Posted on 01/24/2014 8:03:41 AM PST by Republicanprofessor
Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.
The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.....
Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.
During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.
Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Benghazi ping.
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3114923/posts
Sorry for the duplicate post. This may have more discussion on it.
After they get finished assigning responsibility for the 4 Americans killed in Bengnazi how about looking into the 4,000 killed in Iraq. It was all over TV that oil would pay for it, mushroom clouds were to appear and we would be welcomed with flowers, then once we introduced purple fingers and a Constitution all would be well.
The MSM using Liberal speak for protecting Obama and Hillary by blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death is like Hitler blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.
Yes, he is. I'd like to see this information corroborated by General Ham, though, because I don't trust Hicks.
Why don’t you trust Hicks?
He actually doesn’t make Ham look bad, but simply like somebody who was caught up in the rules and at the same time consciously kept out of the loop by the State Dept. The point that Stevens wanted to keep these 39 (originally) people under his control in order to keep them covered by diplomatic immunity and protect them from arrest by the Libyans (which had already happened to Special Forces people there)makes a lot of sense. But then at the end of August, despite his pleas, they stripped away most of these people and left him with only the 9 who were there or nearby at the time of the attack.
Because he made a big deal out of telling everybody he voted for Obama in '12. (*After* Benghazi!)
What kind of a jackass votes for someone who's responsible for letting one of his best friends die horribly?
I don’t think he made Ham look bad either. I just don’t trust words that come from Hicks’ mouth without corroboration.
Ambassador Stevens was murdered. The question to ask is who in the Obama White House wanted him dead, and why.
State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy is mostly to blame for the disaster at Benghazi for refusing the SST (Site Security Team) extension of one more year, thinking that locals could provide security.
Stevens believed that if there was trouble he could rely on support from operators at the CIA station house nearby.
Stevens also believed that he had such good rapport with the local militias that the Mission could rely on them also to keep the neighborhood quiet.
Stevens also believed that the weapons the Brits stored at our Mission when they bailed out would stay secret, even though locals working for us were aware.
Iranian Quds Force operators were in the area and wanted our CIA Station House degraded so that they could buy Ghaddafi’s weapons more easily, especially the SAMs. They were the mortar attack team and set up the kill zones on the streets between the Mission and the CIA Station that night.
So, the enemy was a complicated coalition that used our vulnerability.
Stevens always had the option of closing the Mission. The locals that were our security told him of the danger there that night and most of them bailed out.
BTW, Stevens ordered the storage of all that fuel used to burn the Mission. The fuel was to be used for our vehicles in case we chose to bail also.
It was a perfect storm of naivete, hubris, bad neighbors and lack of situational awareness. That is what happens when diplomats are charged with force protection.
Think you’d have to look back into Stevens earlier history. Where he lived ? Who he knew? Who recommended him for the appointment and what favors he may have done or promised. I’d bet its all on the web somewhere if we looked!
Compare it to the story of David sending out his romantic rival....
CIA Director, Hillary (State Dept) and Obama (Pres) were all part of the decision....Biden was busy with foot in mouth.
Robin Wright wrote this article claiming to be a close friend of Chris Stevens, later communicated with his sister:
BTTT!
I don’t completely blame him either. But he is partially responsible for the debacle.
Diplomatic missions must have their own force protection. The problem is that the State Department is not schooled or disciplined to make security decisions that should be left to DOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.