Four placed on leave.
It isn't very clear to me, but it appears from the title you are referring to (but don't mention in the actual post) the fact that all of the State Department personnel suspended were just reinstated at new posts:
A lot of stuff just doesn't add up.
This fellow would get to the bottom of it.
I can't find anything to suggest he's not credible.
In a recent CNN special on Benghazi hosted by Erin Burnett, most if not all that was imparted by the OP was affirmed. It was also affirmed that all 30+ CIA operatives (at their compound 1 mile from the diplomatic facility, and which was also besieged for many hours after the initial attack at the first site) were being held incommunicado and subject to monthly polygraph tests to assure they spoke neither to news media nor to congressmen. Very clearly a heavy lid of secrecy is being clamped down on the entire affair.
Please post sources for this, not questioning you, but we need sources that verify that the facts are accurate.
I have been unable to find the complete one hour TV broadcast, "The Truth About Benghazi". However, I have been able to come up with the following CNN broadcast segments:
Here is a link to part 1 of Erin's CNN broadcast.
CNN on the CIA intimidation, silencing and polygraphy of its Benghazi operatives. This really is a must see.
Included are allegations the purpose of the State Dept/CIA Benghazi mission was to transfer weapons, including ground to air missiles, from Libya thru Turkey to Syrian rebels.
So it took you all this time to figure out that the State Department was running cover for a covert CIA weapons operation? Is the need to place the blame on an individual politician more important than endangering CIA operations in the Middle East?
It is time to end the political witch hunt.
I agree but next time have an exit plan for when it hits the fan and hire a new guy to make cover stories.
We would not have had to exit had the press and politicians not blew open the covert CIA operation just to get a scoop, or gain political notoriety.
We never were good at exit plans. I had an older cousin who was sent to Cambodia just before hostilities in Vietnam heated up. He was undercover as a civil engineer on an irrigation project.
We never heard from him again. It was many years before his wife was told what country his body might be in.
If it bleeds, it leads.
Once Ambassador Stevens was killed the press coverage was a given. He wasn't shot but died from smoke inhalation by being trapped in a burning building almost alone and was not found by our people but by locals who tried to save him. My primary nit with the whole thing was the lack of US security to high value targets given the location and the people they were dealing with. The CIA operation attracted some very bad characters to the area and we failed to react to that threat due to the need to keep IMO a very low profile that made somebody override common sense measures.
Totally agree. The fact that the CIA was active in that area should shock no one. This whole thing feels like they were there for some (unknown to us) reason and things went south, and sadly it's being leveraged for political gain.
I'm not doubting that Fox and retired government personnel said things, but what is *their* bias? I mean, Fox? And don't you think that people from the 'military-industrial complex' have a self interest in this?
Good points. But none of us can speak with authority about what would have been reasonable wrt security at that location. We simply don't know the facts. I'm betting CIA tends not to be careless about security, and there is *plenty* that we don't know that influenced their decisions. Relying on media reports on this issue is pointless, to me. It's like trying to learn GR from crackpots.
You can speak for yourself about what you know about security requirements but we do know details that are not from news sources about the DS security conditions and requests for Benghazi and Libya in general during that time.
DS Diplomatic Security
You need to read more. WND is a very right wing source. Look at the real facts.
Where did you get the idea that the State Department wanted a low profile for political reasons. They wanted a low profile because it was actually a CIA operation. We have already covered that.
The Libyans were leary of boots on the ground security.
To long for a cut and paste, but not to long for a quick read.
Yes that is a link to Popular Mechanics. I really doubt that they are biased.
NSA, from your link, the Benghazi office requested MINIMAL personnel, not more.
Christopher Stephens is a true American hero IMO. He arrived in Benghazi via a Greek cargo ship in the middle of the civil war. He knew the danger and he accepted it.
Yeah, additional help was turned down, repeatedly. I don't know what he was thinking, maybe that if they showed they were of no threat that they'd be left alone?
What ever he was thinking, it resulted in their demise, no one else was at fault here. He was repeatedly offered more support and he repeatedly refused it.
Yes, and that makes my point about the lack of DS security forces to handle problems when people like Army Gen. Carter Ham who reads his sitrep messages about the area kept asking him if he needed more security but was repeatedly told no by him. But why did he do that is my question?
The reports answer to my question is IMO shameful in it's lack of accountability.
Well, hopefully it's a lesson learned. Sadly.
Separate names with a comma.