I suspect that remark must be taken in the context of attacks on American diplomatic stations outside an active war zone. Beyond that, however, I won't attempt to judge the accuracy of the comment. I don't even remember who made it, specifically, but it was one of the first group of four witnesses who testified before Congress last fall. I just remember reading the transcripts and that comment really stood out.
-snip-
-snip-
There's an interesting new claim about this I heard in the last day, but I don't remember where I found it. It may have been on one of the NBC news programs (Nightly News last night, or Today this morning), or it may have been in one of the articles I've read. In any case, the claim was that in the months before the attack, because of the reported threats, the Pentagon twice offered to provide additional defensive forces specifically for Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens (allegedly) personally refused both offers. I have no idea why, or even if it's true, but that was the claim. It's something I plan to dig into more when I have more time.
You said they were ignorant because they didn't know the geography of the area. Their knowledge of geography was above the average of the US.
Very very faint praise.
Here is the story. Given that I found other news organizations citing McClatchy, I assume this is the original source:I heard that last night. I think it was on MSNBC.
However, no source was named (i.e., no name of the person in the military making this claim). I also heard something about State Dept policy of no military in Benghazi.
Fern
More at the link.Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say
CAIRO In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.
Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.
In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover, said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
He didnt say why. He just turned it down, a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy...
Here is the story. Given that I found other news organizations citing McClatchy, I assume this is the original source:
More at the link.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” an unnamed defense official told McClatchy.
Conservatives have heavily criticized President Barack Obama’s administration — including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — for their handling of the Benghazi attack, in part because of what they say was a lack of security at the post.
One of the most outspoken critics, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told McClatchy that he found it “odd” that Stevens wouldn’t want additional military assets.
“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” Graham told McClatchy.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-91406.html#ixzz2TZeeIWoM
CBS Evening News let out a bit of a bombshell tonight, admitting on the air that it was Republicans on the Hill who provided the media with false quotes that are the only real smoking gun the GOP has buttressing its conspiracy-theory surrounding the Benghazi attack.
First paragraph of that article.... now is it a crime or at least libel for the Republicans to do this?
So the story now is that Stevens asked for additional security in writing, but turned it down verbally. Sounds very convenient and very unlikely to me.Here is the story. Given that I found other news organizations citing McClatchy, I assume this is the original source:
More at the link.
Here is the story. Given that I found other news organizations citing McClatchy, I assume this is the original source:
More at the link.
That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C
One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.
“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy.
Dempsey said the State Department never requested more from the military.
“We never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces on the ground,” Dempsey told the committee.
Traditionally, State Department officials have depended on the State Department’s own Diplomatic Security Service, local police and military forces and security contractors to secure embassies around the world. U.S. military personnel at embassies consist usually of Marines whose job it is to guard the perimeter of a compound and to protect classified documents and equipment inside. It is rare that U.S. forces would be called upon to guard embassy personnel traveling outside embassy grounds.
The 12 changes of the talking points got discovered by ABC, not Fox/Rush/drudge. You then call the people idiots for their lack of knowledge of geography but that was debunked. Little tip, when you are lying on your back watching the ref reach 10 and wave his hands over you, you lost the match.
Uh oh, looks like the GOP faked emails regarding this 'investigation'
http://americablog.com/2013/05/gop-faked-benghazi-emails-cbs.html
I anxiously await Matt1970's to post to show his outrage how his own team is using the death of Americans to create a scandal by falsifying emails.
I mean this is right up his faux outrage alley. He really needs to demand congressional hearings on how these emails were falsified.
Matt1970,
I would be highly interested in your response to Bowfingers last post.
That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to, said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.
On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.
The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.
Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom
So the story now is that Stevens asked for additional security in writing, but turned it down verbally. Sounds very convenient and very unlikely to me.
Nonetheless I can imagine a few scenarios where it might be true.
1. Stevens was offered Marines but wanted civilian and/or CIA security, to keep a low profile.
2. Stevens was offered Special Forces and/or civilian or CIA security but wanted Marines, to present a more embassy-like profile or present more of a deterrent.
3. Stevens was told to say no, either to present the fiction that Libya was safe as previously testified, or for some covert operation purpose.
4. Stevens wanted security but did not want to go over the head of his superiors to get it, assuming he'd have time for his requests to work through the bureaucracy.
Sometimes things that seem too self-serving to be true actually are true. If this is in fact true, I'm sure there are some surviving emails or memos to support this. Unless and until this happens, I'm going to assume that this is probably circling the wagons and blaming the dead guy for being dead. It does make clear that this was a massive screw-up; they knew well ahead of time that they could not defend the diplomatic mission and yet did nothing to rectify the situation.
I'm certainly not asserting the article is accurate, nor do I know why Stevens would turn down such an offer (if true). For now I see this as merely an interesting twist in the story. It should be investigated along with the other Benghazi issues.Some more info from your article:
I don't believe the State Dept wanted any military there. Neither tradition or their policy of 'normalization' would seem to permit it.
BTW: Gen. Ham was fired shortly after the Benghazi attack.
Fern
WHY?!?!