Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 5:50:46 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Not just on the day he died, mind you. Multiple times before, too. Im near the point now where I want to abandon the whole pre-planned attack versus spontaneous protest line of inquiry just because its steering us away from the more important topic of States negligence on his security. Besides, we already know, more or less, why Carney and Rice pushed the spontaneous protest theory. Ask Saxby Chambliss:
Talking points distributed by the administration [in the immediate aftermath] are nearly identical to intelligence assessments within hours of the attack, except in one important way: the intelligence judgment that the attackers had ties to al-Qaida was excluded from the public points, [Saxby] Chambliss said in a statement on Friday.
The administration omitted the known links to al-Qaida at almost every opportunity Whether this was an intentional effort by the administration to downplay the role of terrorist groups, especially al-Qaida, is one of the many issues the Senate Intelligence Committee must examine, Chambliss said.
The guy who got Bin Laden and knocked out Qaddafi didnt need a storyline in the middle of a campaign about AQ affiliates killing the American ambassador in the heart of the new Libya. Thats straightforward, and thats almost certainly why the spontaneous protest theory got traction initially. (Al Qaeda is on the run used to be part of Obamas standard stump speech, in fact. That line has been quietly dropped lately.) Whats not straightforward is why State refused to boost Stevenss security despite countless warnings about the danger, some from the man himself. Its inexplicable. Its not a budget issue, either: Charlene Lamb testified to that before the House. She also testified that State had the correct number of assets in Benghazi, which literally no one but her seems to believe is true. So, once again: Why didnt Stevens have more security? What were they waiting for before making a decision to either send him a more professional force or end the American presence in Benghazi? Was that politicized too, i.e. State didnt want abandon the consulate over security fears because that would have made for some bad headlines about conditions inside the new Libya?
On Sept. 11 the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled sensitive, in which he noted growing problems with security in Benghazi and growing frustration on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as too weak to keep the country secure.
Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled sensitive, that he entitled The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya. Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months time, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape. He added, The individual incidents have been organized, a function of the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.
Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity, Stevens cabled. What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks. His final comment on the two-page document was: Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.
Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya, the ambassador wrote [on June 25], adding that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities
Libyan guards at the consulate also thought security was too thin to meet the challenge from local mujahedeen, but were reportedly told by the Americans they spoke to that everything was cool and that no one would dare approach the consulate even though, as noted above, even the Red Cross wasnt spared from attack. (That may have been part of a jihadi strategy to push all western outfits out of the city.) Id sure like to know which Americans said that; based on his increasingly dire reports to the State Department, it doesnt sound like Stevens was one of them.
Ill leave you with this. Funny how Susan Rice is capable of detecting a terrorist attack right away in some cases. Is she sure that Beirut bombing this morning wasnt a reaction to the Mohammed movie?
****************************************************
@AmbassadorRice
We condemn in the strongest possible terms the terrorist bombing in #Beirut & extend our condolences to the victims' loved ones. #Lebanon
19 Oct 12
Posted earlier today, FWIW:
The Obama Libya Cover-Up Explained (Long Article)
Friday, October 19, 2012 4:28:05 PM · 19 of 31
MestaMachine to Cicero
And, ironically, our ambassador to Libya, who was murdered, was at the forefront of assisting those terrorists during the revolt backed by Obamas illegal war against a sovereign ally.
That is why Stevens is dead. Seems that he was becoming too mouthy. Once he started receiving death threats and as his fears were increasing, his cables became more frequent and more frantic. He lost their confidence in his willingness to keep his mouth shut and bang.
Watch for more from Lt. Col. Andy Wood who has already stated he would put his entire career in jeopardy to get the truth out and take the consequences for outing classified information...including prison if necessary.