Tighter security denied in Libya, GOP says
WASHINGTON — Despite two explosions and dozens of other security threats, U.S. officials in Washington turned down repeated pleas from American diplomats in Libya to increase security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador was killed, Republican leaders of a House committee said on Tuesday.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee said their information came from “individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya.” Issa, R-Calif., and Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the attack three weeks ago in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months before the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
The letter listed 13 incidents, but Chaffetz said in an interview there were more than 50. Two of them involved explosive devices: a June 6 blast that blew a hole in the security perimeter and an April 6 incident in which two Libyans who were fired by a security contractor threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence.
“A number of people felt helpless in pushing back” against the decision not to increase security and “were pleading with them to reconsider,” Chaffetz said. He added that frustrated whistle-blowers were so upset with the decision that they were anxious to speak with the committee.
The lawmakers said they plan a hearing on Oct. 10. They asked Clinton whether the State Department was aware of the previous incidents, and whether the level of security that was provided to the U.S. mission met the security threat, and how the department responded to requests for more protection.
The State Department has declined to answer questions about whether extra security was sought by officials in Benghazi before the attack.
Clinton responded in a letter to Issa on Tuesday that she has established an accountability review board that will determine “whether our security systems and procedures in Benghazi were adequate, whether those systems and procedures were properly implemented, and any lessons learned that may be relevant to our work around the world.” She asked the committee to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the committee can review the findings of the board. The panel is led by retired State Department official Thomas Pickering and includes retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Clinton pledged to address the specific questions raised in the committee's letter in addition to document requests.
Referring to the Benghazi attack, the letter said, “It was clearly never, as administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest.” In the days immediately after the attack, the Obama administration said it believed it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video circulating on the Internet. Since then, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and White House press secretary Jay Carney have called the incident a terrorist attack. President Obama has not used those precise words, though he has referred to the attack in the context of “acts of terror.” Republicans have lashed out at Obama and senior administration officials over their evolving description of the deadly Sept. 11 attack, a late campaign-season broadside.
Republicans sensed a political opportunity in Obama's apparent reluctance to utter the words “terrorist attack” as well as the varying explanations emerging from the administration about the assault in Benghazi.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told Fox News recently: “I think it's pretty clear that they haven't wanted to level with the American people. We expect candor from the president and transparency.” U.S. and Libyan investigators still aren't working together three weeks after the attack. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Tuesday the United States wants maximum transparency, collaboration and cooperation. She said the United States and Libya were partnering well politically, but there now has to be cooperation at the investigative level.
Clinton discussed security on Sept. 18, when asked whether measures were appropriate.
“Let me assure you that our security in Benghazi included a unit of host government security forces, as well as a local guard force of the kind that we rely on in many places around the world,” she said.
“In addition to the security outside the compound, we relied on a wall and a robust security presence inside the compound,” she said. “And with all of our missions overseas, in advance of Sept. 11, as is done every year, we did an evaluation on threat streams.” Clinton also said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence “has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She added that diplomats “engage in dangerous work, and it's the nature of diplomacy in fragile societies and conflict zones to be aware of the necessity for security but to also continue the important diplomatic work that has to go on.
“There is risk inherent in what we do and what these brave men and women representing the United States are up against every single day,” Clinton said, “and we do our very best to limit that risk by ensuring that our security protocols reflect the environments in which diplomats work and the threats that they are presented with.” Chaffetz said in an interview that if the Benghazi security was typical of the protection in other dangerous places, “that's frightening.” He said Benghazi is “one of the most awful and volatile areas on the planet.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rossi: Steelers rising fast in mediocre AFC
- Steelers offense learning to slam door
- Heyward, swarming defense get best of Chiefs in Steelers’ win
- Downie, Farnham bringing a much-needed edge to the Penguins
- Archery hunting in Mt. Lebanon called off for now
- Pittsburgh police doubling up on duty after potential threats
- Pittsburgh mayor Peduto goes ‘Undercover’ for CBS reality show
- Search for Duquesne University graduate Kochu continues
- Steelers-Bengals game to start at 8:30 p.m.
- Steelers clinch trip to postseason with big victory over Chiefs
- Fire marshal rules arson in Kittanning blaze