House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., revealed Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi but were turned down by officials in Washington (Photo Credit AP).

At Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Chairman Darrell Issa’s questioning made one thing certain: The Obama administration’s initial explanation — that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were directly related to Islamic rage over a YouTube video — becomes more troubling with each passing day.

Before questioning began, Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a Special Forces site security team who was closely involved with operational planning for security in the region, testified to the increasing attacks on Western interests in the months preceding the Benghazi attack. He traveled to Benghazi after a successful attack on the British ambassador’s convoy, and was aware of online threats made against Mr. Stevens. And yet, months later, Stevens would die attempting to exit an escape hatch in a smoke-filled room. His would-be rescuers would then perish in a mortar barrage.

Referencing a July 9 cable from Mr. Stevens provided by State Department whistleblowers, Rep. Issa showed that Mr. Stevens requested additional security support but was denied by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, ostensibly because it wasn’t a formal request. Ms. Lamb maintained Wednesday that the U.S. Consulate had the “correct” amount of security on the day of the attack, even though, as Mr. Issa pointed out, the compound was overrun within minutes.

Read the rest over at


  1. it exposes more than that, but Republicans are too interested in scoring some political points to worry about exposing classified information.

    1. As we all know, whistle blowers are only praised during Republican administrations. It will be interesting to see how President Romney will respond to a sudden concern over the National Defense Authorization Act that … Obama signed into law.

    2. No, I was talking about the material at the Congressional hearing that was provided by a whistle blower within the State Dept.

      Did you really think that the CIA wasn’t working down there? Yeesh, man…

  2. yes, the ubiquitous CIA is everywhere, meddling. geopolitics is a lot of fun.

    and so is domestic politics. the theatrics of indignation coming from Republicans right now is quite entertaining, considering Romney will be frothing for more intervention in Syria as he tries to out-hawk Obama on foreign policy.

    did you know, Doug, that by voting for Romney you will be supporting the arming of al-Qaeda? it’s true. Romney thinks Obama should go along with a repeat of Libya in Syria, where arming Islamic extremists and toppling a regime created a power vacuum that produced—gasp!—blowback.

    personally, I find it amazing how uninformed so many Americans are when it comes to this stuff. of course CNN isn’t broadcasting what the Council on Foreign Relations has acknowledged about al-Qaeda giving the Syrian opposition the oomph! they really needed.

    the only reason NATO isn’t raining bombs on Syria right now is because Russia and China stopped it from happening. that will change if Turkey escalates the border skirmishes happening right now.

    here’s some unsolicited advice: don’t waste your time with congressional kabuki. if you really care about four dead Americans in Libya, maybe you should give some deeper thought to why those Americans were there in the first place.

    1. Did you ever notice that in most of your responses the underlying theme is that you’re the smartest guy in the room?

      Regardless, it’s interesting how liberals act as if only the big bad U.S. just wasn’t “meddling” the rest of the world’s actors would just pack up their own intelligence services and mind their own business.

    2. you don’t like the message, so go after the messenger. so you’re ok with arming al-Qaeda?

    3. I go after the messenger? Coming from the guy who within the past few days called me “clueless”, a “rube”, etc.? That’s rich.

      Regardless, asking if I want to “arm al Qaeda” is a retarded question. I’ve already discussed this sort of thing in previous posts, as it pertains to arming the Mujahideen (although, only a fraction of what Pakistan supplied when you break it down…) in the 80’s to counter Soviet expansion. The Middle East sucks. It’s filled with a bunch of nuts. It’s hard to parse out the bad guys from the worse guys. Most of the good guys end up dead when they try and help us, but that doesn’t change the fact that in our absence others will still seek to influence the region. The liberal approach is to go into our shell and pretend like bad state actors don’t exist, hoping they won’t bother us.

  3. no, the liberal approach has been to hype humanitarian concerns to justify its selective toppling of regimes that defy the west’s interests, and the interests are for resources, because Americans are greedy consumers who disproportionately gobble up the diminishing, finite supply of oil. we are 4% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of the world’s energy.

    and your “The Middle East sucks” comment exemplifies the kind of ethnocentric tripe too many in this country, which is also filled with a bunch of nuts, eagerly display. imperial powers have been carving up and exploiting the Middle East for a long time now, like toppling Mossedegh in Iran in 1952 because he was giving British imperialists the boot.

    but Americans aren’t very good about understanding history, which is why we keep making the same mistakes, over and over and over again, then freaking out when the predictable blowback occurs.

    1. Hey, haven’t there been people who have claimed we were running out of fossil fuels for decades? Yep.

      Even liberal mags (that I admit I’m addicted to purchasing) like Wired are calling you out on it.

      There’s a reason why we consume so much. We’re productive. We’re entrepreneurial. We’re free people. We invent most of the world’s life saving drugs. And we keep innovating our way to kick ass break throughs in technology. Don’t expect me to apologize for that. The world doesn’t need a smaller American footprint. Quite the contrary.

    2. fossil fuels are a finite resource. I know the right has problems with science and facts, but there is not an infinite supply, and what remains is more difficult and risky to access. we won’t see fossil fuels “run out” in our lifetime, but we will see increasingly damaging methods of extraction make larger areas of the world inhospitable.

      and after this summer, it’s becoming clear to even the deniers that climate change is real, the damage will be very expensive, and just the increase in food prices alone is going to lead to global unrest. did you know global food prices was a major factor in the Arab Spring?

    3. Considering that I posted stories that touched on the food shortages for work … umm, yes.

      Whereas you see humans as a problem, I see them as the answer. Sorry to inform you that you’ve stumbled upon a conservative who loves science and technology … whose wife has made science her life’s work. Humans are always innovating, always finding new ways to address these issues. In fact, you should write a letter to your local oil executive and thank him for saving the whales. If it wasn’t for our love of crude, brought on due to advances in technology, our sea faring friends might all be extinct.

      Remember when Ted Danson said the world’s oceans would be extinct in 10 years during the 80’s? I do.

      That very same issue of Wired has an article on doomsday predictions just like the ones you make. Kind of ironic of them… I almost posted a piece on it — Wired simultaneously preaching the end of the world while telling us that people who do that shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      It’s also kind of convenient that your predictions all will come to fruition after we’re both dead. Oh well.

  4. Alqaueda are few stupid faaicnts that killed inocents in New York, London, Iraq, Indonesia, Please try to understand the difference between them and Egyptian, Tunisian, Libian, Syrian, Bahreeni, Yamani Syrian population which are looking for justice and freedom in their countries not for killing inocents!!!BTW:Do you know that some egyptians used to live in cemiteris because they didn’t have homes , mubarak had 70 bi fortune? and 723 eqyptians were killed by his snippers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: