Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[koheesti]

Meanwhile back in Libya....

http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-19680785

Seems like the citizens of Benghazi are not great fans of the militias. Good for them.

Too bad the BBC is still using the wrong background information...

The attack on the US consulate was triggered by an amateur video made in the US which mocks Islam.

[koheesti]

According to a Wall Street Journal report, security lapses and bad decisions made the 9/11 Libya attack worse.

I seem to recall a 9/11 NewYork attack made worse by security lapses and bad decisions.

Yes, if Bill Clinton had done his job it wouldn't have happened, but I don't recall George Bush ever whining he inherited a mess.

And Bill Clinton even admitted on tape to being offered bin Laden but he let him go.

Let's also not forget that it was a Presidential Daily Briefing a month before 9/11 that mentioned al Qaeda planning to attack targets in the USA (and 70 FBI investigations into them). It was this PDB that the left used against Bush to show he didn't do enough. Fast forward 11 years and we have a president who doesn't ever attend the PDBs and some on the left are saying it isn't Obama's job to attend. I will agree, he shouldn't be allowed near any secret security matters but he did win in 2008 so it's hard to shut him out completely.

[simple1]

@koheesti: I recall reading that Obama has personally authorised more extra judicial killings (drone attacks) than any other president. Just located from Wikipedia "Barack Obama vastly-accelerated the drone strikes after he became US president" Also following link talks to Obama overseeing the regular Tuesday counter-terrorism meetings in the White House Situation Room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

[Ulysses G.]

That is because drones have only recently become advanced enough to use widely in warfare. I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush and other presidents would have used them extensively had they been as capable as they are now.

[simple1]

That is because drones have only recently become advanced enough to use widely in warfare. I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush and other presidents would have used them extensively had they been as capable as they are now.

yes the increase in drone attacks due to more capabilities from technology was in my mind, but there are some posters saying Obama is doing little to combat terrorism

[koheesti]

That is because drones have only recently become advanced enough to use widely in warfare. I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush and other presidents would have used them extensively had they been as capable as they are now.

yes the increase in drone attacks due to more capabilities from technology was in my mind, but there are some posters saying Obama is doing little to combat terrorism

I will give credit to Obama for increasing drone attacks. I'd rather long distance death from above than having our people killed by the Afghans they are training.

UG is also right, it's fair to say that Bush or McCain, being "right wing Republican warmongering war criminals" would have launched even more.

Edited September 23, 2012 by koheesti

[sunshine51]

I originally posted this on the US Wants The Film....

and decided to post it here because of it's relativity to

this thread....

I just heard on the BBC that CNN found Ambassador Stevens

"diary" inside the hulk of the annex in Benghazi and has run a piece

or two on the find concerning Amb. Stevens thought's on security

in Benghazi at the time. State is now in an uproar and seemingly

trying to pass the buck on why they didn't increase security calling

CNN'd find and reporting all kinds of names.

Type this into Google and read for yourself the links...

"CNN Ambassador Stevens Diary"

Here's a link to Politico's page about CNN vs State...

http://www.politico....1563.html?hp=f3

Seems to me State is trying to cover up their cock up.

[Chicog]

You just heard on the BBC that they heard something on CNN?

I just read that CNN promised the family they would not use this personal journal without their permission, and yet went ahead and did it anyway.

No journalistic value in this piece of tittle tattle.

Shame on them.

[midas]

You just heard on the BBC that they heard something on CNN?

I just read that CNN promised the family they would not use this personal journal without their permission, and yet went ahead and did it anyway.

No journalistic value in this piece of tittle tattle.

Shame on them.

excuse me? No journalistic value in a story that

tends to suggest the administration

have been involved in a major cover-up once again?

[Chicog]

Cover up of what?

The State Department has stated ""We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

I would imagine that if they were, they probably would have evacuated Stevens and his staff beforehand.

CNN released comments to the effect that "the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.".

No Shit Sherlock.

They have not revealed any "cover up" and they've simply upset the family they lied to.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Chicog

[Steely Dan]

Cover up of what?

The State Department has stated ""We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

I would imagine that if they were, they probably would have evacuated Stevens and his staff beforehand.

CNN released comments to the effect that "the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.".

No Shit Sherlock.

They have not revealed any "cover up" and they've simply upset the family they lied to.

Well in that case why persist in the straw man argument that the Mohammed film was the reason the consulate was attacked when there wasn't even a crowd gathered outside at the time of the attack as there was in Cairo. Seems like a cynical ploy to deflect attention from their own shortcomings from where I'm standing.

[Chicog]

Cover up of what?

The State Department has stated ""We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

I would imagine that if they were, they probably would have evacuated Stevens and his staff beforehand.

CNN released comments to the effect that "the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.".

No Shit Sherlock.

They have not revealed any "cover up" and they've simply upset the family they lied to.

Well in that case why persist in the straw man argument that the Mohammed film was the reason the consulate was attacked when there wasn't even a crowd gathered outside at the time of the attack as there was in Cairo. Seems like a cynical ploy to deflect attention from their own shortcomings from where I'm standing.

The reporting I heard was that there was a small crowd of mainly young protestors on the scene when the attackers arrived armed with RPGs. This language below seems pretty unequivocal.

"Terming the assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans including the country's ambassador to Libya as "terrorist attack", US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday vowed to bring to justice those who were responsible for it.

In joint press availability with the visiting Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Clinton said: "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought justice the terrorists who murdered the four Americans."

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/us-consulate-attack-act-of-terrorism-hillary-clinton/1/221943.html

[simple1]

That is because drones have only recently become advanced enough to use widely in warfare. I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush and other presidents would have used them extensively had they been as capable as they are now.

yes the increase in drone attacks due to more capabilities from technology was in my mind, but there are some posters saying Obama is doing little to combat terrorism

I will give credit to Obama for increasing drone attacks. I'd rather long distance death from above than having our people killed by the Afghans they are training.

UG is also right, it's fair to say that Bush or McCain, being "right wing Republican warmongering war criminals" would have launched even more.

Obama has publicly outlined the Administration criteria for authorising drone attacks. Are you saying that Bush/McCain would use less rigorous criteria for killing people? Summary below and source is: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/obama-drone/

1 “It has to be a target that is authorised by our laws.”

2 “It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative.”

3 “It has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.”

4 “We’ve got to make sure that in whatever operations we conduct, we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties.”

5 “That while there is a legal justification for us to try and stop [American citizens] from carrying out plots … they are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process.”

[koheesti]

That is because drones have only recently become advanced enough to use widely in warfare. I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush and other presidents would have used them extensively had they been as capable as they are now.

yes the increase in drone attacks due to more capabilities from technology was in my mind, but there are some posters saying Obama is doing little to combat terrorism

I will give credit to Obama for increasing drone attacks. I'd rather long distance death from above than having our people killed by the Afghans they are training.

UG is also right, it's fair to say that Bush or McCain, being "right wing Republican warmongering war criminals" would have launched even more.

Obama has publicly outlined the Administration criteria for authorising drone attacks. Are you saying that Bush/McCain would use less rigorous criteria for killing people?

Nothing in my quote suggests anything about the criteria. It did however suggest that a Republican president would launch even more attacks than Obama. That is because Democrat presidents - especially Nobel Peace Prize winning ones - haven't been all that aggressive since the 1960's...although the US did blow up the Chinese Embassy in Serbia under a Democrat president. I bet they are still pissed over that one.

[Scott]

Drop the discussion of Bush and his relationship to the Saudi Royal family.

If you have nothing to say, don't post. If you simply wish to bait other people into an argument, you will get a posting suspension.

[Chicog]

Unbelievable foot in mouth from Fox's Rivera whilst attempting to take a cheap shot at CNN:

CNN reported on dead dude's Libyan journal after Stevens family begged them not to-major tacky-sometimes this business sucks

As someone aptly said "I think this business sucks because people like Rivera work in it".

[koheesti]

Unbelievable foot in mouth from Fox's Rivera whilst attempting to take a cheap shot at CNN:

CNN reported on dead dude's Libyan journal after Stevens family begged them not to-major tacky-sometimes this business sucks

As someone aptly said "I think this business sucks because people like Rivera work in it".

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone would be singing a different tune if there had really been something in Al Capone's vault!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r5xBMNfOl4

Edited September 24, 2012 by koheesti

[GentlemanJim]

When I worked in countries that were considered dangerous, the ultimate decision on security was in my hands. If the State Department knew of a real and credible threat, I was informed and, on one occasion, was evacuated from the country. I was briefed on the threat and the decision was left to me if I wished to return and when I wished to return. The people involved were interested in seeing that reasonable precautions were being taken, but that was about it.

There is no way that anyone in a central office in another country can usually make an accurate assessment of a security threat and implement a plan. The decisions made in Washington is to keep or pull out personnel. Quite frequently, you will see family members and non-essential personnel removed. In some cases everyone is evacuated.

In a situation which develops rather quickly, security measures have to be implemented locally. It's a gamble and in this case, it was one that was lost.

As I understand it you were not an employee of the State Department, you were a contract employee, thus the government was not terribly concerned about your well being. I have been warned to get out of several countries as well, but the decision was always up to me. State Department employees and their dependents are told where to go to get on an airplane and are not offered any choice.

My point has always been why was the villa in Benghazi considered a "safe" house when it was not safe. I also know a safe house is supposed to be in a location not well known. That was not the case in Benghazi. The building was nothing more than a concrete block structure with ordinary glass windows. The terrorists could have breached the interior with rocks, forget the RPGs.

This entire fiasco was a failure of the State Department (Hillary Clinton) in not ensuring adequate security precautions were taken to insure the well being of Embassy personnel. The building was used as a security repository even though it was not secure. They had notice from Libyan intelligence of a personal danger to ambassador Stevens yet the Ambassador was permitted to roam around freely in the country without adequate security.

Hillary and Barack are the players behind this disaster and no amount of bending the truth will absolve them of vacating their responsibility.

Sorry, but if the Ambassador to a country, the senior Government representative of his own country cannot make a decision on what is and what is not safe and direct the almost unlimited resources available to him to rectifying the situation then what is going on? Passing it up to Clinton and Obama is ludicrous and a pi** poor attempt at political point scoring, but totally in the spirit of what Romney tries to do. Peas in a pod!

You cannot pass down the security of a single building in one country of all those the USA have a presence in to the POTUS and the SoS. Hey, pass it further up the line to God why don't you.

Edited September 24, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[chuckd]

When I worked in countries that were considered dangerous, the ultimate decision on security was in my hands. If the State Department knew of a real and credible threat, I was informed and, on one occasion, was evacuated from the country. I was briefed on the threat and the decision was left to me if I wished to return and when I wished to return. The people involved were interested in seeing that reasonable precautions were being taken, but that was about it.

There is no way that anyone in a central office in another country can usually make an accurate assessment of a security threat and implement a plan. The decisions made in Washington is to keep or pull out personnel. Quite frequently, you will see family members and non-essential personnel removed. In some cases everyone is evacuated.

In a situation which develops rather quickly, security measures have to be implemented locally. It's a gamble and in this case, it was one that was lost.

As I understand it you were not an employee of the State Department, you were a contract employee, thus the government was not terribly concerned about your well being. I have been warned to get out of several countries as well, but the decision was always up to me. State Department employees and their dependents are told where to go to get on an airplane and are not offered any choice.

My point has always been why was the villa in Benghazi considered a "safe" house when it was not safe. I also know a safe house is supposed to be in a location not well known. That was not the case in Benghazi. The building was nothing more than a concrete block structure with ordinary glass windows. The terrorists could have breached the interior with rocks, forget the RPGs.

This entire fiasco was a failure of the State Department (Hillary Clinton) in not ensuring adequate security precautions were taken to insure the well being of Embassy personnel. The building was used as a security repository even though it was not secure. They had notice from Libyan intelligence of a personal danger to ambassador Stevens yet the Ambassador was permitted to roam around freely in the country without adequate security.

Hillary and Barack are the players behind this disaster and no amount of bending the truth will absolve them of vacating their responsibility.

Sorry, but if the Ambassador to a country, the senior Government representative of his own country cannot make a decision on what is and what is not safe and direct the almost unlimited resources available to him to rectifying the situation then what is going on? Passing it up to Clinton and Obama is ludicrous and a pi** poor attempt at political point scoring, but totally in the spirit of what Romney tries to do. Peas in a pod!

You cannot pass down the security of a single building in one country of all those the USA have a presence in to the POTUS and the SoS. Hey, pass it further up the line to God why don't you.

I particularly liked this little gem from you..."the senior Government representative of his own country cannot make a decision on what is and what is not safe and direct the almost unlimited resources available to him to rectifying the situation then what is going on?"

If that's the case why was the State Department as much as FIVE YEARS away from providing a marine security detachment for Libya? These decisions are made in Washington and the Ambassador can request but not order additional security measures. Perhaps the UK gives such powers to their Ambassadors but the UK did not lose four good men because of improper security measures. The US did.

Having experience in dealing with State on security issues, they do nothing without the approval of higher ups. The Ambassadors are political appointees and do as they are told. What you don't seem to fathom is the facilities in which they were conducting business in Benghazi. As I have said numerous times before, the Consulate (safe house) was located in a concrete block building with plate glass windows. Rioters with rocks could have broken in and taken everything over. This was a planned terrorist attack aimed at the Ambassador and any Americans they might catch with him. Washington knew where he was and what he was doing and they made no effort to provide him adequate protection or tell him to avoid Benghazi. If you believe other wise, you are being naive in the extreme.

This was a complete and total breakdown of security preparations and goes all the way to the top. You might not like it but I doubt if the four dead American's families liked it very much either.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but if the Ambassador to a country, the senior Government representative of his own country cannot make a decision on what is and what is not safe and direct the almost unlimited resources available to him to rectifying the situation then what is going on?

The State Department are the ones to ask that question. CNN have Ambassador Steven's diary and are reporting that he was very worried about being murdered because of the bad security situation.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

I would imagine the four families that lost loved ones are really comforted by this Obamaspeak. Hardly a "Buck stops here" moment for the incumbent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: ‘I Bear Responsibility for Everything--To Some Degree’

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

September 24, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama said on 60 Minutes on Sunday that he bears responsibility “for everything--to some degree."

“If you ask me what’s my biggest disappointment, it’s that we haven’t changed the tone in Washington as much as I would have liked,” Obama said.

CBS News's Steve Kroft then asked him: “And you don’t bear any responsibility for that?”

Obama said, “Oh I think that, you know, as president I bear responsibility for everything--to some degree.”

http://cnsnews.com/n...ing-some-degree

[chuckd]

The more news that emerges on the Benghazi attack, the greater the knowledge where blame should be placed.

This is a massive mistake from the highest levels of the government.

Where does that buck stop again?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary

Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

Worth the trouble to read: http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

Edited October 2, 2012 by chuckd

[Asiantravel]

The more news that emerges on the Benghazi attack, the greater the knowledge where blame should be placed.

This is a massive mistake from the highest levels of the government.

Where does that buck stop again?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary

Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

Worth the trouble to read: http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

it keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.........

http://www.youtube.c...&v=J0EfXnSFVfc#!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Asiantravel

[chuckd]

This on the news today. Fox will report these things even if the MSM chooses not to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[koheesti]

The media LOVED Cindy Sheehan back in 2004. She was the mother who lost a son in Iraq, went to the White House, met with Bush, came out of the meeting praising Bush. Then months later she took a far left turn to the left and demanded a second meeting with Bush. She was denied and became a media darling, with hundreds of articles and TV news stories. Today, the parents of those killed in Benghazi because someone in the government refused to send help during the all night attack get snubbed by the media.

Anyone remember the Valerie Plame-CIA agent outing? The media thought that was a MAJOR scandal. It was on the news more than Superstorm Sandy. No one died. She was safe in Washington DC. The media camped out on Rove's lawn and the lawn of other Bush admin members. The story dragged on for over a year. I bet no one here (on the left) can name the person who outed Plame as a CIA agent without doing an Internet search. Today, we have CIA members killed protecting diplomats in Benghazi, killed because they were refused help and the media stays silent.

This Benghazi thing is not going away. It is a major scandal whether the mainstream media wants it to be or not. It is a double scandal - it will take down the Obama presidency (assuming he wins next week) and it is also a scandal for the media which already has record low trust of the American people.

[simple1]

The more news that emerges on the Benghazi attack, the greater the knowledge where blame should be placed.

This is a massive mistake from the highest levels of the government.

Where does that buck stop again?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary

Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

Worth the trouble to read: http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

it keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.........

http://www.youtube.c...&v=J0EfXnSFVfc#!

Most definitely getting dirty with a Christian far right wing media channel hosting a presenter stating that Ambassador Stevens was CIA and in collusion with the Administration knowingly facilitated procurement & shipping of Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda operatives in Libya and Syria. The content origin is from a right wing lobby group. This story has now been picked up by the Russians; refer http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20055271

Still do not understand why the Ambassador and his support team stayed in Benghazi when they clearly knew of the major security risks presented by Al Qaeda affiliated organisations based in the city. To be positive, I assume he and his team were very dedicated and brave people. The allegations made in the YouTube video by the presenter are an insult to the sacrifices made by the Ambassador & his team.

[koheesti]

What triggered these attacks.

I reckon the film is inflammatory but it's just a film made by an Israeli in L.A..

http://www.washingto...f8eb_story.html

The two-hour movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.

The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.

You know, I've read through the first pages of this thread, and the other one from when the attack first happened and I can't find mention of it being a "terrorist attack". Maybe someone else will have more luck.

Edited November 1, 2012 by koheesti

[chokrai]

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/benghazi-october-surprise

[Asiantravel]

The more news that emerges on the Benghazi attack, the greater the knowledge where blame should be placed.

This is a massive mistake from the highest levels of the government.

Where does that buck stop again?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary

Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

Worth the trouble to read: http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

it keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.........

http://www.youtube.c...&v=J0EfXnSFVfc#!

Most definitely getting dirty with a Christian far right wing media channel hosting a presenter stating that Ambassador Stevens was CIA and in collusion with the Administration knowingly facilitated procurement & shipping of Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda operatives in Libya and Syria. The content origin is from a right wing lobby group. This story has now been picked up by the Russians; refer http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20055271

Still do not understand why the Ambassador and his support team stayed in Benghazi when they clearly knew of the major security risks presented by Al Qaeda affiliated organisations based in the city. To be positive, I assume he and his team were very dedicated and brave people. The allegations made in the YouTube video by the presenter are an insult to the sacrifices made by the Ambassador & his team.

Why is it so hard to believe? Richard Helms was Dir of Central intelligence in 1966 and ended up as US ambassador to Iran

[simple1]

The more news that emerges on the Benghazi attack, the greater the knowledge where blame should be placed.

This is a massive mistake from the highest levels of the government.

Where does that buck stop again?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary

Oct 2, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

The State Department did not offer comment on the record last night.

Worth the trouble to read: http://www.thedailyb...nniversary.html

it keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.........

http://www.youtube.c...&v=J0EfXnSFVfc#!

Most definitely getting dirty with a Christian far right wing media channel hosting a presenter stating that Ambassador Stevens was CIA and in collusion with the Administration knowingly facilitated procurement & shipping of Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda operatives in Libya and Syria. The content origin is from a right wing lobby group. This story has now been picked up by the Russians; refer http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20055271

Still do not understand why the Ambassador and his support team stayed in Benghazi when they clearly knew of the major security risks presented by Al Qaeda affiliated organisations based in the city. To be positive, I assume he and his team were very dedicated and brave people. The allegations made in the YouTube video by the presenter are an insult to the sacrifices made by the Ambassador & his team.

Why is it so hard to believe? Richard Helms was Dir of Central intelligence in 1966 and ended up as US ambassador to Iran

Remembering the activities of previous Administrations such as the Iran/Contra affair may be some aspects of the reports prove to be accurate. But why are so many security consultants/experts, in collaboration with the media, so intent on detailing US military assets, decision making processes, response times etc. Just makes zero sense to me feeding the enemy with so much info in the public domain; bordering on treasonable activity.