Yahoo.com : US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens killed in consulate attack in Benghazi

[Bang]

President Obama shouldn't be blamed for this stupid movie however, deflecting the reason for the assassination being as a result of this film is ridiculous.

Words. Who knows why anything in this war is done? What seems like one thing can easily be another.
This isn't very conventional, as you well know.

You ever consider that there may be reasons as to why they word things the way they do?
We're fighing reactionaries. Who gives a **** what their fantasy is as to why they do things.

Do you as a citizen and soldier really need to be coddled by tough talk?

We can say a lot of things about Obama, but being soft on the terrorists?
I don't think so.

~Bang

[twa]

We can say a lot of things about Obama, but being soft on the terrorists?
I don't think so.

~Bang

I think so, Hillary not so much

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Words. Who knows why anything in this war is done? What seems like one thing can easily be another.
This isn't very conventional, as you well know.

You ever consider that there may be reasons as to why they word things the way they do?
We're fighing reactionaries. Who gives a **** what their fantasy is as to why they do things.

Do you as a citizen and soldier really need to be coddled by tough talk?

We can say a lot of things about Obama, but being soft on the terrorists?
I don't think so.

~Bang

It funny that a President who claims to be "transparent" he really being "transparent" about the assassination of the ambassador and he is deflecting this because of his upcoming reelection this is what I do not like about the situation at all. Its not that he has been soft on terrorism but I do question some of policies regarding Pakistan and Yemen.

[Bang]

It funny that a President who claims to be "transparent" he really being "transparent" about the assassination of the ambassador and he is deflecting this because of his upcoming reelection this is what I do not like about the situation at all. Its not that he has been soft on terrorism but I do question some of policies regarding Pakistan and Yemen.

Well, of course, maybe he should just be transparent about everything to do with the war just so you can be satisfied with the direction it's going.
Seriously... find something real to ***** about.

~Bang

[twa]

Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
http://freebeacon.com/revolt-of-the-spooks/

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests,” said one official, speaking confidentially.

The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international community’s spotlight off Iran’s support for its Syrian ally.

[visionary]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,182919.story

U.S. investigators leave consulate in Libya

The investigation of the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in eastern Libya faces major hurdles, even after a U.S. team gained access to the charred compound this week for the first time.

Libyan officials and guards at the consulate said Friday that FBI investigators who combed the wreckage a day earlier left without interviewing witnesses to the Sept. 11 assault that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

After waiting more than three weeks to enter Benghazi because of security issues and delays in obtaining approval from Libyan authorities, it was unclear whether the U.S. team would return.

It also wasn't clear whether investigators were able to glean any valuable information from the compound, which had essentially been left unguarded since the attack. Until Wednesday, people were able to walk freely around the compound, perhaps destroying or removing evidence. Journalists walked off with sensitive documents, including Stevens' diary and official itinerary for his visit to Benghazi.

Guards at the former consulate, located on an unfinished road lined with walled villas on Benghazi's outskirts, said the U.S. team rolled into the city Thursday morning in a convoy of armored SUVs, backed by about 20 armed American personnel and dozens of Libyan police and pro-government militiamen.

Investigators searched through the wreckage for several hours and carted off evidence, including part of a bombed-out vehicle, said the guards, who are employed by the compound's landlord. After the Americans left, said one guard, who wanted to be identified only as Idris, the landlord instructed them not to let in any more unofficial visitors.

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8970YN20121008

U.S. counter-terrorism aide due in Libya on Tuesday: source

The top U.S. counter-terrorism adviser will visit Libya on Tuesday to discuss the investigation into the killing of the U.S. ambassador at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month, a Libyan protocol official said.

John Brennan, the senior White House adviser on counter-terrorism, will meet with the president of the national congress, Mohammed Magarief, as well as army, intelligence, interior and foreign ministry officials, said the official, who declined to be named.

U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three other Americans on September 11 in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi.

American FBI agents traveled to the Libyan capital Tripoli a few days after the attack to join in the investigation, but domestic political upheavals and disagreement over the terms of the cooperation held up a visit to Benghazi for over two weeks.

[Koala]

Im gonna get killed for saying this, but it has to be said: the person with the most responsibility for ensuring a safe work environment was the ambassador himself. Not Hillary, or Obama.

The only security at the consulate was a lock and key.

Thats an overlook of security of monumental proportions. By accepting such poor securtiy measures, he not only put his own life in danger, but also the lives of anyone that he worked with in danger. He is ultimately in charge of ensuring a safe work environment for himself and his staff. He should have refused to go to work, or allow anyone to staff that location, until they had more security on that place than your average gym locker. Thats really reckless beyond belief. I think he was anxious to get to work, and I have a gut feeling that the ambassador decided to roll the dice while he made arrangements for a more secure location. Well, you play with fire, and we all know how thats gonna end up.

Im not trying to soil the memory of a dead person, he paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Unfortunately, so did three other Americans whom he was responsible for. Blaming Obama doesnt solve the problem. Rather than playing politics with this, the State Department needs a thorough review of its security procedure. Develop a minimum standard of security, train the ambassadors in ensuring this minimum standard of security, and in the meantime, suspend all consulates that do not meet the minimum standards of security. All of them. I worked in a freaking biology lab, with no dangerous pathogens, that had more thorough standards of security than the State Department does for its consulates in foreign countries, that is absolutely unacceptable.

I do blame Obama for the coverup, and I will not be voting for him as a result. Im not sure how anyone can trust him after this.

[twa]

Before you go blaming him you should know he had a protection detail that was withdrawn....despite his request and concerns voiced.

Doing his job, despite the State dept not doing theirs, should not get him thrown under the bus.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...past-august-2/

http://keyetv.com/news/top-stories/s...15.shtml?wap=0

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

[Koala]

Before you go blaming him you should know he had a protection detail that was withdrawn....despite his request and concerns voiced.

Doing his job, despite the State dept not doing theirs, should not get him thrown under the bus.

1) Than he should have refused to go to work, he is responsible for his staff's lives. Yes, he did make a mistake by going to work (and bringhng his staff with him) when the State Department failed to provide a fundamental level of security, thats my whole point. I know someone who was a project manager for an aid organization, a similar position to the ambassadors in terms of responsibilty. They tried to send him into Iraq to set up an office there ca 2003, with what he thought was poor security. Most gallingly, they asked him to set up the office outside of the greenzone, I guess to save money. He refused, risking being fired. Eventually, his boss relented and allowed him to set up shop in Jordan while more secure locations in Iraq where investigated (they never found one). That decision probably saved the lives of his staff, when a year later the security situation deteriorated and kidnappings of foreign aid personnel became commonplace. Thats what leadership is, thats what the ambassador needed to have done. You dont accept no for an answer when peoples lives are at stake, thats fundamental to leadership.

2) Okay so Hillary is very much responsible too. Id like to know the reason for refusing, did they just need the security detail elsewhere and not have anyone else available, leaving the decision of whether or not to risk it to the ambassador? Or did they really order him to go back to work without security? If its the latter, Hillary shoulda been fired yesterday.

3) The place itself was unsecure, it goes beyond protection detail. There should have been checkpoints on the road leading to the consulate, spike strips, reinforced walls, concrete barriers, windows with steel bars on them, multiple escape routes, surveillance of all access points. He shoulda pressured the Libyans hard to provide their end of security, and if they refused, o well Libya I guess youll have no official US consulate in your country. Pressuring foreign governments is the whole point of an ambassador's job.

[twa]

Perhaps you are correct that he should have refused to work, I would say the same of some of our military being required to work unarmed (of course they can court marshal them)

[visionary]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...hazi_consulate

State Department: No video protest at the Benghazi consulate

Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.

In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said Sept. 16 on NBC's Meet the Press.

"That was not our conclusion," the State Department official said. "We don't necessarily have a conclusion [about that]."

Rice has since attributed those statements to information given to the administration by intelligence officials.

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...14a_story.html

Benghazi attack may cloud Clinton’s legacy

The fatal attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya last month has become a test of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s leadership and a threat to her much-admired legacy as America’s top diplomat just a few months before she plans to step down.

Clinton was among the first Obama administration officials to publicly condemn the attack and mourn the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. But as the State Department has weathered Republican-led criticism that it misread warning signs before the Sept. 11 attack, Clinton has been far less visible.

Clinton will not appear at a Wednesday oversight hearing on the Libya attack, where House Republicans have said they will question the State Department’s security preparations and the administration’s account of the attack. The State Department will instead send a trusted career diplomat along with three security officials.

Neither Romney nor congressional Republicans have directly faulted Clinton over security in Libya and do not appear eager to saddle her with the blame. Instead, much of the Republican criticism has been directed at Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who initially said that the attacks were apparently the result of anti-American protests that spun out of control.

Still, Issa sent a stern letter to Clinton last week, asking why additional security had been denied to diplomats at the lightly defended mission in Benghazi where Stevens died. The letter questioned the administration’s early public claim that the attack was part of a spontaneous public protest over an anti-Muslim Internet video.

[Rdskns2000]

I can see this leading to impeachment hearings. No, Obama wouldn't be impeached but I can see Republicans find cause to go through impeachment hearings over this.

[visionary]

https://twitter.com/CNNLive

The first Congressional hearing examining the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya begins at 12pm ET. Watch live: http://CNN.com/live2
11:36 AM

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvp...ive/cvpstream2

CNN.com Live

The first Congressional hearing convenes to review the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Just started now.

---------- Post added October-10th-2012 at 12:22 PM ----------

Wow, Cummings is going to some lengths to defend the administration and go after the Republicans in the committee.
Bringing up some interesting points too.