State Department Suddenly Discovers 1,300 Pages of Amb. Stevens’ Email

Breitbart ^ | October 20, 2015 | John Hayward

[FoxInSocks]

Just two days before Hillary Clinton’s testimony to the House Benghazi Committee, the State Department presented lawmakers with a huge trove of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ emails:

#BREAKING: The State Dept *just* delivered nearly 1,300 printed pages of new emails from Ambassador Chris Stevens. #Benghazi

— Benghazi Committee (@HouseBenghazi) October 20, 2015

Yesterday, Fox News obtained one of Stevens’ cables from July 2012, and found him pleading for decent security protection… a plea that fell on deaf ears in Hillary Clinton’s department.

In the July 9, 2012 cable, Stevens reported that, “Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers.” The cable said 13 security personnel would be the “minimum” needed for “transportation security and incident response capability.”

But a congressional source said Patrick Kennedy, a deputy to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, turned down the request.

The cable sent under Stevens’ electronic signature shows that he was advocating for additional security and warning that the set-up did not meet State Department standards, as conditions deteriorated in the run-up to the attack that killed Stevens and three other Americans.

As Fox News goes on to note, the terrorist-infested wasteland Clinton and Obama transformed Libya into was the scene of 243 security incidents in the year before Stevens’ murder on 9/11/12, fifty of them occurring in Libya…

<snip>

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“The liberals response is that it is the Republican’s fault for reducing their budget.”

Sure! In places like Bermuda and Edmonton. Not in high risk places!

[garjog]

Let’s see. Hillary favors killing unborn babies and our troops.

Makes her a Democrat lock on the nomination for sure.

[gleeaikin]

Here is a Washington Times (pro Republican DC paper) describing “chaotic scramble” at the CIA that day. Question: What was Petraeous doing that day, or was he busy with his outside love interest and socializing with the Islamic crowd in Florida. Several sources seem to think that the CIA and State Department were not cooperating very much in Libya.

I briefly listened to radio reports of today’s testimony (Wed.) and the impression I got was that about 5 different sources of possible aid were all told to stand down or wait. So immediately my paranoid imagination went to work, and I asked myself “who would have the power to do that, and who would benefit”. After several hours of thinking I decided that only key powers in the previous administration would have that wide a reach, and that perhaps at that time they would think Jeb Bush would be most likely to benefit. My best friend says I am a paranoid nut. What do you folks think??

This withholding of military support sounds particularly damning:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/diplomat-us-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

Here is the Wall Street Journal take on what to look for at Thursday’s (10/22/15) hearing with Hillary and all.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/21/what-to-watch-at-clintons-appearance-at-benghazi-hearing/

Back during the fight to dump Ghadaffi, I was following this whole event rather carefully. Apparently Stevens had been active in Libya several months before the end, which is one reason he was named Ambassador. He knew the risks. After the disaster I looked carefully at photos of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi. It was surrounded by an 8 to 10 foot wall that any athletic teenager with a companion could get over easily. The main buildings did not look very easy to defend either. I have searched now for some of these photos of the wall but could not find them.

[Enlightened1]

BTTT