CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear.The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
ok the republican propaganda machine immediately leap on Hilary Clinton and the Admin, for failure to protect the facility we kew then that their objective was to slap Pres. once more and sully Hilary which they have relentlessly continued since.
any recent dirt on them they without fail compare Bengazi to all things reprehensible to American, like Christie they defend him by rolling out Benghazi.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said."He didn't say why. He just turned it down," a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
now with investigative reports there was no Al-Queda involvement and like most of us thought the attack was prompted by a right wing evangelical preacher who decided to burn the Quran then post on the internet obviously with the intent for Muslims to see it.,
republicans denied vehemently because they wanted the Pres. and especially Hilary to be responsible, so their rhetoric includes dispite rebuked references to Hilary's guilt, they think they can keep heaving elephant dung on her and you will vote for whoever they parade out with the same promised lies as last year and 2008, not even bothering to dusted off.
