Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Ambassador Stevens Affair Rachets Up

The Obama administration has not learned Rule One for surviving in Washington: "Do not lie to Congress." But President Obams has sent his people to Congress several times to make representations before Congress that turned out to be lies. The gun sales and tracking into Mexico comes to mind because the US Attorney General is now facing a criminal judicial proceeding because of lying and using delaying tactics to avoid telling Congress the whole truth about the affair. A second major confrontation between President Obama and Congress is now taking shape. It involves security at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and what Obama and the State Department knew and in what timeframes about the assassination of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on 11 September. The Associated Press reported today that "American diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the consulate in Benghazi and were turned down by officials in Washington." This is not really news but where it comes from is interesting. The leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz - said their information came from "individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya" and the Committee has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking whether the level of security at the US mission met the security threat, and how the department responded to requests for more security. The letter says there were more than 50 security incidents at the Benghazi compound. Two of them involved explosive devices: a 6 June blast that blew a hole in the security perimeter described to the committee as "big enough for forty men to go through"; and a 6 April incident where two Libyans fired by a security contactor later threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence. The State Department has refused to answer questions about Benghazi security, but Clinton recently said, "...we do our very best to limit...risk by ensuring that our security protocols reflect the environments in which diplomats work and the threats that they are presented with." The basic question at issue between Congress and Obama is why the administration insisted for some time that Stevens was killed during a spontaneous demonstration when it was clear from the beginning that Stevens' assassination was a deliberate terrorist attack. Clinton discussed security on 18 September, saying that security at Benghazi included "...a unit of host government security forces, as well as a local guard force of the kind that we rely on in many places around the world." She said there was "...robust security presence inside the compound...And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent." However, Congressman Issa's letter included the following details: (1) unarmed Libyan guards at the consulate, employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group, were warned by family members to quit their jobs because there were rumors of an impending attack 2 miles from the consulate between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the transitional government; (2) two Libyans fired from a contractor providing security at the consulate later threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence but there were no casualties; and (3) a June Facebook entry mentioned Stevens' early morning runs around Tripoli with members of his security detail. The page contained a threat against Stevens and a stock photo of him. Stevens stopped the runs for about a week, but then resumed. Everything is now in place for a Congress -White House confrontation. It seems clear that President Obama believes he can schmooze his way through the Benghazi affair. He and Secretary Clinton seem convinced that they can ease forward their story about the assassination of Ambassador Stevens often enough to prevent any actual "lying to Congress" to occur. They tried the same tactic in the Mexican gun sales affair and lost. I'm surprised that they are so unwise that they are willing to try it again in such a high-profile situation as the assassination of an American Ambassador.

2 comments:

  1. When there is nothing new that one can add to a thoroughly examined situation with every scenario explained, one should do the smart thing and be quiet.

    Excellent Casey Pops

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clintons lie and Obama doesn't care.

    ReplyDelete