State Department dismantled security in Libya before assault

| January 23, 2013

The Washington Times reports that investigators into the events leading up to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three veterans at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya discovered that the State Department had reduced by two-thirds the security detail in Libya in the days prior to the September 11th attack despite the warnings that folks on the ground were sending to Washington regarding the deteriorating situation there.

The investigators have determined that between May and September, the department reduced the number of Mobile Security Deployment teams from three to one, thinning the potential U.S. security officers available to protect diplomats by at least twelve, the Washington Guardian has learned.

In addition, the lone remaining six-member Mobile Security Team in Libya at the time Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed was detailed primarily to training Libyan security officials rather than providing force protection to U.S. officials, the sources told the Washington Guardian.

That’s been my problem with this situation all along – not that there weren’t enough security people, but that they had reduced security despite pleas from the ambassador for beefing up security. Remember they also had military people on the ground there which they also withdrew in the weeks prior to the assault on the consulate.

It’s almost as if they were inviting an attack.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NHSparky says:

    Three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and the stalling/obfuscation by this administration over anything they would consider remotely critical or wrong they’ve done.

  2. AW1 Tim says:


    The conspiracy guy in me thinks that this administration intentionally let these guys die in order to cover up their illegal arms sales to Syrian (and other) rebel factions and forces.

    Right behind the embassy were two large warehouses that had some serious security features, and large loading docks. Both were looted and the State department has been unwilling to say just what was being stored in those facilities.

    YMMV, but that’s the storyline that seems most probable to me.

  3. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @2. Well, maybe H. “Wide Load” Clinton will be asked that question when she testifies today. It should be interesting. She has had weeks and weeks of prep for this. How many times will she offer nat’l security as the reason for declining to answer a question? How many times will she use the editorial or royal “we” in answering questions? Yes, it should be interesting but not very enlightening.

  4. USMCE8Ret says:

    The whole thing that bothers me about this situation is the backpeddaling I anticipate will occur during Clinton’s testimony. Of even deeper concern, will the hard questions get asked and will honest and forthright answers be given that would precipitate some real accountablility?

    It seems to me that common sense would prevail for the State Department, and ensure that all consulates and embassies security is enhanced, particularly around the anniversary of 9/11, since it now seems to be a preferred date to launch such attacks against American sovereignty.

  5. rb325th says:

    Hillary blamed the House for the lack of security in Benghazi, stating it was because of their lack of providing funding.

  6. NHSparky says:

    Maybe someone can ask her how funding got cut when there hasn’t been a budget passed IN FOUR YEARS???

  7. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    H. “Wide Load” Clinton aggressed during her testimony and some dolt of a senator didn’t know what to do. I’ll save it for what I’m sure will be a separate thread by Jonn just for Secretary Wide Load’s testimony. If not, I’ll have at it here much later.

  8. USMCE8Ret says:

    She said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Too bad we didn’t hear a response like this:

    “Madam Secretary… The very agency that’s supposed to oversee security for sovereign American soil in foreign locations rests on both your agency and the White House, in which all evidence shows so far that you failed to do. When you, or agents of your agency (and this administration) lie to the American people, the public tends to mistrust you, and that results in the erosion of the trust the public expects from its government institutions. The fact that your statements here today are disingenuous brings discredit not only to the office you hold, but dishonors the memories of the American lives that were lost in Benghazi – and should strike deep concern for the welfare and security for those currently serving abroad today. The difference is that had you done your job and had your facts strait in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

  9. NHSparky says:

    Air Cav–I read your comment, and I’m offended by your reference to Hillary Clinton as “Secretary Wide Load”.

    Former Senator and current Secretary Cankles is more deserving of respect than that cheap shot.

  10. Twist says:

    Hey, it’s not her fault that she fell out of the fat tree and ate every dognut on the way down.

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    That statement sickens me on so many levels.

  11. NHSparky says:

    Well of course not, Twist! Nobody’s going to hold her accountable!

    Now had that been Coldoleeza Rice who had said something like that, you just know Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) would be screaming for her head before the echoes of those words had even died down.

    Fucking sickening.

  12. AW1 Tim says:

    Her entire testimony is disgusting on so many levels.

  13. DaveO says:

    Listened to Rep Gerry Connolly of VA on WTOP this morning (carpool driver is slowly becoming a TEA Partier). When asked what questions he would ask Madam Secretary, Connolly scolded Republicans for trying to make political hay of the incident, and for cutting State’s budget, and that there are terrorists out there.

    Listened to Madam Secretary’s statements at work. Almost verbatim what Connolly said. I expect the newsies have already filed their stories backing up Madam Secretary for this next week.

    No one has been able to figure out how State’s budget was cut since no budget has been passed since CY2009 (FY2010), and spending has been frozen at the FY2010 level ever since.

    I do believe this is Madam Secretary’s second ever instance of being held to account, and being told she’d’ve been fired for her actions and inactions. The first being her learning that her hubby preferred just about every woman to her.

  14. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I agree with AW1 Tim’s comment in 12. The woman has no shame. It was clear that her heavy prep worked for her. When she can get away with wielding the deaths of four Americans to her advantage when it was on her watch that they were murdered, that’s just beyond words. She waltzed herself away from the phantom protest explanation as if she barely heard of it. She took responsibility for many things but consequences she wanted nothing to do with. Why, she was even hamstrung by personnel rules in doling out disciplne to her security chief and others! The poor thing. Yes, this was disgusting and revealed nothing Wide Load did not want to reveal in her testimony. It is she and her ilk that make me think sometimes that we are a dying country, rotting from the inside out and from the top to the bottom.

  15. OWB says:

    Exactly, AC. Could not have said it better.

    Could not watch or listen to more than a few minutes of her terstimony at a time, but managed to observe the mood shifts, the outright lies, the obfuscation, and her mumbling when she had to ad lib an answer. It was painful and disgusting to see.