Don't bother asking for more protection, State Department told aides in Libya before attack
By The Washington Post
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, 10:06 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The State Department acknowledged on Wednesday that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi as Republicans suggested that lapses contributed to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Republicans tried to use a congressional hearing to blow holes in the Obama administration's public explanations of what happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11, accusing the White House of playing down the possibility that the attack was a successful al-Qaida assault.
The highly charged congressional oversight session, titled “Security Failures of Benghazi,” included sharp accusations from Republicans that the State Department was more interested in presenting a picture of an improving situation in Libya than in ensuring the safety of its staff there.
The session had the feel of a courtroom prosecution as Republicans bore in on inconsistencies and suggested a coverup. The hearing produced few revelations about the attack, but it underscored the administration's political vulnerability over the Benghazi episode four weeks before the presidential election.
“They repeatedly warned Washington officials of the dangerous situation” in Libya, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in his opening statement. “Washington officials seemed preoccupied with the concept of normalization.” Democrats on the committee defended the administration, saying Republicans had voted to cut some of the very funding for security that they suggest was lacking in Libya. The Democrats accused the Republicans of running a secretive and overly partisan investigation leading up to the hearing.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, called on House GOP leaders to support a supplemental funding bill to restore diplomatic security resources.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other government employees were killed when militants attacked two U.S. compounds in the eastern Libyan city. In the days after the attack, administration officials said the assault appeared to grow out of a protest outside the main compound over an anti-Islamic video. More recently, the administration has termed the attack as a premeditated terrorist assault and acknowledged that earlier incidents and warnings about threats had not led to beefed-up security in Benghazi.
President Obama sought to clarify the evolving explanations in an interview on ABC News. “This has all been well-documented and recorded: As information came in, information was put out,” he said of the shifting narrative. “The information may not have always been right the first time. And as soon as it turns out that we have a fuller picture of what happened, then that was disclosed. But the bottom line is that my job is to let everybody know I want to know what happened, I want us to get the folks who did it, and I want us to figure out what are the lessons learned and ask the tough questions to make sure it doesn't happen again.”
Committee Democrats provided the lead witness at the hearing, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, an opportunity to discuss the evolving explanations of the attack. Kennedy provided little clarity, saying that while he called the attack an act of terrorism the week it happened, multiple and perhaps conflicting “threads” of intelligence complicated efforts to learn what happened.
In a briefing for reporters on Tuesday, the State Department said for the first time that it never concluded the attack was the result of a protest over the video. But none of the witnesses on Wednesday was so definitive.
Kennedy took pains to defend Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, from intense Republican criticism of her initial account of the attack, in television appearances on Sept. 16, as the outgrowth of a protest.
“The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point,” Kennedy said. “As time went on, additional information became available.” In a heated exchange with Kennedy, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., declared: “This was never about a video. It was never spontaneous. It was terror.” Although Issa praised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the department's cooperation in the ongoing inquiry, the deaths in Benghazi represent a blemish on her tenure. Clinton did not appear at the hearing, but she is expected to address the issue in a talk on Friday at a Washington think tank.
The committee released a copy of a diplomatic cable written by Stevens on the day he was killed in which he catalogued concerns about rising violence and Islamist influence in eastern Libya but did not specifically ask for more protection.
The committee released earlier messages from other diplomatic staff members in Libya that were clear in their requests for more help.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who helps oversee diplomatic security, fumbled to explain how the requests were evaluated. But she said there was the right level of protection in Benghazi the night of Sept. 11.
Republicans pounced, saying the deaths of four Americans proved that there was not enough security on hand.
White House spokesman Jay Carney seemed to agree, telling reporters later Wednesday that in hindsight “there is no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening.” The hearing took an unusual detour over images on large easels set up behind Lamb. As she delivered her prepared remarks, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, objected to the display, which he said contained classified information. Issa at first agreed with State Department officials that the material was unclassified, then directed that it be taken down.
Lamb said she opposed a request to extend the term of a special supplemental security team comprising mostly military personnel that assisted Stevens and other diplomats from February until August. The team was based in Tripoli and “would not have made any difference in Benghazi,” Lamb said.
Under tense questioning, she acknowledged that she had told the top security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, not to bother asking for additional help when the military team was sent home.
That officer, Eric A. Nordstrom, was sitting uncomfortably beside her. Nordstrom said he interpreted Lamb's refusal as “there was going to be too much political cost.” But in his written statement, he acknowledged that the “ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra half-dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.” Nordstrom sounded a forlorn note when he said, “The takeaway from that, for me and my staff, it was abundantly clear, we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. And the question that we would ask is, again, ‘How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?' ”
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.
- Florida fears even bigger python could be moving in
- Investigator shot dead while trying to stop armed robbery
- Pipeline rejection could set precedent
- Secret Santa Gates delivers to aid charity
- Facebook CEO gives $1B worth of stock
- Fake Santa Claus surprises his mother as sneaky soldier returns home early
- Lawmakers hit futility low with lack of meaningful legislation
- U.S. ponders role of hidden arsenal of nuclear missiles
- Obama’s security muddled overseas
- Colorado school shooter ousted from debaters
- Clash, order slowed CIA team’s response to attack in Benghazi, Libya