State Department pulled out security even though embassy staff (LIBYA)wanted more

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57527150/congress-to-probe-security-flaws-for-libya-diplomats

The cover up unravels more...

Hillary will take the fall for this.

these people love obama so much they have no integrity


I think they have a mental illness actually

You show me where the ambassador wanted more security, and I am all in to blame somebody, but the Ambassador was taking risks during the revolt, and he certainly was taking risks with only four security people.

However, a 32 person security detail may not have been what the ambassador wanted. It is pure speculation to say why the detail was sent home, but I will ask this question....what if the Ambassador believed that the 32 person security force is not what he wanted to convey to the libyan people. Also, if you think a 32 person security force is going to keep you safe without some hardened sites and some geography between you and an enemy force....I think you underestimate the need to have the Libyan government providing the primary security for an embassy. If you took security to its logical conclusion, we should have withdrawn. This is where I am very interested in knowing what the ambassador wanted to do. Issa....let me steal your car....is a political hack, and this is very serious subject which should not be part of a political circus until investigation is completed.

2Seaoat, you sure do live in your own world of denial.

President Barack Hussein Obama and the administration has been humiliated by all the unrest and violence and assassinations in the Middle East. President Obama told us how al Qaeda was on the decline. Then President Obama, and the rest of the Democrats continued to spike the ball after stating that they would NOT spike the ball after the assassination of Osama bin Laden. What Progressive thought that would be a grand idea?

October 5, 2012 7:26 PM
Congress to probe security flaws for Libya diplomats

CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya.

The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.


Libya consulate: Was security added or taken away?
FBI team examines site of deadly Libya attack


Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Read more http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57527150/congress-to-probe-security-flaws-for-libya-diplomats

###

Oct 5, 2012 7:00am


Email Shows State Department Rejecting Request of Security Team at US Embassy in Libya

ABC News has obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, indicating that the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties.

Copied on the email was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, along with three other Americans. That attack has prompted questions about whether the diplomatic personnel in that country were provided with adequate security support.

No one has yet to argue that the DC-3 would have definitively made a difference for the four Americans killed that night. The security team in question, after all, left Libya in August.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/

Did ANYONE doubt that our embassies, especially in volatile countries needed extra security on the anniversary of 9/11 ESPECIALLY after all the boasting of the Democrats having killed Osama bin Laden? Really?

Sorry, some third tier security jockey is not the ambassador. If testimony or memos come out that the Ambassador was asking for more protection....then you have something which needs to be reviewed. However, if some security detail who was part of the covert actions in Libya leading up to Khaddafi being overthrown....sorry, the regime was overthrown, and unless you show me the Ambassador wanted more security....this smells of the usual suspects....you know the ones who did not want the ambassador to win the people of LIbya over to America with his courage.....So the bad guys win....Al Queda, the industrial military complex, and Israel all want bombs dropping in Iran....it is clear that they share the disdain of what the Ambassador was trying to accomplish. So the who is not as important as the why.....and when traitors to this country push for war they need to start by making diplomacy futile...where only bombs work....no the why is clear, and when you get something credible....lets talk, because if something was screwed up after the Ambassador asked for help or more security....somebody should be held accountable....but a third tier shill for one of the three who want war....nope....been there....done this before.

Deny, deny, deny....Seaoat and the rest of the contingent of libs will go down with the sinking ship of liberal rats.

2seaoat wrote:Sorry, some third tier security jockey is not the ambassador. If testimony or memos come out that the Ambassador was asking for more protection....then you have something which needs to be reviewed. However, if some security detail who was part of the covert actions in Libya leading up to Khaddafi being overthrown....sorry, the regime was overthrown, and unless you show me the Ambassador wanted more security....this smells of the usual suspects....you know the ones who did not want the ambassador to win the people of LIbya over to America with his courage.....So the bad guys win....Al Queda, the industrial military complex, and Israel all want bombs dropping in Iran....it is clear that they share the disdain of what the Ambassador was trying to accomplish. So the who is not as important as the why.....and when traitors to this country push for war they need to start by making diplomacy futile...where only bombs work....no the why is clear, and when you get something credible....lets talk, because if something was screwed up after the Ambassador asked for help or more security....somebody should be held accountable....but a third tier shill for one of the three who want war....nope....been there....done this before.

who are the traitors seaoat?

rumor has it we are about to drop some bombs. I wouldnt be surprised at all if bombs didnt drop somewhere from US before Nov 6th

I also think its a no brainer that they needed extra security. who in thier right mind could possibly think that in a country that just had its dictator overthrown by the muslim brotherhood none the less, and even they had only been in office under 100days should not have been on high alert?

then try to cover it up by pointing the finger at an american who made a stupid video on utube and even go as far to spend tax payer $ to run ads blaming it on a stupid vid. now that man has a bounty on his head only for the gov to come out later and say its was a terrorist attack planned ahead of time, specifically dated for 911.

Seaoat has too much at stake regarding Obamacare to pull for anyone else in this election.

2seaoat wrote:You show me where the ambassador wanted more security, and I am all in to blame somebody, but the Ambassador was taking risks during the revolt, and he certainly was taking risks with only four security people.

However, a 32 person security detail may not have been what the ambassador wanted. It is pure speculation to say why the detail was sent home, but I will ask this question....what if the Ambassador believed that the 32 person security force is not what he wanted to convey to the libyan people. Also, if you think a 32 person security force is going to keep you safe without some hardened sites and some geography between you and an enemy force....I think you underestimate the need to have the Libyan government providing the primary security for an embassy. If you took security to its logical conclusion, we should have withdrawn. This is where I am very interested in knowing what the ambassador wanted to do. Issa....let me steal your car....is a political hack, and this is very serious subject which should not be part of a political circus until investigation is completed.

You may be interested in the state depts document dump on this fine friday afternoon. There are numerous cables from the ambassador... including one on 9/11... the day he was assasinated.

I'll await your response.

PkrBum wrote:

You may be interested in the state depts document dump on this fine friday afternoon. There are numerous cables from the ambassador... including one on 9/11... the day he was assasinated.

I'll await your response.

Those new documents are pretty damning of the administrations failure that resulted in 4 Americans being killed. Unfortunately the liberal media has chosen to completely ignore the release of these documents.

PkrBum wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You show me where the ambassador wanted more security, and I am all in to blame somebody, but the Ambassador was taking risks during the revolt, and he certainly was taking risks with only four security people.

However, a 32 person security detail may not have been what the ambassador wanted. It is pure speculation to say why the detail was sent home, but I will ask this question....what if the Ambassador believed that the 32 person security force is not what he wanted to convey to the libyan people. Also, if you think a 32 person security force is going to keep you safe without some hardened sites and some geography between you and an enemy force....I think you underestimate the need to have the Libyan government providing the primary security for an embassy. If you took security to its logical conclusion, we should have withdrawn. This is where I am very interested in knowing what the ambassador wanted to do. Issa....let me steal your car....is a political hack, and this is very serious subject which should not be part of a political circus until investigation is completed.

You may be interested in the state depts document dump on this fine friday afternoon. There are numerous cables from the ambassador... including one on 9/11... the day he was assasinated.

I'll await your response.

Do you have a link?

It's all over the internet.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

PkrBum wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-request-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

Page Unavailable
The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.

You may use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page, visit the ABCNews.com Home Page, or view the Site Map. You can also search our site by using the search form below.

If you require further assistance, please contact us.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:It's all over the internet.

Then it should be fairly easy to link, shouldn't it?

CIA framed Obama for the 911 killing to get the Neocon Romney in as President....

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-request-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

Page Unavailable
The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.

You may use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page, visit the ABCNews.com Home Page, or view the Site Map. You can also search our site by using the search form below.

If you require further assistance, please contact us.

Fixed it.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:CIA framed Obama for the 911 killing to get the Neocon Romney in as President....

Good. It's about time they did something that benefitted the country.

PkrBum wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

The last request was made on 9/11... The documents are downloadable.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf

I have taken all the time to read the links and just as I suspected. Nothing. The ambassador did not ask for more security. He did do what our agents do in other countries. He gave an analysis of the changing Libya power players. In poker you would be going all in with a seven two. Sorry, I will await until you can show me the ambassador who was running the show asked for an increased security detail to protect him. Never happened, and the president knows that so he is sitting back with kings ready to jump on the fools who think two seven is an all in play. Is there anybody here capable of understanding how this operation was working? I cannot wait until this election is over because people I normally respect are showing incredible lack of knowledge......and again, I am open to review a memo where the Ambassador was asking for more personal security.

2seaoat wrote:I have taken all the time to read the links and just as I suspected. Nothing. The ambassador did not ask for more security. He did do what our agents do in other countries. He gave an analysis of the changing Libya power players. In poker you would be going all in with a seven two. Sorry, I will await until you can show me the ambassador who was running the show asked for an increased security detail to protect him. Never happened, and the president knows that so he is sitting back with kings ready to jump on the fools who think two seven is an all in play. Is there anybody here capable of understanding how this operation was working? I cannot wait until this election is over because people I normally respect are showing incredible lack of knowledge......and again, I am open to review a memo where the Ambassador was asking for more personal security.

Seaoat, you keep saying that the ambassador did not ask for more security. To that I must say that in my job, when I am running a fireground, I do not wait for the worker bees to ask me for tools and resources to complete their tasks and make them safer. I watch the evolving situation and provide them with it before the need becomes critical. The same approach should have been taken in this incident. Either our intelligence sources are incompetent (hopefully not, think Iran) or someone grossly and negligently dropped the ball. For what it is worth I watched the hearings on C-Span about this and the head security guy there did indeed request security resources.My point is that he should not have had to request it, he has higher ups who should monitor the situation and provide the resources. That was not done.

Gawd... He details increased security concerns... growing terrorist activity... Actual attacks in benghazi...

The requests for embassy security went through the proper channels to the state dept... Stevens provided the context.

The requests were denied... nothing to see here I guess... sigh. Nothing matters... I get it.

Eric Nordstrom earlier told congressional investigators that he had requested more security but that request was blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources."

PkrBum wrote:Gawd... He details increased security concerns... growing terrorist activity... Actual attacks in benghazi...

The requests for embassy security went through the proper channels to the state dept... Stevens provided the context.

The requests were denied... nothing to see here I guess... sigh. Nothing matters... I get it.

Caught some of it and yeah, dammit, it's crystal clear.

Those poor men were abandoned and what remains is political coverup and lies.

It's a sad state we live in.

The possible saving grace is that Obama will become "unveiled" for what he really is.

For what it's worth, ......4 years too late.

It could be said these men truly gave their lives to save our Country.

FT, Dreams, never mind. I know the Repugs blocked all the funding........right?