Classified Cable From Benghazi Warned That Consulate Couldn’t Withstand a ‘Coordinated Attack’ (UPDATE!!!)
Let me get this straight. A month before the attack in Libya, an Aug. 16th secret cable was sent to Sec Hillary Clinton and others in the State Department from the senior security officer that said the Benghazi consulate could not be protected, and the mainstream media is completely ignoring it? Imagine for a moment if Bush was President. It would be on a 24/7 news loop on all networks, including the news that Pres. Obama misled Americans on purpose on why the attack happened at Benghazi by blaming it on a video over and over. This cable also tells us that the administration lied about not having any warning of this attack. Our Ambassador and four other Americans are DEAD, and our media (other than Fox News) doesn’t see this as newsworthy. The mainstream media doesn’t want anything to hurt Obama re-election campaign, and that is why true journalism is dead.
Yes, Fox New’s opinion shows are conservative, but no matter what part of the political spectrum you fall into, if you want ALL the news, you should be watching Fox News.
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
………………………..
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “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.”
……………………………
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
The State Department has refused to comment, of course.
Catherine Herridge, who gave this report has a stellar reputation. She graduated from Harvard and has a Master’s degree from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She was originally was a London based correspondent for ABC News. She has received many awards for her work in journalism, including a Bronze World Medal from the New York Festivals for excellence in communications media. Too bad ABC, CBC, CNN, and NBC don’t seem to have this type of stellar reporting.
UPDATE!!! From Foreign Policy Magazine regarding documents recently discovered in the wreckage of the consulate:
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 concerns about police surveillance exhibited in the letters to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Benghazi police chief cast further doubt on early reports that a spontaneous protest was to blame for the attack on the U.S. consulate — reports that the State Department has disavowed. They also appear to contradict an Oct. 9 State Department briefing on the consulate attack, during which a senior State Department official claimed that there had been no security incidents at the consulate that day. “Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m,” the official said. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”
This piece ends with this chilling discovery:
Villa C, which was used as Stevens’ residence during his stay in Benghazi, is located 50 meters from the TOC building. Here, an open window leads to the safe haven — a sealed-off part of Villa C where Stevens and Smith suffocated to death. On the destroyed bed lay the Aug. 6, 2012, copy of the New Yorker. The magazine’s cover carries a label with Stevens’s name and his diplomatic mailing address.
A few meters to the right is the safe haven’s bathroom. Everything here is blackened by smoke. One of the two white toilets is covered with bloodstains. On the mirror in the bathroom, an unknown person has written a macabre text in a thin layer of ash. “I am Chris from the dead,” it reads.
:
Share This
What Fox News is doing is hardcore hindsight 20/20 with slanted color commentary. You’re right that ABC, CBC, CNN, and NBC aren’t providing nearly the amount of coverage on Benghazi. But Fox News has made it a hardcore point to make this the ONLY ISSUE. And this isn’t disparaging the deaths of the four Americans. But I’ve watched various individuals at Fox News suggest that President Obama was watching a LIVE FEED on Benghazi while basically eating BBQ and saying “WHATEVER”.
What I see in Benghazi is a systematic problem with our entire embassy policy going many Presidents back. The whole “host nation provides security” is in question but has been accepted for a LONG time. So I REFUSE to look at this as some MONSTROUS FAILURE (and even has been called “evil” by some) perpetrated by the Obama Administration. This is a ENTIRE U.S. foreign policy issue that we’ve never addressed. And to solve it will not be a partisan issue.
One simply needs to beg the question that if Obama has the blood of these four individuals on his hands based upon a smattering of hindsight info, then should G.W.Bush have the blood of thousands on his hands when we were attacked on OUR OWN SOIL? Then you can watch the cognitive dissonance work its magic.
TS- regarding the media coverage, what I see is that polarization leads to one side overdoing somethingmwhilemthe other side overcompensates by underdoing it. It’s impossible to say at this point (I think) which side is at fault for that…because I do think the lieberal bias in MSM other than Fox is strong and I think a lot of the reason for Fox’s rise to prominence had to di with a subtle MSM liberal bias which has now become much stronger now that the older media outlets react to Fox by moving in the other direction. It’s hard for me to imagine that the traditional media would be covering this the same way if we were within days or weeks of a Republican incumbent seeking a second term. One right wing blogger, in fact, recently noted the NYT wall to wall coverage of a munitions dump that had occurred in Iraq, every day right up until the election,…and then suddenly the story disappeared after GWB was reelected.
As for the point about embassy security…what you say is true but then we make decisions about keeping diplomats on the ground, based on what security measures we can consider reliable. Why Stevens was there that day is one of the biggest unanswered (and mostly unasked) questions.
The Obama haters at FOX and elsewhere want Benghazi to materialize into a major scandal that will bring down a president or change an election that is currently unlikely to go their way, at least in terms of electoral votes. This reminds me of the Reagan haters of the 80′s wanting the world to turn on its ear over Iran-Contra.
Both Benghazi and Iran-Contra were controversial episodes in U.S. foreign policy. But, there is something the haters on both sides don’t understand. Except for U. S. involvement in hot wars, the American electorate doesn’t much care what happens in North Africa or Central America…even if lives are lost or credibility strained. This is not going to impact what happens next Tuesday.
As for this assertion : “if you want ALL the news, you should be watching Fox News”, my take is that if you want ALL the news you should be learning from a variety of news sources including print and electronic, and from a variety of perspectives, also including FOX or the WSJ, but never limited to a single point of view.
T.S. and Tidbits:
Totally agree with you. The loss of four American lives is tragic (as were the 3,000+ lives we lost on 9/11 and the more than 4,000 of our finest killed in Iraq) but this “rush to Benghazi” by the Republican Party just before the elections is nothing but shameful, naked politics (Fox must have been grinding their teeth that they had to cool it for a couple of days while almost a third of our people were enduring the wrath of Sandy, but now the gloves are off again)
Let us investigate, YES; Let us find the guilty, YES; let us punish them, YES. But let us do it when cooler heads prevail and when the long political knives have been put away.
Blah, the “journalists” at Fox News report the editorial from their own conservative commentary shows as fact from unknown “sources”.
I agree that the Benghazi attack has been under-reported, but I am sure in hell not going to Fox News to get anything. As Tidbits mentioned… the WSJ is a good place to get conservative news.
I agree 110%.
I agree CS. That is the biggest unanswered and unasked question. And I would like it answered. But the hyperventilation of Fox News and the hypoventilation by other news agencies are not helping one bit in answering that question.
Exactly TS.
DDW- both the rush to get information and the calls for waiting until after the election are politically motivated.There are a few notable exceptions in the non-Fox media, like David Ignatious. In pundit-land, Taylor Marsh had an honest take on things yesterday too.
“DDW- both the rush to get information and the calls for waiting until after the election are politically motivated.”
Please explain rationally and logically how calls to perform an impartial, calm and thorough investigation, without jumping to premature and immature conclusions such as:
“Pres. Obama misled Americans on purpose”
“the administration lied about not having any warning of this attack.”
“The mainstream media doesn’t want anything to hurt Obama re-election campaign”
“true journalism is dead.”
five days before the presidential elections are politically motivated.
I’m simply objecting to an all or nothing approach to the investigations and news coverage. Ther’s simply no way to deny that this was a very newsworthy event. It shouldn’t get 24-7 coverage and those that do that are obviously politically motivated. It also shoul d get more than a footnote or occasional mention though, and those that do that do so have their own biases and political motivations.
DDW
I’ll try to explain rationally and logically. The events in Beghazi happened 7 weeks ago. In 7 weeks, we had numerous shifting and contradictory stories for a couple of weeks, carefully caveated but intended to shape public perception nevertheless and then we have had a total blackout on any commentary for about the last 5 weeks, save for that prompted by Fox reporting.
The question for me is fairly simple. There are certain questions that don’t require a whole lot of time to provide the answers to. Some of them would be:
1. Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11 of all days? This is a very straightforward question that has to do with the meetings he had while he was there since he could not have had any other reason to be there.
2. Why was he there with little security presence on 9/11? Again, a simple question. Who made the decision as to what security he would have and what was the rationale? That’s a one interview investigation, not something that should take months.
3. Was there any request for support during the attack? If so, to whom was the request made? Again, cable traffic and phone records would give us the answer to this. Doesn’t require months but days.
4. Was there live video of the attack? If so, who saw it? Again, simple questions, simple answers.
I could go on but you get the point. There is much that could come out now. The desire to bundle the simple questions with more complex questions is nothing more than a desire to stall. I understand the desire to stall but to claim there is no rational way to get answers sooner simply seems untrue to me.
First, I would say that it would have been nice to have this level of intense demands for answers by Fox News after 09/11/01. I recall that any demands for government accountability for intelligence failings were called unpatriotic and treasonous.
Second, in this 24 hour news cycle, demands for immediate answers as to what happened were bound to be unreliable right after the incident becuase no thorough investigation had been conducted.
Third, I too would like a balanced approch by the news media without the need to score political points which is what Fox is after. Unfortunately, becuase of where we are in the election cycle, any investigation whether it makes the administration look good or bad would be looked at with suspician by a public believing the media was trying to sway them one way or the other. I think this is why the investigation results will come out after the election.
re “Obama is “RESPONSIBLE” therefore this makes him a complete and total failure to be president is the cry we head ad nausea from Fox and friends….”
I have forgotten the source of this story [below]. It was either Victor Frankl or Jean Paul Satre that told this story concerning responsibility, guilt, and anguish.
” The setting is WWII during the Holocaust… A group of prisoners planned an escape. Part of their plans were to go to a specific location hold up at a farmer’s barn and wait to move out of the region during the anticipated snow fall…The small group of six made the escape, one man was captured by the guards, yet his wife was able to escape with the others… The guards interrogated the capture prisoner and he refused to betray the other prisoners…He was subjected to extreme torture. He made the decision to tell the torturers a false location for the escaped prisoners knowing when they returned he would be killed… He told the guards another location, a place which was the opposite direction from the farm house where his wife and the other prisoners were to take refuge…. The guards go out to the location to capture the prisoners. To the man’s horror and deep anguish of soul the guards brought back the prisoners and proceeded to kill them in front of the camp to set an example. The guards also announced to the camp prisoners that the man had told them where his wife and the other prisoners had been found. The man was left with great anguish. When he attempted to turn the pursuers the opposite direction he did not know the group been forced to change locations.”
The question asked by my college professor pointed towards responsibility and existential guilt. Was the man responsible for the death of his wife and fellow prisoners?
The philosophical answer is; true freedom is found in responsibility but man is not responsible for what he can not know…The man in the story attempted to bring forth the best outcome for his wife and prisoners and could not of known the consequence of revealing the erroneous location..
I am very clear Benghazi was a tragic event that created tragic deaths. I also deeply trust the best intent was meant by the President and the Secretary of State, these were their people, they served at the pleasure of the President for America… A tragic lost for all Americans…..This was a high risk local, and there may well of been places where second sight would of lead to a very different outcome…Those are things to be examined and brought forth in order to protect others….The ones that are responsible for these deaths are the ones that over run the embassy….And i agree with Hilary Clinton, in the ‘fog of war’ the ground is often shifting laying aside the best intents and plans…
The question i am left with is not about guilt but rather blame…. For those that blame at every opportunity…. where does that come from? Is there such thing as pathological existential blame? Can freedom be found in blaming others? Can anything good come from pathological blaming?
*******
Also there are other ways for people to avoid responsibility…One of them is to run with a flock or herd without a deeper decrement or internal locus of control that opens the space for a shared empathic experience of human beingness. Hyper partisan conformity is one of the s way to avoid responsibility. When a news source such as Fox and friends give allegiance to a ideological belief structure there is a marked rigidity. This type of conformity is commonly portrayed in fundamentalism—not only are there religious fundamentalism but also political. One of the things which often happens within fundamentalist structures with fixed ideologies is the organizations and followers often feel very comfortable bending the rules as it fits their ideological beliefs…This becomes first breath because they are not committed to the underlying value system but rather to their ideological supremacy and what suffers is ethics and compassion for anyone or anything that fails to match their fixed beliefs..
When any of us blindly runs with a partisan herd, we are avoiding the greatest responsibility… which is self-awareness, for only that can lead to true freedom.
Another point: Fox news is the predominate denier of Global Warming… overwhelming scientific evidence has been produced…yet Fox News claims Global warming to be the great delusion…. Billions of people are will be effected and uncountable lives are at stake because of the propaganda of Fox and friends on Global warming….
We have been warned, there is need to see this as an issue with great consequence…yet Fox and friends ignore and deny the warning…instead they chose to politicize that which should never be politicized…
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/17/global-warming-great-delusion/
@SteveinCH.
Although you did not address my specific comment and question relating to jumping to the premature and — let me change the word — unwarranted conclusions I listed, you do address in a more rational and logical manner than I have seen before here, the more general issues of the Benghazi attack.
But while I agree with you that there are still a lot of valid questions
and unresolved issues about the tragedy (as you point out), I have to come back to my premise that answers to those questions will come out as a result of a thorough, non-rushed, impartial (how about bi-partisan) investigation that can not and must not be rushed or colored by the emotions, hype, acrimony and, yes, the “Fox reporting” surrounding a pending presidential election — whether seven weeks or seven days ahead.
And, by the way, how long has it been since 9/11 or the Iraq War and where are the definitive answers to the “very simple and straightforward questions” Americans still have about those two “events”? Even after two or three elections since then?
Simple questions, simple answers?
The answers to these questions will not be answered until after the election, everyone knows that by now. However, Fox News isn’t reporting any news as such,since there is no conclusive news to report. They are rather condemning via speculation, continually raising what they hope will be damning rhetorical questions…that’s journalism?? There is no difference between Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. In truth, they are both just “talk shows” that only the fringe element consider NEWS.
Dorian, given that you don’t think questions about 9/11 and the Iraq War have been answered to date, why do you believe that the answers to the questions about Benghazi will come out after the election?
@CS
Because you‘ll make sure that the answers come
LOL…well I wish I had those kinds of powers.
If you would indulge one more question (your choice, if you want to drop it, fine.)
I looked back at the 2004 incident I referenced above, it was Al Qaqaa. Google and you’ll see that there was a lot of coverage rifht before the election, then it was dropped. Even if that had been a major story, was it right for journalists to keep pushing for answers in the politically charged weeks before the election, or not? And why or why not?
@CS
I am assuming you are referring to:
“One right wing blogger, in fact, recently noted the NYT wall to wall coverage of a munitions dump that had occurred in Iraq, every day right up until the election,…and then suddenly the story disappeared after GWB was reelected.”
I don’t remember the incident, nor do I have the time to research that the event and the coverage before and after the elections were in fact as the “rightwinger” claims.
But regardless, of course journalists have every right to keep asking questions “even in the politically charged weeks before the election.” What they don’t have the right to is to make up their own answers, their own facts, their own insinuations and draw their own partisan conclusions as Fox News does and as got me originally started in this comments thread.
It has been a nice, civil discussion, but I really have to go now.
Thanks
“Fox News suggest that President Obama was watching a LIVE FEED on Benghazi while basically eating BBQ”
Could we give the racial undertones a rest please?
Better hurry up. Only six more days left for the gory “Updates!!!!!!!!”
That looks to be an excerpt from a 3 page article at Foreign Policy.com titled “‘Troubling’ Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack”. Are they right wing? The Deputy Managing Editor used to be at Huffington.
“Cara Parks is deputy managing editor at Foreign Policy. Prior to that she was the World editor at the Huffington Post. She is a graduate of Bard College and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, and has written for The New Republic, Interview, Radar, and Publishers Weekly, among others. Read Cara’s full bio here.”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/01/troubling_surveillance_before_benghazi_attack?page=0,0
Sorry to repeat link…didn’t see it above.
This link is a good counter balance to this Foxized report…
The Selective Patriotism of the Benghazi-Gate Conspiracy Theorists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-selective-patriotism-_b_2059227.html
My take on it is that it’s not the attack it’s the “coverup” that is getting Obama. Now sure there is a lot of disagreement about if there is and was any sort of cover up. I’m not saying there was but I am concerned about the contradictory statements coming from the white house and wonder about the calls to wait. Wait for what? To decide? Well sure you want to make sure you have as much info as you can so you get the best picture but it seems like people are saying we should wait to hear the info and wait to investigate. Why? I can comprehend the info a piece at a time. I want the info to be given to me as it’s available. Sure some may spin it but I can still get the facts.
Thanks for reminding us, O.S.
Someone should research how many investigations were demanded and launched by Issa and the GOP; how many programs Fox News dedicated to these; how many accusations the the GOP directed at Bush; how many …
But, but, only one U.S.diplomat was killed. Oh well, that changes everything.
The Washington Post:
The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been publicly acknowledged, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.
The account, which was provided to news organizations Thursday by senior U.S. intelligence officials, is the most detailed chronology presented so far of an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, including two CIA security officers.
Read more here
Excellent point ordinarysparrow thanks. I look forward to either a) the “But that was different” argument; or b) the sudden disappearance of Conspiracy Theorists from this thread.
This entire silly show is nothing but a fraud… Smoke and mirrors that, once again, the wing-nut minions have bought into.
Edit to add: Or maybe they’ll try the old “My take on it is that it’s not the attack it’s the “coverup”” ploy.
A cover up. ( meaning an act to deliberately hide or bury information for the purpose of protecting a suspected or actual WRONG DOER OR DOERS) And who is calling it a cover up?? The right! Perhaps if this story were filtered in a different light it wouldn’t cause such a backlash. Ah, but then it wouldn’t be useful as a political weapon. The 4 who died have tragically been reduced to fodder by Fox news to feed their own political agenda.
This is not a commentary as to legitimacy of this specific case, but does either party really do a very good job investigating itself due to conflict of interest? It seems the only ones I can rely on to ferret out the truth regarding the republican party are journalists and democrats and I suspect this may be something we have in common.
Considering your comments upstream, your NEW position sounds rather… FoxNewsish.
Let me get this straight. The Republicans decreased funding on security for diplomatic missions (at least the security the US is responsible for). The Libyans were responsible for providing the increased security which could have stopped the attacks and…. Obama gets blamed? Obama is covering up some conspiracy? So Obama is covering up a Libyan conspiracy? At least the Democratic leaders took security seriously when they proposed the security funding for diplomatic missions.
The only thing Republicans take seriously these days is their own power… and the possibility of losing it.
Hahahaha! I love it! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one. Study after study has shown that those people who use Fox News for their source of news are the least well-informed and believe lies about the Democratic Party.
And the author has the audacity to say that people need to watch Fox News for the truth. That the other news stations don’t cover the news as well as Fox. Hahaha. The irony. Well, that’s Republican values at work for you.
In the end, Fox News is not convincing anyone of anything that they do not already want to believe. The people that watch Fox News go there to have their world view confirmed, not for news. There are millions of news sources to choose from in the world. The choice of Fox News as their media outlet says a lot about a person, most importantly, they are a member of the choir and want to remain so.
Fox News viewers have a bubble they wish to live within and they will not allow things like facts or science to pull them out of it. Real independents do not watch Fox News. The independents that do are just Republicans that think they are independents.
and when you dwell on it a bit. Fox News’ entire logic of why they exist does not make any sense. They state that they are counter balance to the liberal media that is in the tank for liberals. So they purposely slant their programming to the right to make up for the imbalance. The problem is that their viewers do not watch MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news…they only watch Fox News. So the Fox News viewer is not getting the balanced view of the world that Fox News purposes to give them.
So the real purpose is not to balance a viewers news experience. It is to manipulate their viewers to stay conservative because the MSM are doing the same to their liberal viewers….making Fox News effectively a political apparatus (by their own logic), not a media apparatus.
All of MSNBC’s opinion shows are liberal, with very rarely any conservative ever on to counter the opinion being presented as fact. Fox regularly invites democratic voices to counter. Contrary to propagated opinion, conservatives do seek out other points of view to challenge our own perceptions of the truth. BTW, do liberals watch FOX? Only the right is biased? We tend to mistake our opinions for truth.
Now that’s a comment I fully agree with AND a great example of one of the important differences between left and right.
Liberals / Progressives look at our opinions as… opinions.
This article was not promoting msnbc. I rarely watch msnbc and it is one of the few English channels that I get. Oddly enough, the international versions of most us cable news channels are pretty good. I don’t get how US CNN can be so bad in comparison to the international CNN.
Steve,…you crack me up. I live in a very liberal state and can assure you that is not my experience.
Read more here and here.