State Department Official on Benghazi Security: "Our Security Plan Worked"

Really?

Apparently so. Here is their spin: The greatest threat, in their estimation, was an IED attack. In June 2012, the compound was in fact attacked by an IED, but didn't do much damage.

Ergo, since Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were not killed with an IED, they're claiming... the security worked. Their security, keyed to that threat (and apparently only that threat), did not fail to stop a bomb that didn't exist.

Things our Protect Obama Media (POM) won't highlight: even the owners of the villa serving as the consulate were surprised at how little security there was.

The WSJ has a story that NBC of course will not touch about the "miscues" in security at Benghazi.

U.S. officials issued alerts and ordered security precautions in neighboring Egypt ahead of protests and violence on Sept. 11, but largely overlooked the possibility of trouble at other diplomatic postings in the region. . . .

The U.S. didn’t seriously consider sending in the military during the attack. It summoned rapid-response teams of Marines only after the U.S. ambassador was dead. State Department officials said they doubted the Pentagon could have mobilized a rescue force quickly enough to make a difference during the fighting. The Pentagon waited for guidance from State, which is responsible for diplomatic security, a senior military official said.

Adding a new dimension to the chain of events, the siege also engulfed what officials now describe as a secret safe house used by American officials and security personnel involved in sensitive government programs after last year’s Libyan revolution.

Even when that building, also known as the “annex,” came under attack, U.S. officials were reluctant to divulge its existence, and the secrecy complicated the Libyan response and the eventual American evacuation, according to Libyan security officials.

More:

The State Department chose to maintain only limited security in Benghazi, Libya, despite months of sporadic attacks there on U.S. and other Western missions.

That is a scandal of the first order, which in any unbiased media environment would be the biggest story of the year and reason to demand a full explanation from the White House. Did Obama and his advisers incorrectly assess the ongoing threat of jihadists, lack sufficient intelligence on the ground in Libya (after chest-thumping about our leading-from-behind strategy in the war) and fail to grasp that blaming a video is only feeding into the mentality of the jihadists (i.e., the West is to blame for violence)?

Now, let’s see how the administration, either by mendacity or incompetence, put out a false story of the attacks, which is now shredding day by day.

The media understands fully that this story is a fiasco for Obama. That's why they won't report it.

In the old days, I think the media just sensed that they ought not cover some stories.

I don't think that's happening here. I think the relationship between the media and Obama is so close that he's directly said to them, more or less, "My presidency is at risk if you push this." And I think most of them have explicitly decided their job is actually to PROTECT OBAMA.

&bodytext=Really? Apparently so. Here is their spin: The greatest threat, in their estimation, was an IED attack. In June 2012, the compound was in fact attacked by an IED, but didn't do much damage. Ergo, since Chris Stevens and Sean...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 02:37 PM

| Access Comments