New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[PaintMyHouse]

How do you know what Stevens was doing? Wrong place at the wrong time? HE WAS IN OUR FUCKING ANNEX, YOU ASS CLOWN!!! He wasn't out hitting night clubs looking for hotties! He was in a place that SHOULD have been secure if our Secretary of State wasn't more worried about appearances than she was about security for our diplomatic personnel.

Had he been at the embassy, 400 miles away, he'd still be alive. He didn't have to be there. He choose to be there that night, and it was a deadly mistake. That city was so hot we were the only ones left, and Stevens knew that. It was, like it or not, his call.

You're really quite a disgusting human being, Paint...you're blaming the man who gave up his life serving his country...a man who went to Benghazi to conduct official business for the United States even though he knew it WAS dangerous, for his own murder.

At the beginning of July there were 30 personnel assigned for diplomatic security for Stevens...when the attack took place on 9/11 there were 9. That draw down of security took place despite Chris Steven's requests for more security...including one made the day before the attacks took place. Stevens KNEW that there was looming danger in Libya...it was Hillary Clinton that didn't have a clue about how bad it was. As for Barry? He doesn't know much about ANYTHING that happens in his administration so why would anyone expect him to know about the security of our Ambassador?

What I am is honest, and you don't have your facts straight. I blame him for being there on 9/11, which is correct.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A blog? Really? LOL

If Stevens naively misjudged the risk, as your blogger maintains...then kindly explain why he asked for additional security the day before the attacks took place?

He didn't. Look it up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

"CAIRO — 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."

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

He was no messenger boy there kids. He ran the thing. It was, like it or not, his call to be there, and knew the risks...

Did you not read the Wall Street Journal article? The one that explains why Stevens didn't want security to be provided by the armed forces because they would be under the control of the military and would thus not have diplomatic immunity and would not be allowed in the country? Stevens rightly pointed out that until a new Force of Arms agreement was worked out with the Libyans that security would need to be under State Department control.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

"CAIRO — 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."

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

He was no messenger boy there kids. He ran the thing. It was, like it or not, his call to be there, and knew the risks...

Did you not read the Wall Street Journal article? The one that explains why Stevens didn't want security to be provided by the armed forces because they would be under the control of the military and would thus not have diplomatic immunity and would not be allowed in the country? Stevens rightly pointed out that until a new Force of Arms agreement was worked out with the Libyans that security would need to be under State Department control.

I didn't read it because you didn't post it and it can't be seen without a subscription. And that reinforces exactly what I said, Stevens didn't ask for more security and what was offered he turned down.

 

[Oldstyle]

Had he been at the embassy, 400 miles away, he'd still be alive. He didn't have to be there. He choose to be there that night, and it was a deadly mistake. That city was so hot we were the only ones left, and Stevens knew that. It was, like it or not, his call.

You're really quite a disgusting human being, Paint...you're blaming the man who gave up his life serving his country...a man who went to Benghazi to conduct official business for the United States even though he knew it WAS dangerous, for his own murder.

At the beginning of July there were 30 personnel assigned for diplomatic security for Stevens...when the attack took place on 9/11 there were 9. That draw down of security took place despite Chris Steven's requests for more security...including one made the day before the attacks took place. Stevens KNEW that there was looming danger in Libya...it was Hillary Clinton that didn't have a clue about how bad it was. As for Barry? He doesn't know much about ANYTHING that happens in his administration so why would anyone expect him to know about the security of our Ambassador?

What I am is honest, and you don't have your facts straight. I blame him for being there on 9/11, which is correct.

You blame our Ambassador for being in Benghazi yet give a pass to the State Department people who didn't have enough common sense to give him adequate security?

 

[HenryBHough]

I didn't read it because you didn't post it and it can't be seen without a subscription. And that reinforces exactly what I said, Stevens didn't ask for more security and what was offered he turned down.

Poor Baby!

Imagine, can't afford a subscription.

Buck up, chile.....just ask The Great Black Santa Claus in de sky (D.C.) for a gift card. Tell Him you're a caster of multiple votes and it'll arrive Express Mail tomorrow morning.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

"CAIRO — 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."

Read more here: CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

He was no messenger boy there kids. He ran the thing. It was, like it or not, his call to be there, and knew the risks...

Did you not read the Wall Street Journal article? The one that explains why Stevens didn't want security to be provided by the armed forces because they would be under the control of the military and would thus not have diplomatic immunity and would not be allowed in the country? Stevens rightly pointed out that until a new Force of Arms agreement was worked out with the Libyans that security would need to be under State Department control.

I didn't read it because you didn't post it and it can't be seen without a subscription. And that reinforces exactly what I said, Stevens didn't ask for more security and what was offered he turned down.

Comprehension is obviously not a strong suit for you. Let me explain once again why Stevens turned down two offers by the armed forces to provide more security. Diplomatic security officers work for the State Department and thus have diplomatic immunity which would have allowed them into Libya...Special Forces commanded by the Armed Forces would not have diplomatic immunity and could only go into Libya if the Libyans allowed them in. Stevens WANTED security...but he understood that the security would have to be under the control of the State Department...not the military.

 

[BDBoop]

Oh wait.

 

[HenryBHough]

Confirmation, as tho we needed it, that liberals firmly (well as firm as they can ever get) believe that two wrongs DO make a right!

 

[Oldstyle]

By
Gregory N. Hicks
Jan. 22, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.

On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.

Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.

However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.
Enlarge Image

At a memorial service for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in San Francisco, Oct. 16, 2012. Reuters

Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.

During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.

The SenateIntelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.

Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."

Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're really quite a disgusting human being, Paint...you're blaming the man who gave up his life serving his country...a man who went to Benghazi to conduct official business for the United States even though he knew it WAS dangerous, for his own murder.

At the beginning of July there were 30 personnel assigned for diplomatic security for Stevens...when the attack took place on 9/11 there were 9. That draw down of security took place despite Chris Steven's requests for more security...including one made the day before the attacks took place. Stevens KNEW that there was looming danger in Libya...it was Hillary Clinton that didn't have a clue about how bad it was. As for Barry? He doesn't know much about ANYTHING that happens in his administration so why would anyone expect him to know about the security of our Ambassador?

What I am is honest, and you don't have your facts straight. I blame him for being there on 9/11, which is correct.

You blame our Ambassador for being in Benghazi yet give a pass to the State Department people who didn't have enough common sense to give him adequate security?

The security was ultimately his call, obviously, and if you read what the embassy guy wanted it was from two to four, and there were five there that night and they had no chance in hell against an attack that large and he says so. It's a fuck-up but plenty of that belongs in the lap of a nice, dedicated dead guy, like it or not. That is what honesty requires and Hillary didn't a damn thing to do with it except it happened on her watch. Shit happens.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

By
Gregory N. Hicks
Jan. 22, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.

On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.

Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.

However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.
Enlarge Image

At a memorial service for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in San Francisco, Oct. 16, 2012. Reuters

Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.

During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.

The SenateIntelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.

Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."

Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012.

Worth reading but he hasn't been able to keep his story straight, and he has a lot of reasons to not be entirely honest, guilt for starters, and protecting his friend and boss, and himself, from blame.

 

[HenryBHough]

See Paul Shaklin's website for delightful little ditty about what Hillary MIGHT have known.....if it weren't for that pesky memory thingie.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh wait.

Bush's Wars Of Choice:

Number of American service personal who have died in Afghanistan: 2313
Number of American service personal who have died in Iraq: 4487

That figure doesn't include contractors or other US citizens.

Benghazi: 4

Please neocon whiney fucks - don't start. You look silly

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh wait.

Bush's Wars Of Choice:

Number of American service personal who have died in Afghanistan: 2313
Number of American service personal who have died in Iraq: 4487

That figure doesn't include contractors or other US citizens.

Benghazi: 4

Please neocon whiney fucks - don't start. You look silly

What's gonna make you look even more stupid is the fact more soldiers have died under Obama's watch in Afghanistan than under Bush. You really oughtta stop calling us neocons now.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I am is honest, and you don't have your facts straight. I blame him for being there on 9/11, which is correct.

You blame our Ambassador for being in Benghazi yet give a pass to the State Department people who didn't have enough common sense to give him adequate security?

The security was ultimately his call, obviously, and if you read what the embassy guy wanted it was from two to four, and there were five there that night and they had no chance in hell against an attack that large and he says so. It's a fuck-up but plenty of that belongs in the lap of a nice, dedicated dead guy, like it or not. That is what honesty requires and Hillary didn't a damn thing to do with it except it happened on her watch. Shit happens.

So let me see if I understand how this works in your liberal fairy land...it isn't Hillary Clinton that was making the calls...it's the guy that works for her? And Stevens made those repeated requests for more security only because he was too stupid to realize that HE was in fact running the State Department and not Hilary?

Wow...who knew!

 

[Oldstyle]

By
Gregory N. Hicks
Jan. 22, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.

On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.

Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.

However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.
Enlarge Image

At a memorial service for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in San Francisco, Oct. 16, 2012. Reuters

Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face.

During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.

The SenateIntelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.

Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."

Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012.

Worth reading but he hasn't been able to keep his story straight, and he has a lot of reasons to not be entirely honest, guilt for starters, and protecting his friend and boss, and himself, from blame.

How has Mr. Hicks story changed one iota? So now you accuse the Deputy Chief of Mission of telling lies and NOT the people who have been proven to have played fast and lose with the truth about Benghazi right from the beginning?

Greg Hicks is one of the few people who IS being entirely honest...God knows few in the Obama Administration even understand what that word means at this point!

 

[tinydancer]

Oh wait.

Bush's Wars Of Choice:

Number of American service personal who have died in Afghanistan: 2313
Number of American service personal who have died in Iraq: 4487

That figure doesn't include contractors or other US citizens.

Benghazi: 4

Please neocon whiney fucks - don't start. You look silly

Comparing two wars vs Benghazi is as whacked out as comparing Vietnam to 9/11.

War vs terrorist attack is apples vs oranges.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The evidence is now out there. A complete White House cover up. Those are the facts. No amount of left wing spin or bullshit will change that.

There is no evidence of a cover up.

(Miss lollipop is hot.)

There's 100 pages of evidence. What I see here is liberals frantically racing to make up reasons for why this isn't true. Just admit it, the White House was involved in covering up the truth about Benghazi.

 

[Politico]

Ad still there is no link.