Libya

[G M]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html

Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse

The black flag of Al Qaeda has been spotted flying over a public building in Libya, raising concerns that the country could lurch towards Muslim extremism.








The flag was said to be flying over the building alongside the Libyan national flag Photo: Youtube

 




7:00AM GMT 01 Nov 2011


The flag, complete with Arabic script reading "there is no God but Allah" and full moon underneath, was seen flying above the Benghazi courthouse building, considered to be the seat of the revolution, according to the news website Vice.com.


The flag was said to be flying over the building alongside the Libyan national flag but the National Transitional Council has denied that it was responsible.
 

Vice.com also reported that Islamists had been seen driving around the city's streets, waving the Al Qaeda flag from their cars and shouting "Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West".
 

The revelation came just days after it emerged that rebels in Libya have imposed Sharia law in the some parts of country since seizing power.
 

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, said Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in free Libya.
 
 
The move towards Islamic extremism is likely to alarm many in the West who supported the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi.
 
It comes as unrest in the country flared.

Hundreds of revolutionaries fought each other at a hospital in Tripoli early on Monday, in the biggest armed clash between allies since the fall of Col Gaddafi.
 
The fighting fuelled growing fears that nobody is in control of thousands of swaggering armed men who are still based in Tripoli and that the country's interim government will struggle to impose law and order.
 

[DougMacG]

Wolfowitz says the others are half right.  Looks to me like he is about half right.  The amazing part is that Europe showed some resolve and leadership.  A rare positive feature in the world coming out of America in decline.  If one accepts as Wolfowitz does that the action was a positive thing, then Obama deserves some credit as a flip flopper - in his view in the right direction.  Remember he was chosen as the most consistently anti-war of all the Dem candidates.  In giving out credit he neglects to mention the controversy over not taking the question to congress.  Had that whole episode belonged to a Republican President, can you imagine...  What would Senator Obama's position and words have been?

Our offer to help is likely to be of no consequence if they now pledge their allegiance to al Qaida.

Hard to say we will miss Kadafy.  It will be more a question about what to do next about Libya in the future or the Caliphate when they start exporting terror and trouble.  The dragging of Kadafy's murdered body through the street was celebrated (mission accomplished?) by the same administration that believed it to be over the line to perform water tricks on the man who beheaded Daniel Pearl, to gain information to prevent mass murder.  Hard to see coherence in our foreign policy and hard to be optimistic about what will come next.  I might have supported the action as a choice between lousy choices, but I don't think I would be gloating as if all is well now.

[G M]

Ka-daffy wasn't into being part of a caliphate. We'll see about his successors.

[G M]

.....and all al qaeda got was his lousy weapon stockpiles.......


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/al-qaida-affiliate-chief-tells-mauritanian-site-his-group-got-libyan-weapons-as-west-fears/2011/11/10/gIQApa9M8M_story.html?wprss=rss_world

Al-Qaida affiliate chief tells Mauritanian site his group got Libyan weapons, as West fears
 

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, November 10, 8:08 AM




NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania — A desert chief with al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has confirmed fears that his terror organization procured weapons from stockpiles left unguarded in Libya after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi.

Mokhtar Belmokhtar was quoted by the private Mauritanian newspaper Nouakchott Infos and its online version Nouakchott Information Agency as saying that “it’s totally natural we benefited from Libyan arms in such conditions.”

[G M]

**Smart power!

Smuggled Libyan Weapons Raise Al Qaeda Fears
 


Published November 12, 2011
 
The Wall Street Journal
 
TRIPOLI, Libya –  Weapons smuggled from Libya after the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi's government are flowing through the surrounding region, the president of neighboring Niger said, a development that threatens to destabilize a swath of the continent already struggling against ethnic unrest and a regional branch of Al Qaeda.
 
"Arms were stolen in Libya and are being disseminated all over the region," Niger's president Mahamadou Issoufou said following a meeting with South African president Jacob Zuma. "Saharan countries are facing terrorist threats, arms and criminal trafficking. The Libya crisis is amplifying those crises."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/12/smuggled-libyan-weapons-raise-al-qaeda-fears/

[Crafty_Dog]

TRIPOLI, Libya — The United States is discussing with the Libyan interim government the creation of a program to purchase shoulder-fired, heat-seeking missiles from militia members and others who gathered them up during the war, American government officials said.

The talks are the latest step in a multinational effort to contain the risks posed by the thousands of portable antiaircraft weapons that are unaccounted for after rebel fighters overran government weapons depots during the battle against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. Western security officials worry that terrorists could use this particular type of missile, which is lightweight and relatively easy to fire, to menace civilian passenger planes.

Details remain unresolved, the officials said. But in essence the United States would provide money and technical support to
Libya’s government, which would purchase the missiles, and either lock them up in government arsenals or destroy them.
“We think we have come to the point where we need some sort of special program,” one official familiar with the plans said.

The missiles, believed to command premium prices on the black market, are a limited threat to modern military warplanes but pose potentially grave dangers to civilian aircraft, which rarely are equipped with the electronic countermeasures that can thwart heat-seeking warheads.

Known as Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or Manpads, the missiles are a class of weapon that includes the well-known Stinger. The version loose in large quantities in Libya, the SA-7, is an earlier Eastern bloc generation.
Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.
The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said.
If Libya agrees to a program, prices will probably be set by Libyan officials after testing the market, he added.
The official, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program, if approved, would be classified.
Although such efforts are often called “buyback” programs, in this case even the label raises sensitivities, officials said.
After providing Stinger missiles to Afghan forces fighting the Soviets in the 1980s, the United States organized a buyback program, trying to reduce the chance that the missiles would be used against international civilian air traffic or Western military planes.
In Libya, the program would not technically be a buyback, as these weapons were not provided by the West, American officials said. They were purchased from Eastern bloc suppliers during Colonel Qaddafi’s long period of arms acquisition.
Matthew H. Schroeder, a researcher who covers proliferation of Manpads at the Federation of American Scientists, said that such purchase programs had taken missiles out of circulation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“These programs have netted Manpads in the past, in at least quantities in the low hundreds,” he said. He emphasized that he did not know any details of the American plans for Libya, and that he could not comment on them.
The American government has estimated that Libya’s military imported 20,000 of the missiles during Colonel Qaddafi’s reign; the number now missing is a fraction of that. Precise estimates are impossible, officials say, because no one is sure how many the military still possessed at the outset of the uprising or later after months of fighting.
Some of the missiles were fired in training and in war. Others were disassembled by rebels, who used their tubes as makeshift launchers for other looted ordnance. Many of the missing missiles were looted, either by rebels or would-be profiteers. Many more were destroyed in bunkers that were hit in airstrikes.
Since the war’s end, the State Department has paid for teams of private security contractors who have been canvassing the country, examining former government arms depots and meeting with anti-Qaddafi militia commanders to try to account for and secure the remaining stock.
The United States has also sent teams to the countries bordering Libya to encourage increased inspections and vigilance for missile trafficking.
So far, the survey teams have accounted for about 5,000 missiles, the State Department said, including those destroyed or fired, held by militia groups or disabled by the teams.


Page 2 of 2)
Officials caution that given the large number of missiles presumed missing, and the limited ability of Libya’s interim authorities to police their borders or to control the militias, not all the missiles will be accounted for or secured.
The goal, they said, is to reduce the chances of large numbers turning up on the black market by finding and collecting as many missiles as they can, and ensure that as many others as possible are stored safely.
“We’re buying down risk,” Mr. Shapiro said in an interview last month, before the discussions for a purchase program began. During that interview, he explicitly refused to comment on any efforts to purchase the missiles. Through a spokesman, he declined to comment again this week.
Many factors have made precise accounting difficult, including the poor record-keeping of the Qaddafi military. The survey teams have not found detailed ledgers of inventory, or how many were issued to units or fired in training, where the missiles were kept or even whether the stock was rotated and inspected.
“We have found no databases, nothing,” said Nicholas A. Spignesi, a State Department official who supervised the effort in Libya in November.
The decision to seek Libya’s agreement for a missile-purchase program is a recognition that the efforts so far have had their limits.
As part of the assessment of problems in recent months, survey teams have found that significant quantities of the missiles are in the hands of the hundreds of armed militias in Libya. But the militias have shown little interest in turning the weapons in, participants said.
An official familiar with the proposal said that putting money or other forms of aid on the table in exchange for the missiles might create incentives for the militias.
The official said that the Libyan government could offer cash for missiles and missile components, or “in-kind support,” like jobs or other equipment for fighters looking to return to civilian life.
Although there have been news media reports of the more modern Russian SA-24 Manpads in Libya, there is no evidence yet to support the claims, American officials said. The SA-24s purchased by Libya were part of a vehicle-mounted system, the evidence suggests, and were not configured for shoulder firing. No SA-24 grip stocks or paperwork for grip stocks have been found.
Several people involved in the effort said there had been an internal debate about the merits of a purchase program, which could lead to many missiles’ being turned in, but may also make some groups hold out for higher prices.
“It is a delicate balance on when you do it and when you don’t do it,” one official said.

[Crafty_Dog]

President Obama often criticizes the Bush Administration for failing to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, so it's odd to see him leave himself vulnerable to the same charge in Libya. Two months after the death of Moammar Gadhafi, the cautious and reluctant White House follow-up to the NATO war resembles its approach to this year's Arab upheavals in general.

Leon Panetta offered a good gesture with last weekend's first-ever visit by a U.S. defense secretary to Libya. Mr. Panetta discussed military cooperation in general terms, but an overdue first step would be to open an Office of Security Cooperation within the embassy in Tripoli. The Pentagon says it's working on it. The U.S. is also finally pushing the U.N. to release Libyan frozen assets, including $30 billion under U.S. jurisdiction.

Yet the effort remains diffident and underwhelming. It's a small example, but U.S. officials are strongly discouraged from staying overnight in Tripoli. Few people and barely any aid are going to Libya, and U.S. officials stress that the United Nations is in the lead. The Europeans, who pushed hard for the NATO intervention, seem to care more about buying Libya's oil than midwifing a new Arab democracy.

The U.S. is also deferring too much to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on security in Libya. This is in part a legacy of the war when the U.S. refused to arm the rebels and the Arabs filled the vacuum, with the Qataris bringing in 20,000 tons of weapons.

The Gulf monarchies now feel entitled to shape the new Libya in their image, which includes favoring harder-line Islamists such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, Ali Sallabi and the Misurata militia. When Libyan officials publicly accused Qatar of "meddling," and Washington complained in private, we're told the Qataris scaled back their freelancing. But more U.S. involvement would be the better counterweight.

Another problem is the supply of mobile surface-to-air missiles (Manpads) that researchers from Human Rights Watch saw militias take from various weapons caches throughout the conflict—with no sign of NATO or the U.S. With the Pentagon told to keep a low profile in Libya, the State Department sent in a 15-member civilian team after the war to track them down. U.S. officials are also talking with the Libyans about a program to buy the weapons back from militias. Some 5,000 Manpads are accounted for, and a couple thousand more were destroyed during the bombing. But Gadhafi had about 20,000 before the war.

An imminent challenge for Libya's new transitional government, formed last month, is demobilizing dozens of militias. Recent clashes underscore the need for a new army and police. This too is an opening for Washington, perhaps under the NATO flag. Cost isn't the issue. Rich in oil and gas, Libyan authorities can pick up the tab. The U.S. should be able to help with the army-building skills learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Libyans are grateful to the U.S. for helping to topple Gadhafi and they want help to build their new country. Assisting them is in the U.S. interest—to prevent another radical regime from taking over and, more important, to show Arabs across the Middle East that a better future is possible when a dictator falls. Mr. Obama's Libyan intervention won't be a success unless he finishes this job.

[Crafty_Dog]

By MARGARET COKER
TRIPOLI—Libya's electoral commission released for public debate a draft election law that will oversee the country's first post-Gadhafi vote this summer, sparking a vigorous national discussion on Monday in a country hungry for input into their democratic transition.

The 15-page proposed law to elect the National General Committee covers important issues such as a minimum voting age and the eligibility requirements for candidates for seats in what will be a 200-person legislative body primarily given the task of creating a new national constitution.

Poll Positioning
A draft election law excluding certain candidates is sparking controversy. Among groups excluded are Libyans who:

Hold positions in the national interim government, local municipal or military councils.
Worked in Moammar Gadhafi's security agencies or as political commissars in his regime.\
Benefited monetarily or received improper educational standing from the regime.
Didn't immediately support the popular revolution to topple Gadhafi.
Source: WSJ research
 .The draft law also promises a 10% quota of seats for women, suggesting the law's authors have responded to weeks of blistering public criticism that the country's interim governing authorities have neglected women's rights.

Yet the document doesn't tackle several issues that could cloud the election, namely the formula that will be used to divide the country into voting districts and apportion seats to those districts. It also doesn't include language to create political parties, which were forbidden under Moammar Gadhafi's rule.

The interim legislative authority, known as the National Transitional Council, hasn't made public the criteria it uses for choosing its own representatives, who act in the name of specific municipal areas, or the formula to choose the number of representatives from each city.

The 200-strong body formed after the national election will be in charge of writing a new constitution, overseeing a national referendum on the constitution and overseeing governmental affairs until a third vote will be held to elect a permanent government as outlined in the new constitution.

Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Libya's acting head of state and leader of the NTC, praised the experiment in public discourse as a first step toward a more transparent Libya.

"Everything is open for discussion," Mr. Abdul Jalil said in a news conference Monday evening in response to a question about the electoral process.

The proposed electoral law appears most ambitious—and controversial—in laying out more than 20 classes of people who will be prohibited to stand as candidates in the vote, which is likely to be held in June, according to NTC members.

Among those prohibited from running for office are officials who worked in Gadhafi-era security apparatus or the political committees known as the Revolutionary Committees, which made up a key part of his inner circle; those convicted of criminal offenses and Libyans who held the rank of ambassador or consul general during the dictator's reign.

Other categories are more ambiguous, prompting questions from legal experts about whether the wording and tone of the draft law would exacerbate social tensions between Libyans who actively fought for the revolution and many who stayed on the sidelines.

For example, one article prohibits candidates standing for office if they have benefited monetarily from the regime or received diplomas or university degrees "without merit," an apparent reference to government officials who may have used their positions of power to advance their or their children's careers.

"That criteria could be used against three-quarters of the country," said Massaoud El Kanuni, a Libyan lawyer specializing in constitutional law. "How are we going to follow a path of national reconciliation if so many people are excluded from [the country's] future?"

Hours after being posted online, the draft document went viral, as the Libyan Twittersphere and local bloggers—both of which have emerged as a vital part of the civil discourse in post-Gadhafi political landscape—digested what they see as an initial step on their road to democracy.

One of the most widely discussed issues online was the quota of women, as well as imprecise language that appears to stipulate that no Libyan with dual nationality could run for election.

Many expatriate Libyans who have played prominent roles in both fund raising and fighting for the revolutionary forces posted angry comments online about what they see as a perceived bias in the draft law against the thousands of citizens living abroad after they and their families were forced into exile as political dissidents.

"They start with the wrong foot by assigning only 20 seats for women out of a total of 200 seats and end with discriminating against Libyans with other nationalities," commented one person on Facebook.

Libyans have a two-week period to register their concerns and amendments with the electoral commission—a process that will also occur online via email—with the final law expected to be announced by Jan. 23, after the electoral committee takes a week to review comments.

[Crafty_Dog]

By MARGARET COKER
TRIPOLI—Two Libyan militias once allied against Moammar Gadhafi battled for nearly two hours in central Tripoli, leaving four dead and a renewed sense of unease across a capital where the nascent government has struggled to maintain authority.

The clash on Tuesday underscored the festering security gaps facing the country as interim leaders try to create a central military command that can embrace or shut down the hundreds of neighborhood militias that remain, armed and unpaid, after toppling Gadhafi last year.

In a step toward establishing control, the government on Tuesday named a former rebel commander to the coveted post of chief of staff of the new Libyan army.

Rival commanders had been maneuvering to get one of their own local leaders named to the position, and interim authorities were concerned that an appointment could exacerbate regional tensions.

Tensions broke out in Tripoli on Tuesday, unrelated to the announcement, when a brigade of former rebel fighters from Misrata sought to take custody of several criminal suspects held in the capital and return them to their coastal city approximately 200 miles to the east.

A militia from the Tripoli neighborhood of Sidi Khalifa forced the retreat of the Misratans, capturing at least two of those left behind when the larger unit fled with their dead. The melee stopped traffic for hours in central Tripoli and blocked access to one of the city's busiest hospitals.

By evening, military commanders sought to reassure residents of the capital that the fighting was over and that calm had been restored.

However, rebel militias from several other Tripoli districts, incensed over what they viewed as an invasion of their city, had set up checkpoints and patrols around intersections leading out of the capital. Rumors swirled that the Misrata brigade would return after nightfall to seek vengeance for their fallen.

Libya's interim government succeeded last month in forcing revolutionary militias from other towns out of Tripoli, a city of two million people. The militias had helped liberate the capital in August and then took up strategic positions around the city while their political leaders lobbied for government posts.

Interim leaders also succeeded in banning most heavy weapons from the streets of the capital.

Yet at night, the sprawling city becomes a hive of heavily guarded enclaves, most districts possessing their own weapons stockpiles and deploying their local guardsmen to stand post at the major intersections leading to their homes. Street fighters remain well armed, the city flush with weapons that were used by rebels and government forces during last year's battle.

There has been little progress by the government on consolidating and demobilizing militias into a central command, as politicians gingerly maneuver the geographic and tribal tensions that have burst forth since the fall of the former dictator.

A senior interim government official said the promotion to army chief of staff of Yousef al-Mangoush, whose family originally hails from Misrata but has strong ties with the eastern city of Benghazi, should help alleviate some regional concerns.

Mr. Mangoush quit his career as an officer in Gadhafi's army years ago, and rose to become one of the most prominent rebel commanders on the eastern front of the rebellion in 2011.

Mr. Mangoush, who has served as a deputy defense minister since last month, told Libyan television in an interview after his appointment on Tuesday that he hopes to instill pride and discipline into a new national army. "A crucial issue [missing in Libya] is organization and order" in fighting units, he said.

The U.S. has offered advice and support on the process of establishing a central security force, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the delineation of power between the National Transitional Council, the interim legislative body, on the one hand and the interim government and cabinet on the other is sometimes unclear. A new election commission is supposed to be announced this month and to set a date for elections, likely in June.

Security concerns haven't significantly obstructed Libya's vital oil sector, nor have scuffles between militias endangered vital infrastructure, such as refineries or ports.

Enlarge Image

CloseAgence France-Presse/Getty Images
 
Armed Libyan militiamen on Tripoli's Zawiya after Tuesday's skirmish.
.The country is pumping approximately one million barrels of oil a day.

But a lack of central command and control almost certainly escalated the street battle on Tuesday, as three additional military organizations descended on the Sidi Khalifa neighborhood in attempts to mediate between rivals rumbling like street gangs, albeit with heavy weapons.

The battle began before noon Tuesday on Zawiya Street in front of the office complex of Gadhafi's former spy chief Abdullah Senussi and close to one of the city's largest hospitals.

The Misrata brigade swept into central Tripoli in their distinctive black pickup trucks with antiaircraft guns mounted in the back, and gathered in front of the former spy chief's office, where Tripoli rebels have operated a makeshift prison.

Doctors at the hospital and witnesses said gunmen from the local neighborhood then swarmed into the street.

The Misratans demanded that the rebel force in charge of the building hand over several wanted men to Misrata's control, according to witnesses.

The syncopated pop of automatic rifles quickly escalated with the boom of antiaircraft weapons and other heavy machine-gun fire as pedestrians fled for cover.

Other Tripoli brigades soon arrived on the scene, closing the major intersection near the hospital complex in efforts to minimize injuries from indiscriminate fire.

Local mosques began sending amplified messages to the district. "Libyans, stop killing Libyans," sang one man on the mosque loudspeaker.

Soon after, the neighborhood militia fired off a barrage of celebratory gunfire. About 90 minutes after the showdown began, the Misrata fighters fled the scene. The men from Sidi Khalifa then paraded down the street with two prisoners. "This is Tripoli. You don't mess with Tripoli," yelled one man as he beat one of the prisoners with the butt of an AK-47 rifle.

Tripoli Military Council commander Abdelhakim Belhadj declined to answer questions about who was to blame for the battle, or give details about the dispute over the wanted men. He said the Misrata fighters "didn't act in accordance with the law" in the incident.

A representative of Misrata for the National Transitional Council said the Misrata brigade had been calling for re-enforcements from the coastal city before the Tripoli and Misrata commanders met to cool tensions.

It was unclear the identities of the men whom the Misrata fighters wanted to take into custody. Some witnesses said they were criminals wanted for killing people in Misrata during the revolution. Others said the Misrata gunmen wanted to free members of their own brigade who had scuffled with the Sidi Khalifa neighborhood in the past and had been arrested by that neighborhood's fighters.

[Crafty_Dog]

I don't have any citations, but my readings indicate that Libya's recent elections apparently left Islamo Fascism faring rather poorly and modernisms doing rather well.

This is not what most of us here predicted.

[Crafty_Dog]

In Libya, a Deadly Attack On U.S. Diplomatic Compound
September 12, 2012 | 1223 GMT


Summary


A group of armed men attacked the U.S. consulate late Spet. 11 in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed Sept. 12 that four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the attack. According to media reports citing Libyan security officials, the consulate officials were killed when a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at their car as they were leaving the building.
 


Analysis
 
Some 20 armed men raided and set fire to the U.S. consulate. After local security forces reportedly fled, the assailants were seen shooting in the air before making their way into the facility, which was reportedly occupied by 10 consulate employees. Gunshots and explosions were heard, according to several reports.
 
Libyan officials said the attackers staged another raid, prompting the U.S. ambassador to try to escape. As he fled the attack with three other staff members, Stevens' vehicle was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade fired from an area nearby. A picture purportedly depicting the ambassador is being circulated on the Internet. The picture shows a dead Caucasian man being carried by a group of men; Stevens' death has not yet been confirmed by U.S. authorities.
 
Benghazi As a Militant Stronghold
 
Anger over a film made in the United States and insulting the Prophet Muhammad reportedly triggered the assault. A trailer of the movie has been posted on YouTube and translated into Arabic. The film was reportedly filmed by an Israeli-American director and supported by vocal Florida-based pastor Terry Jones. The Cairo and Benghazi incidents took place on an anniversary of Sept. 11 because that is the day Jones diffused the video under his sponsorship to mark what he calls "International Judge Muhammad Day."
 
 
 
This is likely not the last violent incident that will be triggered by this video. Indeed, unrest is already appearing to spread to cities in Tunisia.
 
 
 
The attack took place only hours after a Salafist-led protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo that drew around 2000 people. The video triggered outrage among Salafists in different corners of the Arab world, so it is no surprise that this would also manifest itself in Benghazi. Whereas the protest in Cairo was attended in large numbers and was meant to show vocal opposition, the Benghazi attack involved a small number of assailants but caused considerable damage and deaths.. Stratfor has long reported on Benghazi's role in Libya as stronghold of Islamist militants that present a security threat to transnational facilities and local officials.
 

The attack will raise several questions for the new government in Tripoli and for the US-Libya relationship. Chief among these will be just how much control can the central authority exert over the restive eastern half of the country and how that control -- or lack thereof -- will shape Washington-Tripoli ties moving forward.
.

Read more: In Libya, a Deadly Attack On U.S. Diplomatic Compound | Stratfor

[DougMacG]

I thought it was our presence on the Arabian Pennisula. Now it is free speech at home.  I blame the enemy but those blaming.ourselves perhaps take a look at spiking the football, 22 more times during the DNC.

How about we defend our facities and diplomats with out 600B defense budget.

Embassies also attacked in 1979 and 1998. Not a new threat.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html

Ambassador Stevens killed at site with no Marines

 By PHILIP EWING and JONATHAN ALLEN | 9/12/12 5:29 PM EDT Updated: 9/12/12 5:55 PM EDT

The consulate where the American ambassador to Libya was killed on Tuesday is an “interim facility” not protected by the contingent of Marines that safeguards embassies, POLITICO has learned.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed with three other Americans in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the city of Benghazi, where Libyan rebels ousted strongman Moammar Qadhafi last year.

Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Kendra Motz said that Marines were not posted to the consulate, unlike the embassy in the capital, Tripoli.

A defense official told POLITICO on Wednesday that the Pentagon is sending an elite team of about 50 additional Marines, called a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, to reinforce the embassy.

A senior administration official Wednesday called the Benghazi consulate “an interim facility,” which the State Department began using “before the fall of Qadhafi.” It was staffed Tuesday by Libyan and State Department security officers. The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured.

The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.

American officials fear that a little-known Internet video linked with an extremist Florida pastor may have inflamed Muslim sentiments across North Africa. A second senior administration official said Wednesday that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, the highest-ranking U.S. uniformed officer, called the pastor Wednesday to ask him to withdraw his support for the video, but the pastor was “noncommittal.”

The Florida religious leader, Terry Jones, has tangled with the Pentagon before – former Defense Secretary Robert Gates phoned him in 2010 to ask him not to burn a Koran in an anti-Islamic demonstration. He agreed then, but later burned a copy of the Muslim holy book earlier this year.

President Barack Obama said the United States would step up security at its diplomatic missions around the world.

According to press reports Wednesday, the attack on Benghazi may have been launched by terrorists linked to al Qaeda, who may have sparked or otherwise taken advantage of protests over an anti-Islamic video posted online. CNN reported that the U.S. could begin using unmanned surveillance aircraft to look for terrorist training camps nearby.

The second administration official said Wednesday that the Defense Department “was ready to respond with military measures as directed by the president.”

[Crafty_Dog]

Recommended by an ex-SF friend:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/#more-91329

[Crafty_Dog]

Understanding What Went Wrong in Benghazi
 

September 14, 2012 | 1030 GMT


In light of the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, myriad questions have emerged about the security failures that led to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, three other U.S. citizens in Benghazi and eight Libyan security guards. Indeed, multiple factors, some stemming from the consulate's hasty establishment after the Libyan civil war erupted in 2011, made the diplomatic compound uniquely vulnerable to an attack. The security risks were increased by the highly charged environment and recent re-emergence of jihadist activity in Benghazi, as well as the questionable decision for the ambassador to be in such a location on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
 
Militant Environment
 
The first factor to examine when analyzing the chain of events that led to the Benghazi attack is the environment in which the facility was located. There has been a long history of jihadist sentiment and activity in eastern Libya, especially in Benghazi and the longtime militant stronghold of Darnah. Former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime actively suppressed Islamist militants in the region.
 

Visit our Libya page for related analysis, videos, situation reports and maps.
 
As Stratfor discussed one month before the NATO intervention began in Libya in March 2011, concerns emerged that a collapse of the regime would provide the jihadists with opportunities to regroup and strengthen.
 
This resurgence became apparent in May 2012, when jihadists attacked the offices of the International Red Cross in Benghazi, and again in June, when militants attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi with an improvised explosive device and attacked the motorcade of the British ambassador with rocket-propelled grenades.
 





.
 
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, responsibility for the security of diplomatic compounds rests with host countries, but the U.S. government has learned through other security incidents that many countries cannot be depended upon to provide adequate protections. This is especially true in a city like Benghazi, where the central government in Tripoli has very little authority over the heavily armed local militias.
 
Lack of Security Features
 
Unlike typical consulates and embassies, the consulate building in Benghazi was not constructed to U.S. Department of State security standards. It was a villa that was being rented until a more suitable facility could be constructed. There was no U.S. diplomatic presence in Benghazi prior to the Libyan revolution, and the U.S. presence in the city was established hastily while the fighting with the regime was still under way. The villa was constructed to standards typical of local residential structures. Unlike modern U.S. diplomatic compounds, it was not constructed to withstand explosive devices and rocket attacks.
 
U.S. diplomatic facilities that meet current security standards have heavy perimeter walls built with significant stand-off distance from the road, as well as specially reinforced walls and windows. In addition, the compounds are built with intentional, concentric layers of security features, including safe-rooms in each compound's core, that would have provided additional protection in the Benghazi attack. Since the near tragedy at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad in 1979, when the facility was sacked and burned, the safe-rooms now feature escape hatches for cases when a fire traps occupants in the room.
 
Lack of Security Forces Personnel

The makeshift consulate in Benghazi housed very few U.S. employees and very little classified information, so there was less of an evident need for a detachment of U.S. Marine Security Guards than, for example, at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (there is not even a MSG detachment at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli due to host country sentiments). MSGs at an embassy or a consulate are charged with protecting the interior of the facility, including U.S. personnel and classified material. Working under the direction of the Regional Security Officer, a special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service, the MSGs will normally begin their defense at the interior "hardline," an interior layer of robust physical security measures, though at times they will take to an embassy roof to fire teargas or to help defend the facility. The ambassador's presence at the consulate in Benghazi was an anomaly. He would normally work from his office in the embassy in Tripoli -- a facility built to U.S. State Department security standards that opened in 2009.
 
The U.S. government accountability review board that will be established to investigate the Benghazi attack will undoubtedly examine the decision to take Stevens into a city with a demonstrable jihadist threat on the anniversary of 9/11. The ambassador did have a protective security detail consisting of Diplomatic Security Service agents and local security officers with him at the time of the attack, but the assailants were armed with heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The detail quickly became outgunned and trapped in a facility with poor physical security.
 
Budget and Bureaucratic Issues
 
The U.S. bureaucracy for building new projects works very slowly. It requires funding from Congress as well as planning by the State Department's Office of Overseas Building Operations. It is almost certain that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had requested a new facility in Benghazi, but such a project would take years to plan and build. As Stratfor has previously discussed, funding has also become an issue because securing the huge diplomatic presence in Iraq is consuming a substantial percentage of the state department's security budget. This, combined with other budget concerns, has moved the United States into the "bust phase" of the boom/bust diplomatic security spending cycle, which has made it even more difficult to get funding for small, remote posts such as Benghazi -- although the tragedy there might once again get that pendulum swinging in the other direction.
.

Read more: Understanding What Went Wrong in Benghazi | Stratfor

[Crafty_Dog]

second post of morning




The Consulate Attack's Impact on U.S.-Libya Ties
September 12, 2012 | 2319 GMT

Summary


U.S. President Barack Obama on Sept. 12 condemned the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three others, and the president vowed to bring the responsible parties to justice. Nearly coinciding with Obama's statement, the Libyan parliament on Sept. 12 selected Deputy Prime Minster Mustafa Abu Shagour, a dual citizen of the United States and Libya with close ties to the U.S. government, to serve as the country's next prime minister.
 
The high-profile death of Washington's top diplomat in Libya will pressure the United States to assist the government in Tripoli's security efforts to combat jihadists in Benghazi. The selection of Abu Shagour as prime minister could facilitate cooperation between the countries at the diplomatic level due to his background. The United States will likely take advantage of the situation to secure its strategic presence in the region.
 


Analysis
 
In his Sept. 12 statement, Obama pledged to work with the Libyan government to find and punish those responsible for the consulate attack. However, the weak status of Libya's governing institutions poses a challenge in this regard. 
 
Security Concerns
 
Libyans in Benghazi have bristled at the centralization of authority in Tripoli, in part due to Benghazi's critical role in the ouster of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, as well as historical divisions between Libya's eastern and western regions. Still, Tripoli has several advantages. The international community has recognized the city as the seat of government since Libya's National Transitional Council relocated there from Benghazi after Gadhafi's fall, and Tripoli has historically been the administrative center of Libya's oil industry, the country's primary source of revenue. Though not yet formally established, Libya's security forces will also be organized by the central government in Tripoli.
 





.
 
Many factors contribute to Libya's general sense of insecurity, but the most prominent source of instability is the situation in Benghazi. Clusters of Salafists and former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group members are still active in Benghazi and well equipped due to the wide availability of weapons in the wake of the country's civil war. Members of these groups or their ideological allies are likely responsible for the apparent assassination campaign against former Gadhafi officials as well as recent sporadic attacks against symbols of the West. The United States previously expressed concern over attacks in Benghazi in June against the U.S. Consulate and the British ambassador's motorcade, but the Sept. 11 killing of several staff members and the ambassador will add a renewed sense of urgency to the mission.
 
To combat Libyan militant groups, Tripoli will need assistance from the United States or other Western countries to gain the skills needed to infiltrate the jihadist groups operating in Benghazi, gather intelligence, interdict militant operations, and protect important facilities from similar attacks in the future. Already, the United States has dispatched the U.S. Marine Corps' Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to reinforce diplomatic facilities in Libya, according to an AP report citing unnamed U.S. officials. Dialogue is also likely under way concerning potential operations to secure Libya's cities and track down the perpetrators of the attack on the ambassador.
 
Leadership and the U.S. Strategic Presence
 
Even before the Sept. 11 consulate attack, there were signs that Tripoli might pursue closer cooperation with the United States and the West on a range of issues not limited to security. Several former members of the Libyan opposition, many who are now prominent members of the new Libyan government, spent years in the United States under political asylum or received assistance from the U.S. government.
 

Visit our Libya page for related analysis, videos, situation reports and maps.
 
Current General National Congress President Mohammed Magariaf founded the National Front for the Salvation of Libya in 1981, a body that was widely believed to have been backed by the United States as an alternative to the Gadhafi regime. Throughout Gadhafi's rule, that group was Libya's most organized opposition body even though most of its leaders resided in the West. Additionally, the National Transitional Council's ground forces commander during the rebellion, Lt. Gen. Khalifa Haftar, lived in exile in Vienna, Virginia, during the 1990s and is widely speculated to have a close relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies. Perhaps most notable is Libya's new prime minister. Abu Shagour is a U.S. citizen (he will be required to officially renounce his citizenship before becoming prime minister) who previously worked as an engineer for NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense.
 
Spending significant amounts of time in the West has been a common pattern among Libya's new political leaders, due in no small part to the opposition roles played by many of them, as well as the ineligibility of Gadhafi-era politicians to hold office in the new government. Regardless, Libya's new president and prime minister were independent candidates with close ties to the West. The United States will try to use these connections to prevent the emergence of a hostile regime in Libya and check the rise of security threats from the country's jihadists and militant groups. And though U.S. companies currently do not have a significant presence in the Libyan oil industry, good relations with the Libyan government could facilitate such involvement in the future. 
 
While Libya is not an essential strategic partner for the United States on the level of Egypt, Saudi Arabia or even Morocco, the fledgling Libyan government's heavy need for assistance in filling the country's power vacuum presents Washington with an opportunity to expand its presence in the country. The shared U.S.-Libyan objective of containing threats posed by jihadists in Benghazi will likely offer some of the first chances to do so.
.

Read more: The Consulate Attack's Impact on U.S.-Libya Ties | Stratfor

[DougMacG]

The horrific death of the Americans is widely reported but I have not yet heard how many of the enemy were killed while trying to attack our consulate and diplomatic corps in this most dangerous place - facing a known threat.

Pres. Obama has more backup on a golf course.

[Crafty_Dog]

One of four dead doing intel work:  http://rt.com/usa/news/libya-state-department-mission-147/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/us-ambassador-to-libya-knew-the-ways-of-the-arab-street.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120916

[Crafty_Dog]

Amid Chants of 'Free Libya, Terrorists Out,' a Nation at a Crossroads
After the attack came antimilitant, pro-U.S. demonstrations..
Article Comments ( more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.
smaller Larger 
By JASON PACK And ANDREA KHALIL
Benghazi, Libya

Sept. 11 is now a date that signifies a national tragedy for Libya as well as the United States. The attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, has upset the delicate political transition from dictatorship to democracy that was unfolding here. It also has obscured parliament's prudent selection Wednesday of Mustafa Abushagour—a moderate Islamist and respected technocrat—as prime minister. Yet spontaneous street demonstrations throughout the week denouncing the attack and seeking to pressure the government to act against its perpetrators suggest that Libyans are determined to build an inclusive society, free from fear.

We knew Ambassador Stevens personally and he was the best kind of American diplomat—charismatic, not bureaucratic, and fluent in Arab culture. He was in Benghazi from the beginning of last year's uprising against Moammar Gadhafi and forged irreplaceable personal ties with top rebel leaders.

On Wednesday night in Tree Square in Benghazi, we witnessed crowds expressing heartfelt disappointment, shouting slogans like, "Free Libya, terrorists out!" On Saturday, Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told "NBC Nightly News" that non-Libyans were among those involved. The assertion dovetails with educated opinion here that the attack on the mission must have been planned by an al Qaeda affiliate in revenge for the U.S. drone killing of the Libyan-born al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan in June. Few demonstrators we talked to knew about the alleged justification for storming the consulate—the hateful 13-minute YouTube video "The Innocence of Muslims." Among those who did, a minority incorrectly assumed that if the video was produced in the U.S., it must represent American public opinion or tacit government policy.

Most Libyan popular opinion is more nuanced. Based on our dozens of interviews in Benghazi, most Libyans are appalled by the consulate attack. One female medical student at a Benghazi demonstration captured the mood: "The Americans are guests in our country and Islam requires us to treat them well."

According to a recent Gallup poll, Libyans hold a more favorable attitude toward Americans than they do even toward Canadians. As days have passed since the attack, Libyan popular condemnation has increased. A meeting took place on Thursday evening at the Shbelia Hotel to coordinate citizen action against the militants. The people who attended also wanted to goad the government into reining in the myriad militias that fought Gadhafi and have deepened their hold on local politics since his ouster. According to one activist, "There is no government response—because there is no government."

There is a small anti-American minority who support using the YouTube video to advance their militant agenda. On Wednesday night, they staged a small counterdemonstration in front of the Tibisti Hotel, where most foreigners stay. It consisted of about 50 men with Salafist black banners advocating more anti-Western violence.

On Friday, there were competing demonstrations around Benghazi. Women staged a peaceful antimilitant, pro-American demonstration in front of the Tibisti Hotel. Partisans of the militant group Ansar al-Sharia confronted them, dispersing the women. The demonstrations have dissolved without further violence.

Although some Libyan police died heroically resisting the consulate attackers, it still isn't clear if the ill-trained Libyan security forces did all they could to halt the attack. Symptomatic of the good and bad in the new Libya, there was no police or governmental presence at any of the protests we attended.

Last week Prime Minister Abushagour condemned the attack, expressing solidarity with the U.S. and promising to bring the criminals to justice. On Friday Benghazi's airport was closed to try to prevent suspects from escaping. About 50 arrests have already been made, but experts doubt that Libyan authorities have the firepower or know-how to tackle all the nonstate actors involved. The attack on the U.S. diplomatic post has also added to the perception that the Libyan government doesn't control its territory. Such popular doubt fuels decreasing public willingness to cooperate with authorities.

The U.S. can respond in three ways to the attack and its aftermath. It can cut and run, as in Lebanon in 1984. It can conduct a punitive counterterror expedition in coordination with Libyan authorities—although this would have to rely on Predator drones and risks prompting revenge attacks.

Or the U.S. can help Libya build institutions to strengthen its new foundations. Although the U.S. already has a small footprint—training Libyan security personnel, engineers and English-language students—such efforts could be increased. Such an effort would help create jobs and get potential extremists and militia off the streets.

In the words of Sen. John McCain, "Libya is wealthy. It does not need our money. . . . It needs our technical expertise." Based on our observation, popular sentiment in Libya longs for increased international cooperation.

If America abandons the country or lashes out in revenge, security and stability will deteriorate, foreign investment will dry up, and the Libyan economy will stagnate.

America wisely played a supporting role in ending the Gadhafi dictatorship. In the struggle for post-Gadhafi Libya, the U.S. cannot be silent. Only intense engagement can help restore momentum to the political transition already under way.

Mr. Pack is a researcher of Middle Eastern History at the University of Cambridge. He is president of Libya-Analysis.com. Mrs. Khalil is an associate professor at CUNY. She is currently traveling in Libya while on a Fulbright Scholarship to Tunisia.

[Crafty_Dog]

Second post of morning:

"Our largest diplomatic missions have less than a full platoon of jarheads.  Most have less than a squad.  They don't have the ability to launch any sort of action beyond the grounds of the mission, and certainly don't have the ability to send a team to another town.  That would be abandoning their primary responsibility and leaving the mission completely vulnerable.

"The detachments really don't have the capability to defend mission personnel and property, much less the deluded US citizen who thinks the embassy will somehow save them when they get jammed up overseas.  MSG's generally have just enough ass to hold the hardline while the shred party gets things done.  The importance of this task will show in Libya as all those who dared to befriend our government are executed now that their identities have been compromised.

"The responsibility for QRF in these situations falls upon the FAST companies.  They are forward deployed to Spain, Bahrain, and Japan and are equipped to rapidly deploy to reinforce and evacuate missions in trouble."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Security_Force_Regiment#Fleet_Antiterrorism_Security_Team

[Crafty_Dog]

Third post of day.

Methinks these people are not without some courage in doing this , , ,

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer?fb_ref=recbar

[Crafty_Dog]

State Dept Reverses Denial of Hiring British Security Firm in Benghazi

by Michael Patrick Leahy18 Sep 2012, 8:07 PM


In her daily press briefing on Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland admitted that she provided false information Friday about the State Department's hiring of private security firms for the American mission in Benghazi attacked on September 11th:

QUESTION: You also said there was no contract with a private security firm in Libya, and yet apparently some British security guards were hired. Is that your way of saying you didn’t contract with a firm but you did hire individual security guards?

MS. NULAND: Thank you for that, because there was an error in what I said. The external security, external armed security, as we have been saying, outside of the perimeter, was fully handled by the Libyan side. There was no contract – contracting out of that. There was a group called Blue Mountain Group, which is a private security company with permits to operate in Libya. They were hired to provide local Libyan guards who operated inside the gate doing things like operating the security access equipment, screening the cars, that kind of thing.

Please.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, they were contracted by the U.S. State Department or another agency – Blue Mountain?

MS. NULAND: They were contracted by the Department.

QUESTION: And Blue Mountain is a British company?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to let them self-identify on that front. But the people who were hired were Libyans.
Nuland continued with reporters, "There’s nothing else that I have that needs correcting at the moment."

Only four days earlier, at her daily press briefing on Friday, Nuland emphatically denied that the State Department had hired any private firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the claim was made yesterday that a company that is a spinoff of Blackwater, in fact, proposed or contracted the United States Government for this particular kind of eventuality, and it was caught up in some sort of bureaucratic --

MS. NULAND: Completely untrue with regard to Libya. I checked that this morning. At no time did we plan to hire a private security company for Libya.

QUESTION: Toria, I just want to make sure I understood that, because I didn’t understand your first question. You said – your first answer. You said that at no time did you have contracts with private security companies in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Correct. [emphasis added by Breitbart]
Solid investigative reporting by Wired's Danger Room may have forced the State Department's hand to finally disclose the truth. On Monday, Danger Room strongly contradicted Nuland's claims:

The State Department signed a six-figure deal with a British firm to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya just four months before a sustained attack on the compound killed four U.S. nationals inside.

Contrary to Friday’s claim by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that “at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,” the department inked a contract for “security guards and patrol services” on May 3 for $387,413.68. An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only “foreign security awardees” as its recipient.

The State Department confirmed to Danger Room on Monday that the firm was Blue Mountain, a British company that provides “close protection; maritime security; surveillance and investigative services; and high risk static guarding and asset protection,” according to its website. Blue Mountain says it has “recently operated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Caribbean and across Europe” and has worked in Libya for several months since last year’s war.
As Breitbart News reported on Tuesday, Blue Mountain Group is a British security firm hired by the State Department to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi. Blue Mountain Group was chosen by State, in part, because it was willing to accept the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya that prohibited security guards at Benghazi from carrying weapons that contained bullets. [emphasis mine]

The State Department has refused to release the document that describes the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya to Breitbart News. On Friday, Breitbart News filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the document

===========================

OBAMA ADMIN SENT UNARMED BRITISH FIRM TO PROTECT U.S. MISSION IN BENGHAZI

by Michael Patrick Leahy 18 Sep 2012, 3:18 PM


EDITORS' NOTE: According to a source close to Breitbart News and high up in the intelligence community, the Obama administration's policy following Muammar Gaddafi's death has been to keep a "low profile" during a chaotic time.

For this reason, according to the source, American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a "low profile," the administration didn't even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the "no bullets" Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE.

In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others.

As of now, the State Department has not disclosed the full State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.

Here is the full story.

***

The State Department selected a private British firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi, Libya in part because it was willing to accept the "no bullets" rules of engagement signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Breitbart News has learned.

On Thursday, McClatchy News reported that security on the external perimeter of the Benghazi mission was limited to a party of eight Libyan nationals, five of whom were hired by a British private security firm, three of whom were hold over revolutionary militia "now considered part of Libya's military":

The guard, who said he had been hired seven months ago by a British company to protect the compound, said the first explosion knocked him to the ground and he was unable to fire his weapon.

Four other contracted guards and three members of Libya's 17th of February Brigade, a group formed during the first days of the uprising against Moammar Gadhafi and now considered part of Libya's military, were protecting the perimeter of the compound.
One explanation for this guard's statement that he was unable to fire his weapon is simply that he had no bullets in his gun, which would be consistent with State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.

It is unclear if the three Libyan militia members that comprised the rest of the eight-man perimeter security team were governed by the same rules of engagement as the five Libyan nationals provided by the British firm that holds the security contract at Benghazi.

The picture of who provided security inside the mission at Benghazi, how many were in this security team, and what arms, if any, they had in their posession is still unclear.

Though it has been confirmed that two of the Americans (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty) who were killed on the September 11, 2012 attack at the Benghazi mission were there to provide private security, it's unclear if they were permanently stationed there and hired by the British security firm or if they were independently hired by the State Department to serve in some other security capacity.

In her press briefing on Thursday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the American security presence inside the mission perimeter was "robust." However, she declined to reveal how large that presence was at the time of the attack, whether they were armed and authorized to carry ammunition, and whether they were provided as subcontractors by the British security firm hired to secure Benghazi or if they were independently hired by the State Department.

Sources tell Breitbart News that at the time of the the September 11, 2012 attack in which four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were murdered, there were only eight security guards for the perimeter and probably no more than four security guards for the interior of the Benghazi mission.

Under the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, Marines were prohibited from providing security at any U.S. diplomatic installations in Libya, including the embassy in Tripoli and the mission in Benghazi.

The State Department denied a Friday request by Breitbart News to obtain a copy of the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, the document that contains the answers to the security arrangements at the Benghazi mission at the time of the September 11, 2012 attack. Later that day, Breitbart News filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the document. Usually, FOIA requests are processed within a month.

The Wall Street Journal confirmed Friday that the Libyan security guards provided by Blue Mountain, the British-Libyan private security firm hired by the State Department to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi, were unarmed:

There also were four private security guards, all Libyans, who weren't armed and worked inside the compound. Interviews with the Libyans indicated there also were four to eight American security guards around the compound when the attack started.

As trouble began, two Libyans posted on the outside moved inside and alerted the Libyan security forces, said Mr. Farraj, but backup didn't arrive immediately. Mr. Sharif said that he advised the armed security unit not to open fire so as to not inflame the situation...

As the compound was being overrun, the Americans started returning fire, said Mr. Farraj. "But we were totally outgunned. I called more of the brigade to come reinforce us." He said a lull developed around 11 p.m. and the Americans and Libyan military appeared to be back in control. At this point, Mr. Farraj said, he believed that the bulk of the American consulate staff were evacuated. But the ambassador was missing and the villa was on fire.
The Wall Street Journal puts the number of unarmed security guards provided by the British security firm at four, and places them in the interior of the mission rather than in the exterior perimeter.

In addition, the Journal reports that there were apparently just four Libyan military guards on the exterior perimeter of the mission, and though they may have been armed, they were ordered not to fire. It is unclear if this order was given consistent with the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya. The Journal estimates the number of private American security forces as between four and eight.

Despite the Wall Street Journal report that a British private security firm, Blue Mountain, had been contracted by the State Department to provide security for the American mission at Benghazi, and Breitbart's source's statement that a British private security firm had been hired by the State Department to provide security at Benghazi, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland on Friday denied that the State Department had hired any private security firm to provide security in Libya:

QUESTION: No, I’m asking whether the State Department rejected an offer from another U.S. agency to provide greater security for installations and people in Libya anytime over this calendar year.

MS. NULAND: Well, you will not be surprised if I am not going to speak about the internal deliberations that the U.S. Government has or that the State Department has with its brother and sister agencies about how the U.S. responsibilities for security are carried out.

QUESTION: Last question: Very specifically, again, at any time in the last six months did the State Department make arrangements with one of these private security contractors to evaluate our security situation in Libya? And did, in fact, such a contractor undertake an assessment of the security situation in Libya for our installations there?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that specifically. I can tell you that at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya – at no time. We did have some individual contracts with individual security guards, as you saw and as the Secretary spoke to.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the claim was made yesterday that a company that is a spinoff of Blackwater, in fact, proposed or contracted the United States Government for this particular kind of eventuality, and it was caught up in some sort of bureaucratic --

MS. NULAND: Completely untrue with regard to Libya. I checked that this morning. At no time did we plan to hire a private security company for Libya.

QUESTION: Toria, I just want to make sure I understood that, because I didn’t understand your first question. You said – your first answer. You said that at no time did you have contracts with private security companies in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Correct.
As Obama's Libya narrative of a spontaneous attack based on a film begins to unravel, the cover-up begins. But when all signs point to a foreign policy failure of the highest order, hopefully the public, particularly the people who lost loved ones that day, will get the investigation they deserve.

Breitbart News has asked a spokesperson for the State Department if it considers a private American security force of between four and eight as "robust," but the State Department has not responded.

[Crafty_Dog]

WSJ:

Hundreds of protesters stormed the compound of one of Libya's strongest armed Islamic extremist groups on Friday, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building as the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans sparked a public backlash against armed groups that run rampant in the country and defy the country's new, post-Moammar Gadhafi leadership.

Armed men at the administrative center for the Ansar al-Shariah militia, suspected to have led the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, first fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually withdrew from the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was surrounded by waves of protesters shouting "No to militias."

"I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform," said Omar Mohammed, a university student who took part in the takeover, which protesters said was done in support of the army and police.

Protesters went on to attack two more compounds after breaking off from a huge march in the center of the city, and a Libyan hospital official said Saturday two protesters were killed in overnight clashes near the headquarters of the Rafallah Sehati brigade. Mohammed al-Fakhri, manager of al-Hawari hospital, said that in addition to the two young men who died, about 30 were injured.

Tens of thousands earlier marched in Benghazi in a rally against armed militias. A vehicle was also burned at the compound, which was taken over by Libyan security forces after its occupants fled.

More
Earlier: Miscues Before Libya Assault
 Live: Mideast Turmoil Stream
.
For many Libyans, last week's attack on the consulate in Benghazi was the last straw with one of the biggest problems Libya has faced since Moammar Gadhafi's ouster and death around a year ago—the multiple mini-armies that with their arsenals of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are stronger than the regular armed forces and police.

The militias, a legacy of the rag-tag popular forces that fought Gadhafi's regime, tout themselves as protectors of Libya's revolution, providing security where police cannot. But many say they act like gangs, detaining and intimidating rivals and carrying out killings. Militias made up of Islamic radicals are notorious for attacks on Muslims who don't abide by their hard-line ideology. Officials and witnesses say fighters from Ansar al-Shariah led the attack on the U.S. consulate.

Some 30,000 people filled a broad boulevard as they marched along a lake in central Benghazi on Friday to the gates of the headquarters of Ansar al-Shariah.

"No, no, to militias," the crowd chanted. They carried banners and signs demanding that militias disband and that the government build up police to take their place in keeping security. "Benghazi is in a trap," signs read. "Where is the army, where is the police?"

Other signs mourned the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, reading, "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Military helicopters and fighter jets flew overhead, and police mingled in the crowd, buoyed by the support of the protesters.

Several thousand Ansar al-Shariah supporters lined up in front of their headquarters in the face of the crowd, waving black and white banners. There were some small scuffles, but mostly the two sides mingled and held discussions in the square.

The march was the biggest seen in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and home to 1 million people, since the fall of Gadhafi in August 2011. The unprecedented public backlash comes in part in frustration with the interim government, which has been unable to rein in the armed factions. Many say that officials' attempts to co-opt fighters by paying them have only fueled the growth of militias without bringing them under state control or integrating them into the regular forces.

Residents of another main eastern city, Darna, have also begun to stand up against Ansar al-Shariah and other militias.

The anti-militia fervor in Darna is notable because the city, in the mountains along the Mediterranean coast north of Benghazi, has long had a reputation as a stronghold for Islamic extremists. During the Gadhafi era, it was the hotbed of a deadly Islamist insurgency against his regime. A significant number of the Libyan jihadists who traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq during recent wars came from Darna. During the revolt against him last year, Gadhafi's regime warned that Darna would declare itself an Islamic Emirate and ally itself with al Qaeda.

But now, the residents are lashing out against Ansar al-Shariah, the main Islamic extremist group in the city.

"The killing of the ambassador blew up the situation. It was disastrous," said Ayoub al-Shedwi, a young bearded Muslim preacher in Darna who says he has received multiple death threats because has spoken out against militias on a radio show he hosts. "We felt that the revolution is going in vain."

Al-Shedwi said some were afraid that if they don't act to rein them in, the U.S. will strike against the militias, pushing people to support the gunmen.

Leaders of tribes, which are the strongest social force in eastern Libya, have come forward to demand that the militias disband. Tribal leaders in Benghazi and Darna announced this week that members of their tribes who are militiamen will no longer have their protection in the face of anti-militia protests. That means the tribe won't avenge them if they are killed.

Activists and residents have held a sit-in for the past eight days outside Darna's Sahaba Mosque, calling on tribes to put an end to the "state of terrorism" created by the militias. At the city's main hotel, The Jewel of Darna, tribal figures, activists, local officials and lawmakers have been meeting in recent days to come up with a plan.

"Until when the tribes will remain silent," cried a bearded young man standing on a podium at one such meeting Thursday. "The militias don't recognize the state. The state is pampering them but this isn't working anymore. You must act right now." Elders in traditional Libyan white robes stood up and shouted in support.




And here is POTH's coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/pro-american-libyans-besiege-militant-group-in-benghazi.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120922&moc.semityn.www

[objectivist1]

When will the Obama administration and/or our sickeningly hypocritical leftwing media acknowledge this???

The Sexual Pathology of the Libyan Attackers

Posted By Mark Tapson On September 21, 2012 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Soon after the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Libya, reports began coming in that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not only murdered by the Muslim mob, but also sodomized both before and after his death, and his corpse dragged through the streets. This grotesque defilement was willfully suppressed by the mainstream media, who were focused like a laser on a much more horrific story: presidential candidate Mitt Romney talking like a conservative at a fundraiser. Thank goodness that in these difficult times we can count on the media to cover the news we really need to know.

As FrontPage Shillman Journalism Fellow Raymond Ibrahim writes,

Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found… Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens—stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed—very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported “freedom-fighter,” for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.

Ibrahim finishes by noting that “the al-Qaeda affiliated men who sexually abused and killed Gaddafi are the same men who sexually abused and killed America’s ambassador.”

This revelation about the sexual denigration of the reportedly gay Ambassador Stevens raises several questions. First, when are so-called liberals going to shed the rose-tinted goggles of multiculturalism and get in touch with a righteous anger about a pathologically anti-gay, ragingly misogynist, mob culture that sexually violates and murders innocents?

When are American progressives, who whine about a mythical Republican War on Women, going to denounce this perverse sexual pathology in Arab culture? When are leftist academics, up in arms about the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogations of hardened terrorists, going to vent their fury against a culture that routinely commits sexual torture and mutilation?

Gay rights supporters work themselves into a lather over the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, which discriminates against neither gay employees nor gay customers. I suppose they’re unaware that most Arab and African nations walked out of an historic UN Human Rights Council debate on gay rights earlier this year, refusing to legitimize homosexuality. When are the “liberals” going to break their monastic silence about a theocratic culture that hangs gays from cranes, as in Iran, where President Ahmadinejad famously claimed they don’t have the problem of homosexuality there?

Obviously these are all rhetorical questions designed to underscore the left’s disgusting hypocrisy, because the answer to all of them is never. Breaking free of the mental bondage of multiculturalist indoctrination would cause the entire world view of leftists to come crashing down. They must cling to their delusion or risk a complete psychological meltdown.

Another question: If suspicions of Ambassador Stevens’ homosexuality are true, why did the administration send a gay man to an unstable hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism? Did it not realize that the possible discovery of his sexual orientation could have ramped up the danger for Stevens? Kevin Dujan at Hillbuzz reports that a Serbian consulate employee named Dino

told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual.”

Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens’ corpse was something that Muslims do to show the “utmost disrespect to the body” and that this is “a great insult in Islam” reserved for homosexuals. ”It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life,” the Serbian explained to me.

Women should find it pretty offensive that this process of degrading a corpse through rape is considered “making him a woman in death” and “a woman after life.” Why aren’t feminists taking to the streets to condemn this misogynist barbarism? Oh, I forgot – they’re busy picketing Washington for free birth control, costumed as vaginas.

The American left, forever screaming about gay marriage, demanding free birth control, and spewing hate at conservative Christians whom they disparage as the “American Taliban,” is shamefully silent about real evil in the world, about the most intolerant ideology on the planet and one that stands in stark contrast to the tolerance they claim to revere.

A final question: President Obama proudly announced, almost three and a half years into his tenure, that he had “evolved” far enough to support gay marriage; when can we expect him to “evolve” enough to express outrage – not just a composed, rote condemnation of violence – at a culture that condemns homosexuals to a grisly death?

Some might argue that, to avoid igniting the Middle East tinderbox, the President should stay calm and not inflame matters more. Screw that. Islamic fundamentalists have dragged an American ambassador’s mutilated body through the streets, killed three more Americans, and stormed our embassies in other countries as well. It’s long past time for the President of the United States of America to present a righteous fury to the Islamic enemy, show them not one whit of deference or appeasement, and move to protect American interests and avenge American murders.

But that won’t happen, because we have a President whose sympathies lie with the Muslim fundamentalists seeking to tear down America and the West. Because of that he will excuse their torture and killing of homosexuals, their insanely hateful oppression of women, their violent disrespect toward our embassies, and their murder of Americans. We have a President who is busy yukking it up with David Letterman, partying with former drug dealer Jay-Z at a fundraiser, and basking in the adoration of the hosts on The View to give a damn about American lives or American interests.

[Crafty_Dog]

The fundamental point of your post is correct Obj, but I would love to have a citation on whether our ambassador was raped in fact or whether this is unconfirmed rumor.

[JDN]

 

The fundamental point of your post is correct Obj, but I would love to have a citation on whether our ambassador was raped in fact or whether this is unconfirmed rumor.

As usual, Objectivist1 has his facts wrong; also, further, I notice as usual, Pam Geller is a perpetrator of this false information. 
Typical.....  GARBAGE.....

FACT

"He was NOT raped NOR was he sodomized."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

[Crafty_Dog]

Ummm , , , your snopes citation describes this as UNCONFIRMED, so certainly it is NOT a fact that it did NOT happen.

OTOH, Obj, given the lack of a clear source or confirmation, indignation over non-covereage by the Pravdas would seem to be misplaced.

[JDN]

Ummm , , , your snopes citation describes this as UNCONFIRMED, so certainly it is NOT a fact that it did NOT happen.

Actually I beg to differ.  I searched for the word, "unconfirmed" and couldn't find it.  Nothing in the Snoopes citation even implies it happened; nor do they say that it might have, could have, or that it is "unconfirmed".  Rather any report of it happening was clearly DENIED.  But when I googled, I did find "confirmed" on a long list of weird and wacko websites; Pam Geller on top.   

It's a figment of Objectivist1's wild imagination (he's been seeing Martian's again) fueled by the "reliable" Pam Geller et al.


AFP said that the website report falsely quoted their news agency (regarding rape and being sodomized) and has no truth whatsoever.  They removed the report and published a clear DENIAL.

Other news accounts confirm he was "not raped".

"The hospital reported that the ambassador had bleeding in his stomach because of the asphyxiation but no other injuries."

Absolutely NO respectable source (oh, I forgot about Objectivist1 and Pam Geller et al) think or say or even imply that the Ambassador was raped or sodomized.

So yes, it IS a fact that it did NOT happen.

Objectivist1's article therefore is simply GARBAGE with no basis of fact.  Typical... as you point out, no source or confirmation; just rumors and falsities; that's Objectivist1....

[bigdog]

"The failure of the Arab world to follow its assigned script really deserves as much attention as did last week's outburst."

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/21/a_funny_thing_happened_on_the_way_to_muslimrage

[objectivist1]

The Snopes.com citation to which JDN refers doesn't use the word "unconfirmed," the actual word used at the top of that snopes post - in all capital letters, I hasten to add - is "UNDETERMINED."  This is an utterly meaningless distinction.

Furthermore, I conducted a thorough search of Pamela Geller's web site - atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com - along with a Google and a Bing search, and FOUND NO SUCH STORY USING THE WORD CONFIRMED, AS JDN CLAIMS, EITHER ON HER WEB SITE OR IN THE RESULTS FROM EITHER SEARCH ENGINE.  Quite to the contrary, Geller has an update at the top of her post from Sept. 13th referencing the rape reports clearly stating that they are UNCONFIRMED.  She also notes that the story was run by the Washington Examiner and a Lebanese newspaper.  I encourage readers to verify this for themselves.

In addition, here is a story from hillbuzz.com going into more detail about the alleged sodomization.  Again - read it and form your own conclusions:  http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291

The root problem here is that the Obama administration has been lying and withholding information from the beginning regarding this incident.  We now know that Stevens was tortured before he was killed.  This is not in dispute.  In light of this fact, JDN's assertion that it is a fact that Stevens was NOT raped is simply absurd.

[Crafty_Dog]

I wouldn't go that far Obj.   Your original post on the possible rape stated the matter as fact, whereas it appears to be unconfirmed/undetermined.

[objectivist1]

Crafty: I am not disputing what the original article I posted stated.  The reports remain unconfirmed.  I stand by my assertion that in light of the circumstances surrounding this situation, it is foolish to dismiss the possibility that the story is true at this point.  Again - I encourage readers to look at the links I posted and form their own opinions.  I strongly suspect that there is more damning information yet to come regarding this incident.  We shall see.

[JDN]

That's the problem Obectivist1; you represented it as FACT.  Pam Geller did too, although now in small print she has a disclaimer.  That's just her style.

As for "undetermined" well that is less than "unconfirmed".  I could say it's "undetermined" that you Objectivist1 are talking to Martians.  There are absolutely NO facts
to indicate that the Ambassador was raped or sodomized.  The only previous alleged source, retracted their statement, denied that statement, and said
it wasn't true.  So odds ARE better you are talking to Martians. 

You can't throw rumors aka $%^& against the wall, but call them "facts" and hope something sticks; then call it a "real fact" if surprise, it sticks, and merely ignore (I've never seen a retraction from you) the rest.  It just stays on the wall and continues to smell.  That is Pam Geller.  Hopefully, you are better than that.

In contrast Crafty. also being passionate, has posted some rumors.  He identified it as such, but "thought it was reliable".  If later shown to be in correct, rather than argue,
he simply says thank you.  Therefore the integrity of the Board remains.

This is suppose to be a resource board; a search for the truth.  Not a wacko rumor board.

So may I suggest you identify rumors as rumors and then after confirmation, facts as facts.  Or if it is your opinion, that's fine, but clearly label your opinion.  We may often
disagree in our opinion, but I hope we don't disagree very often on the facts.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291

[G M]

Let's see, the administration has lied it's collective ass off about this incident, but the DNC operatives that practice "journolistism" are to be seen as the arbiters of truth. 

That's the problem Obectivist1; you represented it as FACT.  Pam Geller did too, although now in small print she has a disclaimer.  That's just her style.

As for "undetermined" well that is less than "unconfirmed".  I could say it's "undetermined" that you Objectivist1 are talking to Martians.  There are absolutely NO facts
to indicate that the Ambassador was raped or sodomized.  The only previous alleged source, retracted their statement, denied that statement, and said
it wasn't true.  So odds ARE better you are talking to Martians. 

You can't throw rumors aka $%^& against the wall, but call them "facts" and hope something sticks; then call it a "real fact" if surprise, it sticks, and merely ignore (I've never seen a retraction from you) the rest.  It just stays on the wall and continues to smell.  That is Pam Geller.  Hopefully, you are better than that.

In contrast Crafty. also being passionate, has posted some rumors.  He identified it as such, but "thought it was reliable".  If later shown to be in correct, rather than argue,
he simply says thank you.  Therefore the integrity of the Board remains.

This is suppose to be a resource board; a search for the truth.  Not a wacko rumor board.

So may I suggest you identify rumors as rumors and then after confirmation, facts as facts.  Or if it is your opinion, that's fine, but clearly label your opinion.  We may often
disagree in our opinion, but I hope we don't disagree very often on the facts.

[G M]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/morning-examiner-obamas-alternative-middle-east-reality/article/2508201

Morning Examiner: Obama’s alternative Middle East reality
September 17, 2012 | 6:34 am
41Comments
 
Conn Carroll
Senior Editorial Writer
The Washington Examiner
 
President Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, hit the Sunday talk show circuit yesterday to defend the administration’s Middle East policy in light of a week’s worth of spreading violence and the first murder of a U.S. ambassador since Jimmy Carter was president. In the course of defending Obama, Rice claimed: 1) that the security at the Benghazi consulate was adequate; 2) the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were not pre-planned; and 3) all of this violence is due solely to one 11-minute video on YouTube. All three of these positions are preposterous.

First, as the BBC reported this weekend, the Obama administration purposefully chose to provide substandard security at the Benghazi consulate. “US embassies and consulates in areas of the world where they are deemed liable to attack are usually offered a formal security contract called a Worldwide Protective Services Agreement … But sources have told the BBC that on the advice of a US diplomatic regional security officer, the mission in Benghazi was not given the full contract … Instead, the US consulate was guarded externally by a force of local Libyan militia, many of whom reportedly put down their weapons and fled once the mission came under concerted attack.”

Second, Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf directly contradicted Rice on CBS’s , Face the Nation, telling Bob Schieffer, “It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival.”

Finally, no one outside the White House believes a single video caused the violence. Liberal commentator and Tufts University international politics professor Dan Drezner has called Obama’s decision to blame the YouTube clip a “radically incomplete and dishonest answer.” As The New York Times Ross Douthat points out, the riots have far more to do with internal power politics.

The reality is that Obama has failed internationally for the same reason he has failed at home: arrogance. Obama has supreme confidence in the power of his own rhetoric and his own personal story. He believes he can bend history to his will. “I would like to think that with my election… you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world,” Obama said in 2009. “John, I’ve got great confidence in my ability to sway the American people,” Obama told Speaker Boehner in 2011. But his failures, first in the debt limit debate and now in the Middle East, show that Obama is far less effective than he thinks he is. Domestically it has cost the United States our top-notch credit rating. Internationally it cost four Americans their lives. Will the Americans people hold Obama accountable?

[G M]

At least Obama bravely carried on, attending a Vegas fundraiser, appearing on the View and Letterman and partied with JayZee and Beyonce. Churchillian in his way.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/26/bombshell-us-knew-stevens-assassination-was-work-of-terrorists-within-24-hours-of-attack/

Bombshell: US knew Stevens assassination was work of terrorists within 24 hours of attack

posted at 9:21 am on September 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Five days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto five Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking of the consulate was the result of a protest over a YouTube video that “spun out of control.”  The government of Libya was already scoffing at that story, and by the end of the next week the White House began reluctantly admitting that terrorists had attacked the diplomatic mission.  Today, however, Eli Lake reports for the Daily Beast that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack had not been a spontaneous event, but a well-planned terrorist attack:Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …
The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”
Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”
A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”
In other words, either Susan Rice lied to the press, or was lied to by the Obama administration and sent out to the press deliberately.  That leaves the national media in a quandry.  Clearly, with only a couple of exceptions, the media hasn’t wanted to address the implications of a successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic installation … at least not during the Barack Obama presidency.  Now it’s becoming very clear that the administration didn’t just tell them to “f*** off,” the White House actively lied about the attack in order to deflect further questions from the media.
Will national news organizations begin to demand answers about who told Rice to tell that story, and why?  Or will they continue the pattern of last week, in which the media suddenly developed a keen interest in economic policy when the White House narrative on Benghazi began collapsing?  I’m pretty sure I know which way I’m betting.

[DougMacG]

Libya thread here but writing my 2 cents about the cognitive dissonance of our national security:

Preface all criticisms of our handling of anything to do with a terror attacks with the fact that the blame first goes to the attackers, the enemy. 

However, is an attack attempt on an embassy or consulate on the anniversary of 9/11 in a country that we helped turn over to an al Qaida coalition completely unexpected?  Really??

Al Qaida also blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, pre-9/11.  They blew up the USS Cole, then the Twin Towers - again, hit the Pentagon, took a shot at the Capitol, White House and other America and western targets they found within their reach.

Yet the administration won't call it terrorism and won't take reasonable precautions.

The Ambassador who we held as our most valuable asset in the region and died of smoke inhalation started his September 11 2012 day in an al Qaida stronghold inside an American building without smoke mask or a fire extinguisher.

My daughter's bedroom in our unlocked, super secret, secure upper midwest location has more security than that.

Keep in mind that the UN Ambassador they put up to lie to us about the video, the spontaneity and the who knew defense is auditioning for the job of new Secretary of State.  How did she do? 

The 'who-knew?' defense and the straw man line that the President can't prevent rogue videos from reaching the internet (who said that he should have?) is the shiny object to see if we will look away from the fact that we have terrorism deniers in charge of security and that we left some of our best assets in harm's way unprotected.  MHO

If the argument is that we had protection but it turned out to not be enough (who knew?), I ask again, how many of the enemy were killed in the exchange?

Clint Eastwood nailed it, if they aren't up to the job you gotta let 'em go.

[DougMacG]

Despite Threats, U.S. Cut Security in Libya Before Attacks
by Eli Lake Oct 4, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Even as American outposts in Benghazi appeared to be at risk, the State Department trimmed the number of security guards on the ground. Eli Lake reports on the latest allegations.

In the six months leading up to the assault on the United States consulate in Benghazi, the State Department reduced the number of trained Americans guarding U.S. facilities in Libya, according to a leading House Republican investigating the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks. The reduction in U.S. security personnel increased America’s reliance on local Libyan guards for the protection of its diplomats. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/04/despite-threats-u-s-cut-security-in-libya-before-attacks.html

[Crafty_Dog]

*FBI came and went to Benghazi in past 24 hours
* (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fbi-came-and-went-benghazi-past-24-hours) (10/4/12)

---Quote---
WASHINGTON (AP) — A team of FBI agents arrived in Benghazi, Libya, to investigate the assault against the U.S. Consulate and left after about 12 hours on the ground as the hunt for those possibly connected to the attack that killed the Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans narrowed to one or two people in an extremist group, U.S. officials said Thursday.

Agents arrived in Benghazi on Wednesday and departed on Thursday after weeks of waiting for access to the crime scene to investigate the Sept. 11 attack.

The agents and several dozen U.S. special operations forces were there for about 12 hours, said a senior Defense Department official who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation. The FBI agents went to "all the relevant locations" in the city, FBI spokeswoman Kathy Wright said. The FBI would not say what, if anything, they found.

Killed in the attack were Stevens, a State Department computer expert and two security agents who were former Navy SEALS. Al-Qaida-linked militants are believed responsible.

In the U.S., the attack has become caught up in election-year politics. Republicans accuse Obama administration officials of being misleading in the early aftermath about what they knew about the attackers and for lax security at the diplomatic mission in a lawless part of post-revolution Libya.

Immediately after the attack, officials said the consulate was stormed by protesters outraged over an anti-Muslim film produced by a California man.

U.S. intelligence and special operations forces have focused on at most "one or two individuals" in the Libya-based extremist group Ansar al-Shariah who may have had something to do with the attack, according to a U.S. counterterrorism official. But that official and two others said there was no definitive evidence linking even those individuals to the attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the investigation publicly.

Members of Ansar al-Shariah were recorded making boastful calls to other militants after the attack, including to members of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which is suspected of having a role in the attack, one of the officials said. But that's common in the aftermath of any such attack, when different militant groups try to claim credit to build their own stature in the region, the official said.

So far, U.S. intelligence has found no evidence showing communication between militants prior to the attack, which took place on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

Several Republican lawmakers have said Stevens and his staff made repeated requests for security improvements at the Benghazi consulate that the State Department denied.

The State Department has assigned an independent panel to look into the security procedures before, during and after the attack. That five member accountability review board met for the first time Thursday and compiled documents to go through, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. The board must submit its findings and any recommendations it may have to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton within 60 days, unless it is determined that more time is required.

The Pentagon is conducting its own internal review to see whether the military played any role in assessing the security in Libya, spokesman George Little said.

FBI agents had been staying away from Benghazi until the city was more secure, law enforcement officials said. But agents were in other parts of the country investigating the attack since Sept. 18.

Little said it was "a matter of days" between the request for the FBI to access the Benghazi crime scene and the team's arrival Wednesday when the U.S. military airlifted them to the city. The request to the Pentagon to transport the FBI to Benghazi came a several days ago and it took a few days to get the team there, the senior Defense Department official said.

Attorney General Eric Holder said people should not assume that "all that we could do or have been doing" in the investigation is restricted solely to Benghazi.

"I'm satisfied with the progress," Holder said Thursday. He said there were a variety of other places inside and outside Libya where "all these things could be done and have been done and that the matter has been under active investigation."

[G M]

I'm wondering where the autopsy report for the ambassador is? Should  be done  a long  time ago....

[objectivist1]

As I posted earlier in this thread, I believe there is MUCH more to this story than we are presently being told.  G M is exactly right that there ought to have been an autopsy report released by now.  I continue to believe this unfortunate man was sent into that viper pit without proper protection, especially since it appears probable that he was gay (see my post and Crafty's earlier in this thread.)

It is common knowledge that simply BEING homosexual is punishable by death in that part of the world.  Gays are routinely executed in Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq, et. al. (everywhere in the ME that is, except for Israel.)  If Stevens was in fact gay, the State Department certainly knew about it (as this would be documented in his security clearance file) and acted with reckless disregard in stationing him in Benghazi.  I'm not excusing Stevens' stupidity for accepting such an assignment, mind you - but regardless - this administration clearly didn't give a damn about his safety. The rumors of his brutal sodomization continue to hold weight with me given the circumstances, and this alone would clearly be reason for the administration to want to cover up the details.

Just another example (as if any more were necessary) of why I equate the idiocy of Jews who support Obama with that of his gay supporters.  Both groups might just as well volunteer to march into the gas chamber.

[G M]

The most transparent administration e-var !!!

At least  we know  they  wouldn't  lie to us...

[Crafty_Dog]

Senior American military and counterterrorism officials announced to The Washington Post on Thursday that the United States is working toward capturing or killing the militants behind the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The announcement comes two days after the same newspaper reported that the White House was discussing extending its unmanned aerial vehicle campaign to target the North African bases of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other jihadists in the region. Amid the absence of a strong effort from Tripoli to seek out those responsible for Ambassador Stevens’ death, rumors are circulating that the United States may carry out unmanned aerial vehicle strikes in Libya. With the deployment of other assets to the region, it is possible that the use of fixed-wing aircraft is also being considered.
 

What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman explains.
 
There are significant challenges to U.S. military action in Libya, most obviously the need for sufficient intelligence on the ground to facilitate strikes of this kind. Washington must have reliable intelligence on the location of jihadist bases and movement of personnel in Libya to maximize the effects of any action, and this has been brought into question following the attack in Benghazi. The lack of good intelligence also increases the likelihood of strikes against civilian targets, a key criticism of U.S. campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and a source of domestic frustration within foreign governments.
 
The United States must also take into account the destabilizing effects the strikes could have on the already weak central government in Tripoli. Recently appointed Libyan Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur is a former U.S. citizen and employee of NASA. While these credentials helped assuage Western concerns during the recent political transition, many Libyans still view Abushagur with suspicion. Were Tripoli to approve U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle strikes against al Qaeda targets, it could undermine the legitimacy of the current government, resulting in the same type of domestic insurgent attacks seen in Yemen. Furthermore, while the strikes would likely be contained to Islamist militant hotbeds in the northeast of the country, the political and social backlash could ripple out to restive communities across the country.
 
The region’s geography also complicates attempts to bring the jihadist threat under control. Libya sits at one end of an ancient Saharan transport route that has long carried people and goods from city-states south of the Sahara to what is now northern Mali, moving through southern Algeria and sub-Saharan African states. Following the collapse of the regime of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in October 2011, the regime's cache of weapons and vehicles disappeared into the desert. The United States, Europe and many African countries in the region are concerned about the ongoing instability in northern Mali, the country that bore the brunt of militant spillover following the collapse of the Gadhafi regime. Local governments have struggled to control the illicit flow of drugs, arms and human trafficking along this desert route.
 
Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other militant groups in northern Mali have used their historic ties and familiarity with the desert to their advantage. Many of these groups have nomadic Tuareg affiliations and in the past were hired out by the Gadhafi regime and used as mercenaries in Libya or to destabilize Sahelian states. The territorial advantage these groups hold is a key concern in assessing the effectiveness of any would-be foreign intervention to help Bamako regain control of its northern territory.
 
The collapse of the state in northern Mali, after the coup in Bamako in March, gave Tuareg militants and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb an ungoverned territory in which to train and strategize terrorist operations. As a result, the United States and Europe must strategize an effective counterterrorism response. Western policymakers are reviewing several plans, including returning to a civilian-led government in Bamako, or mobilizing a West African-led, U.S.- and European-supported peace enforcement mission to reassert government control. Intelligence and covert operations would likely play a part, though a U.S. strike in northern Mali would likely force militants into hiding. It could also lead them to seek out regional bases in Algeria and Libya while possibly galvanizing anti-Western sentiment if civilians get caught in the crossfire.
 
This leads us to the question of why the West usually engages with North Africa. Algeria is a significant supplier of natural gas to Europe, as well as a regional refining hub; Libya possesses the largest oil reserves on the continent. South of the Sahel, Nigeria is Africa's largest crude oil supplier to the United States. While al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has not yet targeted Nigeria, the spread of terrorist activity is a significant concern. The unchecked actions of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in northern Mali are not sustainable unless terrorist operations deepen and spread.
 
Algeria and Libya are OPEC members and produce some of the highest quality crude oil on the planet. U.S. action against jihadists in the region could prompt militant attacks against critical government infrastructure, mostly likely in the energy sphere, a tactic favored by militants in Yemen, Turkey and Iraq. The United States has already seen the consequences of unchecked militant activity in Northern Africa. Regional and foreign governments have all expressed a desire to see some semblance of order restored along the Sahara. The challenge is to collect adequate intelligence to support actions that won't trigger further militant violence, destabilize local governments or risk key regional energy assets.


Read more: Rumors of U.S. UAV Strikes in Libya | Stratfor

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/libyan_embassy_staff_report_fatal_u254wGInMdRDHzrmii5SyJ#.UHL4dIHObNg.mailto

Also:

*Congress to probe security flaws for Libya diplomats* (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57527150/congress-to-probe-security-flaws-for-libya-diplomats/)

By Sharyl Attkisson

Updated 10:43 PM ET

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya.

The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.

Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack.

A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security.

"We tried to illustrate...to show them how dangerous and how volatile and just unpredictable that whole environment was over there. So to decrease security in the face of that really is... it's just unbelievable," Wood said.

The State Department official says there was a "constant conversation" between security details in Libya and officials in Washington D.C.

Sources critical of what they view as a security drawdown say three Mobile Security Deployment teams left Libya between February and August in addition to the 16-member Site Security Team on loan from the military. That's 34 highly-trained security personnel moved out over a six month period.

One State Department source told CBS News the security teams weren't "pulled," that their mission was simply over.

Also scheduled to appear at next week's hearing are Libya's former U.S. Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom and State Department official Charlene Lamb.
scription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all


================

Also

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-team-commander-says-ambassador-stevens-wanted-his-team-to-stay-in-libya-past-august-2/

[G M]

But, but, Buraq gave the Cairo speech and ended the global jihad!!!!!!!!!!!

We better paste a few more "Coexist" bumper stickers on our Prii!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/libyan_embassy_staff_report_fatal_u254wGInMdRDHzrmii5SyJ#.UHL4dIHObNg.mailto

Also:

*Congress to probe security flaws for Libya diplomats* (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57527150/congress-to-probe-security-flaws-for-libya-diplomats/)

By Sharyl Attkisson

Updated 10:43 PM ET

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya.

The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.

Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack.

A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security.

"We tried to illustrate...to show them how dangerous and how volatile and just unpredictable that whole environment was over there. So to decrease security in the face of that really is... it's just unbelievable," Wood said.

The State Department official says there was a "constant conversation" between security details in Libya and officials in Washington D.C.

Sources critical of what they view as a security drawdown say three Mobile Security Deployment teams left Libya between February and August in addition to the 16-member Site Security Team on loan from the military. That's 34 highly-trained security personnel moved out over a six month period.

One State Department source told CBS News the security teams weren't "pulled," that their mission was simply over.

Also scheduled to appear at next week's hearing are Libya's former U.S. Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom and State Department official Charlene Lamb.
scription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all


================

Also

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-team-commander-says-ambassador-stevens-wanted-his-team-to-stay-in-libya-past-august-2/

[G M]

It gets deeper. BTW, where is the autopsy report?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/on-eve-of-house-hearings-state-department-finally-admits-no-there-was-never-any-protest-outside-the-benghazi-consulate-before-the-attack/

On eve of House hearings, State Department finally admits: No, there was never any protest outside the Benghazi consulate before the attack
posted at 8:41 pm on October 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

If you’ve been following the news about Benghazi, you’ll have two questions after watching this clip. One: Didn’t we already know this? Answer: Yes, “we” did, but not because our government was eager for us to find out. McClatchy published an interview with a Libyan guard wounded in the attack just two days after it happened in which he claimed that there was never any protest. Four days later, Fox News was hearing the same thing from an intelligence source on the ground. Four days after that, Eli Lake of Newsweek reported that there was intelligence early on that the attack was planned and that an Al Qaeda affiliate was involved. Right around the same time, Jay Carney started segueing from the White House’s initial ludicrous “spontaneous protest over the Mohammed movie” narrative to a “yes, of course this was a terrorist attack” admission. Not until tonight, though, I believe, did Chris Stevens’s superiors at State think to politely inform the public — not to mention Carney — that, oh right, there was never a protest. Let the fingerpointing begin:
The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S…
But asked about the administration’s initial – and since retracted – explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying.
Which brings us to the second question: Why did it take a month for them to mention this? I have no answer, except to wonder whether they’d have ever admitted it if Issa hadn’t called House hearings this week. Tonight’s news is simply State’s way of pushing some anticipated heat off of itself and onto the White House before tomorrow’s grilling begins. It’s a comfort to know that nothing short of public humiliation by the opposition party could get them to share info about a terror attack that ended with an American ambassador being murdered.
Two new questions for you, then, as the hearings get going. First, if State didn’t circulate the “spontaneous protest” nonsense within the administration, who did? Eli Lake traced it back to a set of CIA talking points distributed to Congress early on, but as far as I know, no one’s ever explained why the CIA was pushing that theory when there were at least a dozen intel reports within the first hours pointing to something more sinister and deliberate. And second, if State was innocent in pushing the “spontaneous protest” line, how is it that Susan Rice — a top State Department employee, don’tcha know — ended up being the administration’s chief mouthpiece for that talking point on the Sunday shows? Didn’t anyone from State think of mentioning to her beforehand, “Oh, by the way, we have zero evidence to support what you’re about to go on national TV and say”?

[Crafty_Dog]

Wow.

What did the President know, and when did he know it?   http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/10/09/

Bret Baier's Special Report on FOX is really going after this story.  They have a thorough time line of it all on their website.  Coincidentally enough FOX was excluded today from the State Dept's briefing (Later on, State apologized).

[Crafty_Dog]

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/state-department-denies-concluding-film-sparked-consulate-attack-in-libya/)*