dangerous as the outpost in Benghazi, that part of my job is to make sure that we're protecting what they do while still accommodating for the need for information."
The Associated Press and a slew of media organizations filed vehement protests after the Department of Justice revealed it had seized phone records of three AP bureaus in connection to an investigation of an administration leak following a foiled bomb plot in Yemen last year.
Despite his administration's extensive campaign to crack down on leaks, Obama added that an appropriate balance must be struck in order to protect journalists and the free flow of information. At the direction of the White House, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced Wednesday that he will re-introduce so-called "media shield" legislation to provide legal protections to journalists engaged in news gathering activities.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-no-apologies-for-investigating-leaks-of-classified
You just reported something with no specifics. There's so much shady shit involved in this admin on many levels, posts like these are just immoral. There isn't a more bullying admin in history. They bully the media more than anyone. Thanks democrats. We'll never know what happens because of your manipulations.
ReplyDeleteCry me a river. The bullying Dems? Wake up and look outside. Bush and Cheney had protesters arrested during the 2004 campaign for holding up signs that opposed them. Anyone who was not waving a flag for Bush was ushered out of any campaign gathering before "W" got up and said stupid things. Valerie Plame was outed to "Warn" any opposition to the WH lies on Iraq that they would get it too. Rove orchestrated the firing of Federal Prosecutors who would not "do the biding of the WH" like good little minions. Bullying, manipulation, lying.. that is what we got with both Bushes.
DeleteObama is too nice, I will grant you that. He does not fight back enough. Buy bullying???? That is comical... You must watch Faux News and actually think they are telling you news. That is tragic-comical.
There's a whole lot of shady business associated with what happened leading up to Sept 11. NOTHING can be judged as it stands. And with the bullying democrats, we will never hear the full story.
ReplyDeleteSome Dems finally get a spine and start standing up for their constituents and suddenly they're bullies. Tough cookies, anonymous 12:03. Deal with reality.
DeleteSo TRUE, 09/11/01 was all of those things and more. Bush and Cheyney should be MORE than impeached!
DeleteThank your lucky cards President Obama turned things around despite the GOP bully tactics and pedantic theatrics over non scandals.
All we know is there is a former Sec of State who was VERY nervous during her little meeting, a President's team who doesn't have a straight story, and suspicious schools inolvings over there.
ReplyDelete12:01PM, 12:03PM, 12:04PM
ReplyDeleteYou are not well. You really need help.
Gryphen, I know you're ambivalent about Chris Matthews, but do check out his "Final Thought" on tonight's show talking about the state of American politics. I have to say both the message and the delivery inform me that Chris Matthews has Very Large Balls.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP can't possibly argue with that, they probably helped it along by slashing spending on Embassy security.
ReplyDelete