re: .

In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.



“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, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.

The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there.

Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week, and testimony has not been sought from Ham, who is now retired.



Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment on the exchange between Ham and Stevens. Hicks’ lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security.

“As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it,” she said.



Some Republican lawmakers expressed surprise when told that Stevens had turned down such an offer.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

But a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated that some lawmakers may have been aware of Stevens’ exchange with Ham.

“Decisions conveyed by Ambassador Stevens were made on behalf of the U.S. State Department,” the spokesman, Frederick Hill, said in an email. “There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces. The lack of discussion by the public ARB report about the role inter-agency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee.”



One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy.

Still, the offer from Ham provided Stevens with a chance to plead for more assistance, an opportunity he apparently did not seize.

The death of Stephens is a result of gov incompetence suggesting that he was part of that incompetence doesn't strike me as controversial given what is known about the situation. And, yes, maher is in the tank for Obama - especially on the topic of the NSA, but I don't see how his comment gets the admin off the hook.

you can youtube it, but I suppose Howard Stern did not appreciate Bill trying to make him sound crazy to compensate for what Bill said that ended his run at abc. As howard continues to bring up on both rants, Bill WILL NOT repeat the remarks. I wonder why

On last Friday's McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan said that he doesn't think Benghazi will have any effect on Hillary's Presidential viability by comparing it to the marine barracks bombing in Beirut under Reagan. He pointed out that Reagan was as culpable for Beirut as Hillary was for Benghazi and there was a lot more bloodshed, but 13 months after that incident, Reagan won in a 49-state landslide. Here's Buchanan in his own words starting at 9:35:

LINK

quote:

---

Pat Buchanan

---

Who has won exactly 0 elections.

quote:

---

Benghazi will have any effect on Hillary's Presidential viability by comparing it to the marine barracks bombing in Beirut under Reagan.

---

Perhaps a fair comparison, on the surface, at least.

quote:

---

He pointed out that Reagan was as culpable for Beirut as Hillary was for Benghazi and there was a lot more bloodshed, but 13 months after that incident, Reagan won in a 49-state landslide.

---

Hillary isn't running against Walter Mondale. And Hillary is no Ronald Reagan, that's for g-ddamned sure.

quote:

---

Seriously, do you think if you repeat this with enough frequency it will magically become true?

---

Are you kidding? The Democratic party has LEARNED that if you state a lie frequently enough it will IN FACT be accepted as truth.

It's there entire strategy. Parse words, play semantics games, lie, and then label anyone who opposes the lie as racist, extremist, or crazy.

Rex doesn't know the difference between that strategy and truth. They are one in the same to him.

quote:

---

What we should not accept was that the whole explanation was a lie, for weeks.[...]and people were allowed to flat out lie to cover an Administration going into an election [...]

---

Agreed.
The worst thing is that Obama truly is less competent than Bush, however Obama has much more guile.
The lengths Obama and his admin have gone through to lie to the American people is shocking, it should shake the nation to the bedrock.

Instead we have small minded apparatchiks telling me its really "x's" fault that Obama is such a feckless liar and a terrible schemer.

quote:

---

What does that have to do with his analysis?

---

Funny. I could ask the same thing about your post and the OP.

quote:

---

Sorry. I was just relying upon the bi-partisan Senate report. How silly of me.

---

Would you say Obama's gun running to the Middle East that fizzled was a good idea?

Was it worth the loss of American life and the silly coverup after the boots on the ground were swept away by the enemy when Obama's admin could have saved it?

Would you, knowing what you know, start the gun running ops back again in secret and lie about it to the people that put you in office?