• House probes security leading up to Libya attack (Tri-Source)
    12 replies, posted
Ex-security officers testify about frustration at State Department over Libya security October 10, 2012 FOX [quote] After a day of testimony on Capitol Hill and weeks of conflicting accounts from the Obama administration regarding the deadly Libya attack, the frustration of boots-on-the-ground employees boiled over late Wednesday. Scathing criticism from two former security officers for the U.S. mission in Libya surfaced at the close of an already-tense hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. During that hearing, senior officials continued to play down any suggestion that additional security forces could have prevented what was described as an "unprecedented" attack on Sept. 11. But the two security officers indicated they were butting heads with higher-ups all along to try to secure more staffing. "We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn't even keep what we had," said Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli. The State Department's former regional security officer in the country, Eric Nordstrom, closed by recalling a conversation he had with a State official when asking for more agents on the ground. After being told he was asking for too much, Nordstrom recalled saying: "'You know what (is) most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.' "And I added it by saying, 'For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.'" Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, at a briefing assembled for reporters shortly after the hearing, directly responded to that remark. "I was simply surprised to hear language like that used," he said. Kennedy stressed the 16-member team led by Wood, while valued, was based in Tripoli and not Benghazi. He and others suggested that extending the team's assignment, which ended earlier this year, and granting Nordstrom the extra agents that we wanted would not necessarily have prevented the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. "The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security, a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available," Kennedy said during the hearing. "The assault that occurred on the evening of Sept. 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," he said. The security question, though, was only part of what lawmakers were probing on Wednesday. Members of both parties were also trying to find out more about why administration officials initially claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film, only to acknowledge later it was a coordinated terror strike. Senior State officials, though, walked a fine line as they delivered the department's nuanced position. Lawmakers repeatedly pressed the witnesses to explain, as they offered what was by any objective measure a confusing account. A State Department official had claimed Tuesday that the film link was "not our conclusion." Yet Kennedy on Wednesday stood by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who famously asserted a link between the film and the Libya attack on the Sunday after the assault. "No one in the administration has claimed to know for certain all the answers. ... For example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, Sept. 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said," Kennedy testified. "The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point." This statement prompted a flurry of follow-up questions -- since Kennedy himself had told lawmakers on Sept. 12 that he thought the strike was coordinated. Kennedy acknowledged Wednesday that was his personal opinion, only to deny moments later that his conclusion based on the information at hand was any different from Rice's. Kennedy reiterated Wednesday that he and others were "drawing on the same intelligence information" that Rice used. The ultimate explanation from Kennedy appeared to be that he and others -- regardless of their own personal opinions -- were drawing on faulty intelligence information, and didn't know it was faulty until days later. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the oversight committee, said Wednesday that it appeared the department was beginning "the process of coming clean." White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at a separate briefing, gave an explanation similar to Kennedy's. "Initial assessments in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Benghazi were made and it was a government-wide assessment that the foundation of what Ambassador Rice said, what I said, and what others said," he said. "What we knew based on the limited facts we had available to us at that time." The rest of the House hearing, the first held to date on the Libya attack, was devoted to security in Libya in the run-up to the attack. Wood testified that "diplomatic security remained weak" through 2011. "The (regional security officer) struggled to obtain additional personnel but ... was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with," he said. He told the panel that U.S. security was so weak that in April, only one U.S. diplomatic security agent was stationed in Benghazi. Issa has alleged that the State Department turned aside pleas from its diplomats in Libya to increase security in the months and weeks before the attack in Benghazi. Nordstrom addressed the diplomatic security issue in an Oct. 1 email to a congressional investigator. He said his requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." Nordstrom, though, also said in written testimony that he felt most of his resource requests were considered "seriously and fastidiously" by the State Department. A memo Tuesday by the Oversight Committee's Democratic staff provided details of Nordstrom's interview with the panel's investigators. In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency. Lamb defended her assessment during the hearing, claiming that the team believed it had the "correct number of assets" in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Issa took exception to this, saying that the statement "doesn't seem to ring true to the American people" given how quickly the attackers were able to breach the compound on Sept. 11. Democrats at times suggested the Republican majority on the panel was politicizing the attack. They complained that they were given short notice of a recent trip to Libya, and of conversations between Republicans and witnesses. "No good is done to the security of the United States to politicize this tragedy," said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va. Meanwhile, the White House said Wednesday that counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has met with Libya's president on a visit to Tripoli. The White House says Brennan reinforced U.S. support for Libya as it continues a transition to democracy. The Associated Press contributed to this report.[/quote] source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/diplomatic-security-in-libya-weak-former-military-team-chief-says[/url] House probes security leading up to Libya attack October 10, 2012, 2:41 PM CBS [quote]State Department officials said Wednesday that security levels at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were adequate for the threat level on the anniversary of 9/11 but that the compound was overrun by an "unprecedented attack" by dozens of heavily armed extremists. The officials testified before an election-season congressional hearing on accusations of security failures at the consulate that led or contributed to the deaths of the Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said the number of U.S. and local security guards at the compound was consistent with what had been requested by the post. "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11," said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state for diplomatic security in charge of protecting American embassies and consulates around the world. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, on one of several contentious moments between lawmakers and witnesses, told Lamb that explanation didn't "ring true" in light of the deadly attacks. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday that in hindsight "there is no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening." "There were four Americans killed," he said. Lamb noted that there were five diplomatic security agents at the consulate at the time of the attack, along with additional Libyan guards and a rapid response team at a nearby annex. In a hastily scrambled post-hearing presser, State Department official Pat Kennedy said of keeping a consulate in Benghazi: "It was worth the risk." Kennedy is one of the highest-ranking State Department officials to speak on the issue so far. He said "we had to be there" as the new Libya was being born. However, the State Department is reassessing whether or not to return to Benghazi and have a presence there. The security support from the Department of Defense was "superb," but it was focused on Tripoli, not Benghazi. Staffing in Benghazi was consistent with the numbers that Eric Nordstrom requested, according to Kennedy. Having extra guards or agents wouldn't have allowed them respond any differently to the type of assault that occurred. Kennedy was "surprised" to hear Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer in Libya, say that he felt that the "Taliban is inside the building" when referring to State Department refusals of asset requests. He said that he spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the hearing, but hasn't since the hearing. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has criticized the administration's early response to the attack and has made it a campaign issue, saying Monday that President Barack Obama has led a weak foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Eric Nordstrom earlier told congressional investigators that he had requested more security but that request was blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." Under questioning, though, he said he had sought mainly to prevent any reduction in staff, rather than have a big increase. "I'm confident that the committee will conclude that Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service and Mission Libya officers conducted themselves professionally and with careful attention to managing people and budgets in a way that reflects the gravity of their task," Nordstrom said. In his prepared statement, Nordstrom said the "ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault." A memo Tuesday by the Oversight Committee's Democratic staff provided details of Nordstrom's interview with the panel's investigators. In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses. He stated that Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency. Nordstrom's Oct. 1 memo to the congressional investigator said, "You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions. "This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection. "Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi." Nordstrom, who served in his role as regional security officer until July 2012, also provided the committee with a list of 230 security incidents between Sept. 2011 and July 2012. Lamb rejected allegations from Republican lawmakers, supported by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli, that an extension of Wood's mission could have made a difference during the attack. "It would not have made any difference in Benghazi," Lamb said, pointing out that Wood's team was based in Tripoli and spent nearly all of its time there. Wood, a member of the Utah National Guard who left Libya in August, told the committee that the security in Benghazi "was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there." In testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he said that U.S. security was so weak that in April, only one diplomatic security agent was stationed in Benghazi. However, Lamb and Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy stressed that the regional security officer's requests for personnel had been met. "The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security, a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available," said Kennedy, a four-decade veteran of the foreign service. "The assault that occurred on the evening of Sept. 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," he said. The attack on the consulate and the Obama administration's evolving explanations of what happened have become a political football in the run-up to November's presidential election with Democrats saying that Republicans are trying to use a tragedy to score partisan points. In statements immediately after the attack, neither President Barack Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton mentioned terrorism. And both gave credence to the notion that the attack was related to protests about an anti-Islam video. "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said on the night of the attack. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." Republican lawmakers leveled heavy criticism at Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for saying five days after the attack that it was an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest linked to the anti-Muslim film. "If any administration official including any career official were on television on Sunday, Sept. 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said," Kennedy said. "The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point." CBS News, as early as Sept. 12, reported that U.S. officials suspected the attackers were either associated with or sympathized with al Qaeda and took advantage of the so-called protest to stage a coordinated attack. But witnesses in Benghazi later told CBS News that no protest had occurred at all, a fact the State Department acknowledged Tuesday in a briefing with reporters. Asked about the administration's initial - and since retracted - explanation linking the violence to protests over the anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far. Republican committee members sought to take the witnesses to task for that shifting explanation of what happened in Benghazi, suggesting that the administration was trying to cover up that it was unprepared for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The hearing opened with a blunt partisan exchange between the committee chairman, Issa, R-Calif., and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland who accused Republican members of withholding documents and witnesses and keeping Democrats out of the loop on a fact-finding trip to Libya last week. Issa denied any wrongdoing.[/quote] source: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57529888/house-probes-security-leading-up-to-libya-attack[/url] U.S. official says superiors worked against effort to boost Benghazi security updated 8:37 PM EDT, Wed October 10, 2012 CNN [quote]The State Department's former point man on security in Libya told a congressional hearing Wednesday that his superiors worked against him as he tried to get more help for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi in the months before it was overrun in a deadly terror attack. Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, told the House Oversight Committee that he had a disheartening conversation with the regional director of the agency's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs when he requested additional manpower for the facility. "I said, 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships. It's not the gunfire. It's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me," Nordstrom said. He also told the State Department officer, "'For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building." That bombshell ended a contentious hearing during which two State Department officials defended the Obama administration's handling of the September 11 attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Benghazi has become a flashpoint in the presidential campaign with Republican Mitt Romney saying the attack illustrates that President Barack Obama's policies have made America less influential and more vulnerable around the world. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness. "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information," Kennedy said. The assault on the U.S. compound was "an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," Kennedy said. His colleague, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb, added that the State Department "had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time," drawing a sharp rebuke from committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California. "To start off by saying you had the correct number, and our ambassador and three other individuals are dead, and people are in the hospital recovering because it only took moments to breach that facility somehow doesn't seem to ring true to the American people," Issa said. Republican committee members and the State Department officials went back and forth about the appropriate number of people needed to provide security at the vulnerable Benghazi location. Various communications dating back nearly a year asked for anywhere from three to five diplomatic security special agents. As the four-hour hearing drew to a close, Nordstrom divulged he had verbally asked for significantly more help -- 12 agents -- but the officer from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs had rebuffed his request. "His response to that was, 'You're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars,'" Nordstrom said. That attitude made the Benghazi incident predictable, according to Nordstrom, who left Libya in July and continues to work at the State Department for diplomatic security. "For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we were to ask again is, 'How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?'" Five special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, Issa said. Two of them only happened to be there only because they had traveled with Stevens from Tripoli, Lamb said. "The post had agreed that three was a sufficient number to have on the ground." Lamb said. But Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that the regional security officer -- it was unclear if he was talking about Nordstrom -- tried to obtain additional personnel, but "was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there," Wood said. "Diplomatic security remained weak. In April, there was only one U.S. diplomatic security agent there." State Department officials also responded to allegations by Republicans that the Obama administration intentionally misled the public about the cause of the attack. Critics accuse the administration of trying to cover up or play down the attack through initial statements that described it as a spontaneous act stemming from protests over an anti-Muslim film rather than a planned terrorist assault. "We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time. And that information has evolved," Kennedy said, citing remarks by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16 that critics alleged were deceptive. "For example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point. Clearly, we know more about today than what we did." While congressmen from both parties agreed that security at overseas U.S. diplomatic posts is crucial, and they expressed hope for a bipartisan solution, several times during the hearing the dialogue devolved into rancorous comments back and forth. The assault in Benghazi occurred 11 years to the day after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Kennedy said the fullest picture of proper security and procedures will not be fully clear until a review board appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and headed by former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen is completed. emocrats had accused Issa of planning a partisan, election-year hearing, a similar allegation leveled against the panel for its past investigations of the botched "Fast and Furious" gun-running program and the failed Solyndra clean energy company that received government loan guarantees. On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials provided reporters with the most detailed explanation yet of the attack in Benghazi, saying on a conference call that there was no prior indication such an assault was imminent. The officials, who briefed reporters on condition of not being identified by name, said there was "nothing unusual" throughout the day of the attack. Stevens held an evening meeting with a Turkish diplomat and then retired to his room in one of the compound's buildings at 9 p.m., according to the officials. The first sign of a problem came 40 minutes later, when diplomatic security agents heard loud talking outside the compound, along with gunfire and explosions. Asked whether the attack was a spontaneous assault taking advantage of a demonstration, as originally asserted by Obama administration officials, one senior official said, "That was not our conclusion." The two senior officials offered riveting detail of the attack by what one of them described as "dozens of armed men" who marauded from building to building and later fired mortars on a U.S. annex less than a mile away. In the havoc at the four-building compound, Stevens and two of his security personnel took refuge in a fortified room that the attackers were able to penetrate, one official said. The attackers doused the building with diesel fuel and set it ablaze and the three men decided to leave the safe haven and move to a bathroom to be able to breathe, according to the official. Stevens became separated from the security personnel in the chaos and smoke, and eventually turned up at a Benghazi hospital, where he was declared dead.[/quote] source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/politics/congress-libya-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3[/url]
I blame Obama somehow.
You know it is bad when you have to say you posted multiple sources in the thread title
Nothing could have prevented it and hindsight helps nothing. If anything, this tragedy was a harshly good thing as it made it so the militias had no fucking power.
I feel like if it weren't for election season, this wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal as it was. I feel like what's done is done, we sent forces over to secure, the Libyans disarmed the militants responsible, and disarmed several others throughout the country, etc etc. I feel like we're just beating a dead horse at this point.
Glaber you do realise you don't need to post 8000 sources right? I mean, we all know why you're doing it, the excuse is dry and dead, so just quit it.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37991797]Glaber you do realise you don't need to post 8000 sources right? I mean, we all know why you're doing it, the excuse is dry and dead, so just quit it.[/QUOTE] He's required to post at least one other source other than fox, otherwise he gets banned. Why he doesn't just stop is another question.
Usually when I feel the need to post multiple sources, I'll copy/paste one source and just have the links to the rest. If people are that buttfustrated by the source you used then they can click on the other ones provided.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;37992101]He's required to post at least one other source other than fox, otherwise he gets banned. Why he doesn't just stop is another question.[/QUOTE] That's what I mean, he should just stop posting Fox. There's no reason TO post it.
It would literally be as simple as just posting the CBS or CNN source, but since it is apparently a Glaber rule that the first source [I]must[/I] be Fox News, he has to post three sources.
Actually it's that when Fox is a source, multiple sources have to be used to back it up and they can't be News Corp sources. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1215524&p=37895392&viewfull=1#post37895392[/url] But of course how may sources I post seems to be more important than figuring out the truth behind the attacks on our embassies.
[QUOTE=Glaber;37996575]Actually it's that when Fox is a source, multiple sources have to be used to back it up and they can't be News Corp sources. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1215524&p=37895392&viewfull=1#post37895392[/url] But of course how may sources I post seems to be more important than figuring out the truth behind the attacks on our embassies.[/QUOTE] Listen, I care as much about the reasons for the attacks as anyone else, but you know the criticisms levied against you and continue to do what warranted them in the first place, and that's why posters here are fixated on it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;37996575]Actually it's that when Fox is a source, multiple sources have to be used to back it up and they can't be News Corp sources. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1215524&p=37895392&viewfull=1#post37895392[/url] But of course how may sources I post seems to be more important than figuring out the truth behind the attacks on our embassies.[/QUOTE] Post one reputable source, ie not newscorp, and bam, no one talks about it. Easy fix.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.