The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the senseless slaughter of four Americans is one of the most-shameful episodes in the history of our State Department. While there have been bigger losses of life, the Benghazi episode serves as a black mark upon our history as not only was the entire situation preventable, but the slain ambassador, Christopher Stevens, requested additional security but was turned-down in the days leading to his brutal murder.
What makes the Benghazi episode so atrociously despicable is not only did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice repay Stevens’ service by immediately lying to try and cover-up the true cause of his death, but years later, this cover-up continues and sadly, Clinton has even tried to paint herself as the victim of a witch-hunt as congressional leaders attempt to uncover the truth about the terrorist attack that could have been avoided.
According to a cable that has been uncovered by Fox News, Amb. Stevens requested an additional 13 security personnel members to strengthen the diplomatic security force as Libya continued to unravel and become increasingly dangerous.
However, the request fell on deaf ears and Clinton’s State Department denied the request just months before the consulate was attacked and he and three others were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists.
In the July 9th, 2012 cable, Stevens noted that,
“Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers.” The cable claimed that an additional 13 security members would serve as a “minimum” to help bolster “transportation security and incident response capability.”
The request was denied by Clinton’s subordinate, Patrick Kennedy, a deputy to the then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Stevens’ request makes sense. In the year prior to the terrorist attack, there were 234 security incidents in Libya, 50 of such incidents took place in Benghazi, including an assassination attempt on the British ambassador in June when an RPG struck the British ambassador’s vehicle.
Stevens’ July cable came after the attack on the British ambassador and after a June attack on the U.S. consulate where terrorist blew a hole in the wall of the compound with an IED.
With such obviously-justifiable security concerns, the question remains: “Why did the Obama State Department repeatedly deny requests for additional security?”
Further, why, as the consulate smoldered, was the Obama Administration so hell-bent on crafting a preposterous narrative that hinged not on the motivation for the attack stemming from Islamic terrorism, but an obscure YouTube video?
Clinton and her band of tireless defenders have continued to assert that the Benghazi investigation is a vendetta against her and her presidential candidacy. However, such an assertion oozes with a galling hubris and self-centeredness that neglects to remember that the purpose of such an investigation is to ascertain who is responsible for the dereliction of duty that not only allowed for the continued denial of security requests, but that also allowed for a refusal to intervene as the hours-long siege threatened the lives of numerous, trapped Americans.