Benghazi U.S. Amb. Christopher Stevens turned down offers of more security twice

[HomerJS]

So the ambassador in charge, on the ground, closest to the action refused additional security twice. So why do Republicans get Benghazi tourrets every time Hillarys name is mentioned?

“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

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ador-turned-security-report-article-1.1345119

 

[michal1980]

because even feinstien said the incident was preventable and a failure of the state department. Who ran the state department at that time?

 

[loganone]

Your referenced article is almost a year old. The actual truth is coming out now.

U.S. officials involved in security at the consulate testified before a House committee last year that Stevens had informed his superiors of several incidents that concerned him greatly about the need for improved security. The CIA has also said it had made its concerns about security known to the White House.

Among the incidents leading up to the attacks were assaults on the Red Cross and British embassy personnel, and local militia charged with protecting U.S. staff acting in suspicious manners.

Yet the requests for a boost in security were denied by State.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/

Call it a faux scandal if you want, but at the absolute minimum this was a display of gross negligence by the state department.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why am I not surprised that homer is defending obama. They blamed it on a video and pandered to radical Islam.

 

[theeedude]

Stevens should have evacuated his people from Benghazi to Tripoli like the British did.
He knew what level of security was on the ground in Benghazi. Ultimately it was his decision to stay and take his chances with the militias.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Stevens should have evacuated his people from Benghazi to Tripoli like the British did.
He knew what level of security was on the ground in Benghazi. Ultimately it was his decision to stay and take his chances with the militias.

Are you blaming the victim for the government's lack of foresight/ensuring the safety of diplomatic personnel?

 

[boomerang]

Are you blaming the victim for the government's lack of foresight/ensuring the safety of diplomatic personnel?

Of course he is. The question didn't really need to be asked.

 

[schmuckley]

Wow.
You know..WW1 was started over an ambassador getting shot.

 

[theeedude]

Are you blaming the victim for the government's lack of foresight/ensuring the safety of diplomatic personnel?

He was the government employee in charge of diplomatic personnel in Libya, was aware of the security situation, and should have evacuated them to a safe location, like the British did. It was his lack of foresight that landed him and his men in the situation they ended up in. You can argue that the three who died defending him were victims, but Stevens voluntarily gambled and lost.

 

[kage69]

Wow.
You know..WW1 was started over an ambassador getting shot.

Not really. Ferdinand was an Arch Duke and a Prince, heir to the Austro Hungarian throne.

Sorry, but that's a little more prestigious than a position often given to wealthy or influential campaign donors. Some of them don't even speak the language of the country their sent to, Bush's choice for France being a prime example.

 

[theeedude]

Of course he is. The question didn't really need to be asked.

You are blaming Hillary? Of course you are. The question didn't really need to be asked.

 

[boomerang]

He was the government employee in charge of diplomatic personnel in Libya, was aware of the security situation, and should have evacuated them to a safe location, like the British did. It was his lack of foresight that landed him and his men in the situation they ended up in. You can argue that the three who died defending him were victims, but Stevens voluntarily gambled and lost.

And there you go folks. A little glimpse into the progressive brain. Yes, it's ugly in there.

Hey, did Stevens deserve to get fucked in the ass too? Not sure if it was prior to his death or afterwards so if you think that's relevant include it in your reply.

 

[theeedude]

And there you go folks. A little glimpse into the progressive brain. Yes, it's ugly in there.

Hey, did Stevens deserve to get fucked in the ass too? Not sure if it was prior to his death or afterwards so if you think that's relevant include it in your reply.

And there you go, a little glimpse into the conservative brain, it's just Hillary and a bunch of strawmen in there. Nothing to see, moving along.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He was the government employee in charge of diplomatic personnel in Libya, was aware of the security situation, and should have evacuated them to a safe location, like the British did. It was his lack of foresight that landed him and his men in the situation they ended up in. You can argue that the three who died defending him were victims, but Stevens voluntarily gambled and lost.

The President and the Secretary of State should have ordered Stevens/diplomatic personnel to leave the country at the same time they removed the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya in August.

 

[theeedude]

The President and the Secretary of State should have ordered Stevens/diplomatic personnel to leave the country at the same time they removed the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya in August.

He was what, a little baby, who needed mommy and daddy to hold his hand and tell him what to do? He was the Ambassador, the person most familiar with the situation on the ground, and with command of his people on the ground. He was offered more security, turned it down, decided to trust local militias instead. He knew the security situation, decided to stay in a villa in Benghazi instead of evacuating to the well defended embassy in Tripoli on 9/11, like the British did. He played with fire one too many times, got burned, and burned some of his people too.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He was what, a little baby, who needed mommy and daddy to hold his hand and tell him what to do? He was the Ambassador, the person most familiar with the situation on the ground, and with command of his people on the ground. He was offered more security, turned it down, decided to trust local militias instead. He knew the security situation, decided to stay in a villa in Benghazi instead of evacuating to the well defended embassy in Tripoli on 9/11, like the British did. He played with fire one too many times, got burned, and burned some of his people too.

I think you need to read the link loganone provided that debunks your claim that Stevens turned down more security.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/

 

[theeedude]

I think you need to read the link loganone provided that debunks your claim that Stevens turned down more security.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/

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

But even aside from that, Stevens KNEW what security was available in Benghazi at the time. Knowing what it was, he CHOSE to remain in Benghazi, instead of moving to a more secure embassy in Tripoli, like the British did. If he felt the security in Benghazi was inadequate, he had an OBLIGATION to move his people to a location where security was adequate, not take chances with their lives and his.

 

[thraashman]

I think you need to read the link loganone provided that debunks your claim that Stevens turned down more security.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/

From loganone's link

The April cable from State acknowledged then-Ambassador Gene Cretz's formal request for additional security but still ordered "the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

From Homer's link

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.

So from reading it seems that Cretz, the ambassador who preceeded Stevens, asked for additional security and was turned down. Then, after Stevens became ambassador, more security was offered to him and he turned it down.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

But even aside from that, Stevens KNEW what security was available in Benghazi at the time. Knowing what it was, he CHOSE to remain in Benghazi, instead of moving to a more secure embassy in Tripoli, like the British did. If he felt the security in Benghazi was inadequate, he had an OBLIGATION to move his people to a location where security was adequate, not take chances with their lives and his.

I think you need to look at the date of the article that quote came from as it was debunked in the latest article. Nice try anyway.

 

[boomerang]

And down the rabbit hole we go...

 

[hawtdawg]

Remember guys, operations with the CIA involved are top secret, and exposing them could endanger national security... Unless it will get OHBUMBA IMPEACHED!!! then WHY ARENT THEY TELLING US THE TROOOTH?

 

[theeedude]

I think you need to look at the date of the article that quote came from as it was debunked in the latest article. Nice try anyway.

Nice try what?
If I accept your version of events that Stevens KNEW Benghazi was unsafe and needed more security, having not received this extra security, it was his responsibility as Ambassador to move his people to a place with adequate security, such as the US Embassy in Tripoli.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Nice try what?
If I accept your version of events that Stevens KNEW Benghazi was unsafe and needed more security, having not received this extra security, it was his responsibility as Ambassador to move his people to a place with adequate security, such as the US Embassy in Tripoli.

The Embassy in Tripoli wasn't safe either as the 3 x 6 man State Dept security teams and 16 man military team had been removed in August.

 

[theeedude]

The Embassy in Tripoli wasn't safe either as the 3 x 6 man State Dept security teams and 16 man military team had been removed in August.

Embassies are defended by the US Marines.

 

[rudder]

Embassies are defended by the US Marines.

The complex in Benghazi was not an Embassy. Also most embassies do not have CIA gun running operations taking place. Another point is the military did not know the extent of the CIA operations from Benghazi.