In cable the day he died, U.S. ambassador warned Clinton about Benghazi security
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes a farewell appearance before Congress to address questions about the Benghazi terror attack last Sept. 11, and likely will be confronted by the very warning her ambassador from Libya sent just hours before his death.
Just hours before he died in a terrorist attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent a cable to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton painting a chaotic, violent portrait of the eastern Libya city and warning that local militias were threatening to pull the security they afforded U.S. officials.
Militia leaders told U.S. officials just two days before the attack that they were angered by U.S. support of a particular candidate for Libyan prime minister and warned “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” Stevens wrote in the cable the morning of Sept. 11, 2012. He also cited several other episodes that raised questions about the reliability of local Libya security.
“Growing problems with security would discourage foreign investment and led to persistent economic stagnation in eastern Libya,” Stevens cautioned.
The Washington Guardian obtained a copy of the memo, a weekly summary of events in Libya dated just hours before a band of terrorists struck the unofficial U.S. consulate in Benghazi and a neaby annex building where the CIA operated, killing the ambassador and three other Americans.
Stevens’ cable is likely to become a central focus of congressional hearings that begin Wednesday -- hearings where Clinton will be pressed to explain why security for diplomats in the region wasn’t increased in the weeks before the attack and why so much reliance was placed on local security forces with dubious loyalties.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee led by its new chairman, Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., is leading the investigation in that chamber, while the Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez has its own hearing.
Among the questions lawmakers in both parties are likely to probe is why the State Department turned down a request in August that a special military security team extend its stay in the region, and why U.S. officials relied so heavily on local security tied to militias, a concern Stevens himself had flagged.
Congressional investigators have developed evidence that some of the local security at the Benghazi consulate failed to protect the compound during the attack and may have even had forewarnings that violence could occur that day.
Obama administration officials declined comment on the cable, referring a reporter instead to the findings released in late December of the State Department Accountability Review Board report on Benghazi.
For weeks after the attack, State Department officials insisted they had reviewed security at the compound and believed they had adequate resources heading into the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. They also claimed they had no forewarning of impending trouble.
Stevens' concerns about militia security were previously mentioned by news outlets such as The Daily Beast, but the full details of the diplomatic cable and the exact language Stevens used to alert his bosses in Washington show the State Department had plenty reason to know the city he was visiting was in violent disarray and that there was growing distrust of the security capabilities of local police and militias.
The document described a “state of maximum alert” that had just ended a few days earlier in the city, detailed “extra-judicial killings” of Libyan government officials that were ongoing in the vicinity, reported on a deadly car bombing, and noted the destruction of power lines that blacked out part of the region.
One Libya security commander “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces” and suggested local security was “too weak to keep the country secure,” the memo said.
The cable also warned that Salafists had engaged in a gun battle at a Muslim shrine less than 22 miles (35 kilometers) outside Benghazi three days earlier, killing three and injuring seven. Stevens specifically flagged concerns about official security exposed by that incident, saying a militia brigade sent to protect the shrine was “late responding” and some Salafist members in the brigade “were actually fighting against local residents in support of efforts to destroy the shrine.”
Likewise, the ambassador wrote he also had received a warning of “expanding Islamist influence” in the nearby community of Derna, noting another local militia brigade had “undercut police presence by accusing the police of being loyal to the former regime.”
As for the explosives attacks on power lines, Stevens wrote, authorities had “confirmed press reports that huge 400 kilowatt lines and towers, including their foundations, had been completely destroyed.”
While the report was mostly filled with reports of violence and warnings of dubious security, Stevens did relate one meeting he had with local business leaders who tried to make the case for increased U.S. investment in Benghazi. The businessmen argued that “despite the challenges… the security situation was improving,” the cable said before rattling off a laundry list of recent violence.
One of the reasons Stevens apparently risked going from the more fortified embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi was also detailed in the cable: Stevens planned to unveil a new U.S. project in Benghazi to enhance “cultural and education outreach by U.S. Mission Libya.”
Investigators also have zeroed in on another reason for his trip, an evening meeting with a Turkish diplomat that ended shortly before the attack. Stevens apparently had befriended the diplomat on earlier assignments and the two corresponded as early as August about the possibility of meeting in Benghazi.
The official State Department review board report on the Benghazi tragedy, released last month, carefully danced around the reasons for Stevens’ willingness to take the risk of going to the less-secure compound in Benghazi on the anniversary of Sept. 11 terror attacks, saying only that ambassadors were afforded great latitude in deciding their movements and schedules.
“The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice,” the report said.
The report, however, was far more direct in accusing the State Department of failing to assess the security situation in Benghazi and providing adequate protections.
“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the review board concluded.
Replies
Excellent link. Thank you Twana. :)
POOR GUY THE AMBASSADOR..HE WAS JUST A PAWN FOR THE MUSLIMS
If what I have heard is true--and it does seem plausible--if Stevens was there on a mission from the President ,himself, and the US of A(this Administration) was once again trafficking guns to the bad guys --like they did in Fast and furious.....especially given that guns from Libya seem to have been used in the BP hostage taking and murder in Algeria--as Hillary conveniently fell and got a concussion? (In Washington DC I hear Nothing is as it gets reported) when she was to appear before Congress to be asked genteel questions by the Liars Club especially the "progressives" If there were ANY reasonable people in Washington DC or in the loop when Benghazi was allowed--sure seems like they would have been shouting the truth from the rooftops--and praying for a military coup in their prayer closet.
Obammy should be charged with dereliction of duty, failure to uphold our Constitution and undermining the US.
From all the reports mentioning "congressional investigations" of Benghazi, I have yet to see one sentence noting the summary removal of General Ham, of "North Africa Command", done over the emergency embassy line, by the commander in chief, when the General refused to stand down the "standard operating procedures" when such an emergency call is received by this, one of the largest forces we maintain for this exact purpose.
The two star Admiral of the Strike force Command, senior in the Mediterranean, who simultaneously received the same emergency call, initiated protocol emergency rescue operations, and was also told by the commander in chief to "stand down rescue operations, and when he stated he would not, was also put under "military apprehension" or "arrest" by his own executive officer, and relieved of command, summarily, while the line was still open and the emergency still being called.
A two star General is not put under arrest by his executive officer, while fulfilling "Standing Orders" for an emergency call, except that a conspiracy to coordinate such was prepared before hand. That a similar ranked and experienced Commander of the main strike force is also put under arrest and relieved of command by his executive officer, simultaneously, within seconds of the other, for following "Standard Operating Procedure" and because of refusing to break protocol, when commanded, is proof positive of the well coordinated, long planned, fully intended and expected attack being the cause of these summary reliefs, and demonstrating a commander in chief who had just deliberately left Americans to be killed, and there should be no question, all those, most particularly, the commander in chief, were deeply enmeshed in an international conspiracy with arms, once again, but to a far, perhaps twenty or thirty times what was done criminally into Mexico, but this time, by the commander in chief, personally, running weapons against international treaty and law, to terrorists groups, attacking our own treaty bound allies, Egypt, and in fact, Libya, which we treated with when Ghadafi chose to pay the judgments of courts to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, and accept responsibility, and met with American diplomats and entered with in treaty.
We have an illegal alien, a British National, a communist, intending to destroy our nation, and he has shown this by his every act. He has colluded in High crimes acts of treason, and has deliberately acted to advance the designs of both international communists, and the Islamic fundamentalists who would establish a world caliphate.
We cannot allow these hearings be considered as "substantive" but must demand the full measure of this issue be explored, and no possibility of an inauguration of the man responsible for these crimes, except that he be fully investigated, every aspect of his role looked at and for, and only should he be found to be entirely clear of any crime, and by fact, presented before qualified document expert examiners, demonstrating his father was not in fact a British Subject, but he, obama, found to have been born of two parents who both were American Citizens at the time of his birth.
Except that such be done, and the results clear him completely, the entirety of the administration should be under arrest and held while indictments made, charges filed, and the whole of the crimes laid open before the public, and all the guilty among them held to full and complete account, no deals.
We cannot remain a Nation if we won't police our own government. We are not Sovereign Citizens if we don't fulfill the responsibilities and duties of "Sovereignty". We are responsible for the defense of Our Nation, and we may only be "responsible, or irresponsible", there is no place between the two points. It is our fault we did not force government to bend to our will, and conform to its duties. It is our fault if we allow congress to call such investigations "sufficient", we must demand they fulfill the whole of their duties, and we must be willing to force them out of office and into charges if they fail to meet our demands.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret.
Absolutely right John. This was all preplanned. Can you imagine what it must me like being in a command position and knowing that you can't trust the officers beneath you. Also, to get those executive officers in place who would conform to Washington's bidding at the drop of a hat had to be preplanned. In order to make it appear that those XO's were not DC plants would have required that they be spotted, vetted, and recruited many months ahead of time in order for their assignments to appear normal. Those XO's would also have to have been forewarned in order to have reacted so quickly.
When will this cowardly , corrupt, Marxist, muslim loving Obama Administration be brought to their just deserts!!!!???
What are you prepared to do to bring him to justice?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next