Permalink to The Benghazi Coverup Unravels

The Benghazi Coverup Unravels

 

Foreign Policy is reporting this evening that on October 26th, more than six weeks after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, its reporters discovered additional documents in the burned out remains of the compound indicating that the Obama administration was aware of possible attack planning before the events that claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ office in Benghazi, reads:

“Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.”

The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures,” he wrote hours before the assault.

Libya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs may have played a role in the attack by, at a minimum, failing to provide promised security in the days leading up to the attack.

The document also suggests that the U.S. consulate had asked Libyan authorities on Sept. 9 for extra security measures in preparation for Stevens’ visit, but that the Libyans had failed to provide promised support.

“On Sunday, September 9, 2012, the U.S. mission requested additional police support at our compound for the duration of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens’ visit. We requested daily, twenty-four hour police protection at the front and rear of the U.S. mission as well as a roving patrol. In addition we requested the services of a police explosive detection dog,” the letter reads.

“We were given assurances from the highest authorities in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that all due support would be provided for Ambassador Stevens’ visit to Benghazi. However, we are saddened to report that we have only received an occasional police presence at our main gate. Many hours pass when we have no police support at all.”

The letter concludes with a request to the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs to look into the incident of the policeman conducting surveillance, and the absence of requested security measures. “We submit this report to you with the hopes that an official inquiry can be made into this incident and that the U.S. Mission may receive the requested police support,” the letter reads.

There can be no doubt that the Obama administration knew or ought to have known from the outset that the assault on the Benghazi mission was a premeditated attack, not a spontaneous protest over an obscure video. This can only mean that the subsequent PR campaign, including President Obama’s speech to the United Nations, was a complete fabrication.

Fortunately, the electorate has a chance to render its judgment ahead of the investigation report President Obama is supposedly awaiting; the one that will tell him what he himself did on and about the evening of September 11, 2012.

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 32 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of Fake John/Jane Galt Member

    People died!

    Obama lied!

    • #1
    • November 2, 2012 at 1:43 am
  2. Profile photo of Charles Rapp Inactive

    Barack Obama, in his eyes, was telling the truth about the Libyan attack being caused by a YouTube video. How is this possible? Because Obama first deluded himself into thinking it was the truth. Self-delusion makes lying to others all the more sincere.

    • #2
    • November 2, 2012 at 3:21 am
  3. Profile photo of The Mugwump Inactive

    Those who crave justice shall have their fill. I can see the end game now. When Obama loses on Tuesday, the media will turn on him like Bacchantes at the sudden appearance of Pentheus. They will rend him limb from limb and Nemesis will feed on his bones. Could such monumental hubris end any other way? This story has all the stuff of a Greek drama. Enjoy the catharsis.

    • #3
    • November 2, 2012 at 3:49 am
  4. Profile photo of Carver Member

    It would be cathartic if the lying Media Hydra were slain but I don’t see it. They will still run amok. We’ll get stories about how lousy the economy is when we are at 3% unemployment. If only Newt would be press secretary…

    • #4
    • November 2, 2012 at 4:35 am
  5. Profile photo of Orion Member

    I suspect a large percentage of Obama voters are not the least bit concerned with or informed about this issue. The lick spittle MSM has done it’s job well. Nothing to see here…

    • #5
    • November 2, 2012 at 5:04 am
  6. Profile photo of Publicola Inactive

    But, Why kill Ambassador Stevens? What was the objective of the terrorist attack? 

    I have read some rumors implicating his links to the former Libyan freedom fighters/Al-Queda affiliates. If there is a connection there, why did they turn on the ambassador?

    Another rumor suggested the ambassador was now using his Libyan contacts to supply weapons shipments to the Syrian uprising. Again, if that is true, why turn on the ambassador?

    I don’t intend to impugn the ambassador – I have no doubt he was working under orders. But if these rumors are remotely true, it ought to raise huge questions about the administration’s Middle East policy. 

    Has anyone heard anything like these things? We now know it was terrorists, we know it was a planned attack, and we know the US response was questionable, at best. Does anyone yet know why the terrorists attacked? 

    • #6
    • November 2, 2012 at 5:21 am
  7. Profile photo of Macsen Inactive
    Illiniguy: The thing that really lights me up is that these documents were discovered AFTER the FBI had been there. · 8 hours ago

    Et tu, FBI? Isn’t the amateurism at the top levels of government enough?

    • #7
    • November 2, 2012 at 5:51 am
  8. Profile photo of das_motorhead Inactive

    It’s been asked before, I’ll ask again: where is Dr. Gen. Petraeus? Would somebody please man up and level with the people you serve!

    • #8
    • November 2, 2012 at 6:07 am
  9. Profile photo of Mimi Inactive

    The Libyan policeman who was seen taking photos in a building opposite the annex would have alarmed the CIA there in Benghazi. Of course they would have written reports, so there should be a communications trail from them to Langley, and from there to the WH. The lack of response from the Libyans to the several calls to increase Libyan police manpower should have increased anybody’s paranoia around the date September 11.

    Steven Smith wrote to his gamer buddies a paranoid feeling he had on the 11th. This same wariness would have been a twin feeling with any other experienced officer when he saw events leading up to that night. Surely, there are more people to interview who were on the scene.

    The whole event reeks.

    • #9
    • November 2, 2012 at 6:08 am
  10. Profile photo of Think So Inactive
    ~Paules: Those who crave justice shall have their fill. I can see the end game now. When Obama loses on Tuesday, the media will turn on him like Bacchantes at the sudden appearance of Pentheus. They will rend him limb from limb and Nemesis will feed on his bones. Could such monumental hubris end any other way? This story has all the stuff of a Greek drama. Enjoy the catharsis. · 2 hours ago

    I hope you’re right. I’m currently in a state of disbelief with friends and relatives, who if only they were exposed to the full truth of this administration, would be in utter disgust. Rather they are mostly deluded by msm that everything is just fine.

    • #10
    • November 2, 2012 at 6:20 am
  11. Profile photo of Brian Skinn Member
    Publicola: But, Why kill Ambassador Stevens? What was the objective of the terrorist attack? · 1 hour ago

    The ambassador may have just been in a bad place at the wrong time — his death may just have been incidental to a broader goal of damaging American interests. 

    If there was mens rea against the ambassador in particular, it reminds me essentially of the caravan ambush in Clear and Present Danger: Hit America at as high a level as possible. Ambassador Stevens was the highest-ranking American within reach. Ergo, attack him.

    • #11
    • November 2, 2012 at 7:12 am
  12. Profile photo of Mimi Inactive

    Why kill Ambassador Stevens?

    If your source of weapons and your command chain was Hezbollah, you would support Iran. Iran supports Assad in Syria. If one of the local militias in Benghazi were tied to Hezbollah, then it would target Hezbollah’s and Syria’s enemies. If they believed Stevens was getting arms to the rebels in Syria, then they would kill him if they could. They found a way.

    The Turkish visitor to the complex could have been wired, trailed, or could have been a double agent. His driver could have been an informer with the Libyan killers of Stevens.

    Anyway, there are any number of reasons Ambassador Stevens could have been marked for death in that area.

    • #12
    • November 2, 2012 at 7:53 am
  13. Profile photo of Illiniguy Member

    The thing that really lights me up is that these documents were discovered AFTER the FBI had been there.

    • #13
    • November 2, 2012 at 8:36 am
  14. Profile photo of Yeah...ok. Member

    The Obama administration seems to have irritated the CIA.

    • #14
    • November 2, 2012 at 8:43 am
  15. Profile photo of Albert Arthur Coolidge

    Not to throw a wet towel on the everyone’s outrage, but weren’t these drafts of letters that might or might not actually have been sent? And, regardless, weren’t the intended recipients the Libyans? I don’t think they prove that Obama knew anything prior to the attack. They do prove that Stevens was concerned about the security situation!

    Like Illiniguy, I am disturbed that these documents were lying on the ground 7 weeks after the fact.

    The other extremely disturbing report that came out today, that I read on CBSnews.com, is that Obama did not convene the Counterterrorism Security Group on the night of the attack. Now, I admit, I’d never heard of the CSG until today. I’m not a national security expert. But read the article and draw your own conclusions.

    • #15
    • November 2, 2012 at 8:46 am
  16. Profile photo of Babci Member

    CBS News is finally on this story and not insignificantly. They seem to have sources that Fox and the Blaze don’t have.

    Where is Hillary these days? Shopping with Huma?

    • #16
    • November 2, 2012 at 8:56 am
  17. Profile photo of Mel Foil Inactive

    This is what I heard from a security guy (authentic? who knows?) calling into a radio show: Because American sovereignty of the consulate doesn’t extend out to the perimeter posts, they had to employ Libyans to guard the perimeter. That’s why they had to employ some Libyans. What I suspect is, somebody up the chain, somebody not too bright, decided that as long as we have to hire all these Libyans, just let them take over the security. Well, we see how well that worked. They very likely were infiltrated by jihadists who convinced them that they don’t owe the Americans anything. You have US Marines because they’re loyal to the end. Host country police, not so much.

    • #17
    • November 2, 2012 at 8:58 am
  18. Profile photo of Mothership_Greg Inactive
    Albert Arthur: Not to throw a wet towel on the everyone’s outrage, but weren’t these drafts of letters that might or might not actually have been sent? And, regardless, weren’t the intended recipients the Libyans? I don’t think they prove that Obama knew anything prior to the attack. They do prove that Stevens was concerned about the security situation!

    Like Illiniguy, I am disturbed that these documents were lying on the ground 7 weeks after the fact.

    The other extremely disturbing report that came out today, that I read on CBSnews.com, is that Obama did not convene the Counterterrorism Security Group on the night of the attack. Now, I admit, I’d never heard of the CSG until today. I’m not a national security expert. But read the article and draw your own conclusions. · 10 minutes ago

    Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

    Sounds like Valerie Jarrett couldn’t make up her mind.

    • #18
    • November 2, 2012 at 9:06 am
  19. Profile photo of KC Mulville Member

    An interesting take on this by John Hudson at the Atlantic Wire:

    While Zaid’s remarks shouldn’t discourage conservatives and members of the press from seeking answers about what happened in Benghazi, they should not encourage loudmouth bloggers from proclaiming that President Obama is a “coward” and a “liar,” and that Fox News has the evidence to prove it. At this point: They don’t.

    In essence, Hudson argues that the three important players in this episode (the White House, Pentagon, and CIA) have all denied the stories coming from FoxNews that allege wrongdoing or conspiracy. 

    You’ll be happy to know, Hudson assures us, that the three agencies probably aren’t involved in a conspiracy. Instead, the fog of war means that they just can’t be expected to know what’s going on while Americans are being killed, even though a month has passed and there’s an investigation going on.

    Gosh, I feel so much better that three of the main government agencies charged with protecting this country aren’t deliberately malicious. They just haven’t got a clue. 

    I can’t wait for Tuesday.

    • #19
    • November 2, 2012 at 9:11 am
  20. Profile photo of Foxfier Inactive
    Mel Foil: This is what I heard from a security guy (authentic? who knows?) calling into a radio show: Because American sovereignty of the consulate doesn’t extend out to the perimeter posts, they had to employ Libyans to guard the perimeter. That’s why they had to employ some Libyans. 

    I suspect that someone was applying bad reasoning– with military bases, even in the US, the “real” area is bigger than the fences for exactly this reason. I have trouble believing that it would be any kind of normal to change that for embassies. (This is why it’s a bad idea to do a protest that involves standing right next to a military bases’ gate–pick a park nearby instead. I do not know the exact distance, but my husband assures me that it’s big enough that he felt perfectly safe as a gate guard, and even was praised by the security inspection team when he “shot” a “suicide bomber” as soon as he showed what he was and got inside the legal area, during one of the inspection tests.)

    I know I’ve seen pictures of Marines as gate guards for embassies, too.

    • #20
    • November 2, 2012 at 9:49 am
  21. Profile photo of KC Mulville Member

    For all the explanations and claims of war fog, we can’t forget the bottom line: no help was sent.

    While the various government players point fingers and ask us to understand how they can’t be held responsible, the basic task of protecting American personnel and facilities overseas was a failure.

    This administration has yet to acknowledge any failure.

    They’re stonewalling behind the “I can’t say anything because there’s an investigation” comment, which usually means someone is going to be charged with a crime and therefore their right to a fair trial need to be preserved. Those of us who have worked in large organizations know what “investigation” means: they’re looking for someone to blame it on, and every individual is hoping they won’t be sacrificed, so they keep quiet.

    There are repeated denials that that assure us that some stories didn’t happen, but they’re not telling us what did happen. 

    Four men are dead.

    Each agency is telling us they did nothing wrong. Did they do anything right? That’s what leadership is about. 

    President Obama went to Vegas.

    • #21
    • November 2, 2012 at 9:51 am
  22. Profile photo of George Savage Admin
    George Savage Post author
    Albert Arthur: Not to throw a wet towel on the everyone’s outrage, but weren’t these drafts of letters that might or might not actually have been sent? And, regardless, weren’t the intended recipients the Libyans? I don’t think they prove that Obama knew anything prior to the attack. They do prove that Stevens was concerned about the security situation!· 48 minutes ago

    Would Ambassador Stevens and his team in Benghazi–on September 9th and 11th, mind you– write these letters without bothering to inform their own government of the deteriorating security situation? I think not.

    One thing is certain given Sean Smith’s chillingly prescient “Assuming we don’t die tonight” post–the moment the shooting started he, and presumably his colleagues, knew exactly what was happening. Hint: they weren’t worrying about an anti-Mohammed video.

    • #22
    • November 2, 2012 at 9:52 am
  23. Profile photo of George Savage Admin
    George Savage Post author

    The Foreign Policy story also provides a possible explanation for an item that has troubled me from the start: Why were one or more surveillance drones in the air over Benghazi at the time of the supposedly unexpected attack on the U.S. consulate? Drones are relatively slow aircraft, so they must have been nearby before the shooting started.

    The drone presence makes perfect sense if, as I now suspect, Ambassador Stevens had alerted his chain of command of the worrisome surveillance and missing security in the runup to September 11th. 

    I think John McCain is right on this one: Benghazi is looking more and more like a massive coverup.

    • #23
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
  24. Profile photo of Foxfier Inactive
    das_motorhead: It’s been asked before, I’ll ask again: where is Dr. Gen. Petraeus? Would somebody please man up and level with the people you serve! · 3 hours ago

    Chain of command, and effective use of resources.

    I suspect that a lot of the small-but-damaging stuff that’s coming out is rooted in Petraeus, but if he came out and said “this is a huge mess and here is what Obama did wrong,” then:1) He’d be dismissed as “Betray-us” by the White House.2) He’d be ignored, at best, by the media.3) He’d be prosecuted, even if that’s illegal–as would anyone below him they could implicate.4) He’d be the new scapegoat, and it would be over.

    All of which would mean that it would be for nothing.

    Meanwhile, this pick-pick-pick leaking seems to be getting through, without giving Obama an easy person to blame. It’s like the O’Keefe video tactic– put out a little, let them lie, then put out more that catches them in the lie.

    • #24
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:01 am
  25. Profile photo of DocJay Member

    I discussed this whole case today with someone who was in the State Dept for 20 years and only retired last decade. Her observations were that all cover ups regarding major issues eventually unravel in a free society. This one will as well of course, and the reputations of all who participated will be tainted to various levels depending on the actual reasons for the stand down and cover up. Eventually they will be under oath.

    The truth may be as simple as folks too scared to engage hostiles in a foreign country, especially where we are running arms. The end result will be worse though because of the cover up, and who turns on who first may well depend on this election.

    • #25
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:02 am
  26. Profile photo of DocJay Member
    George Savage: The Foreign Policy story also provides a possible explanation for an item that has troubled me from the start: Why were one or more surveillance drones in the air over Benghazi at the time of the supposedly unexpected attack on the U.S. consulate? Drones are relatively slow aircraft, so they must have nearby before the shooting started.

    The drone presence makes perfect sense if, as I now suspect, Ambassador Stevens had alerted his chain of command of the worrisome surveillance and missing security in the runup to September 11th. 

    I think John McCain is right on this one: Benghazi is looking more and more like a massive coverup. · 1 minute ago

    This will make Iran-Contra look like a BB gun swap for baseball cards.

    • #26
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:04 am
  27. Profile photo of Keith Preston Member

    …too bad most voters will be unaware of this damning evidence of malfeasance of the C-I-C. The press must pay for their part in this cover-up as well.

    • #27
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:10 am
  28. Profile photo of with me where I am Inactive

    I wish the coverup were unraveling. Will we get a fuller picture or see consequences before next Tuesday? I think not. After the election maybe we will see the truth, but I’m not so sure. Still waiting to find out about Fast & Furious.

    • #28
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:26 am
  29. Profile photo of Albert Arthur Coolidge

    George, I totally agree with you that Stevens would have alerted his own chain of command as well as the Libyans.

    • #29
    • November 2, 2012 at 10:40 am
  30. Profile photo of MJBubba Member

    I will be looking forward to the documentary “Benghazi Cover-Up,” in which the American mass media journalists are shown to have acted as extensions of the Obama campaign, delivering the goods on their active participation in hiding this steaming mess from the public.

    • #30
    • November 3, 2012 at 7:20 am
  1. 1
  2. 2