The CIA is talking about Benghazi and it's very, very interesting. Given that Morrell is a primary source, his words should obviously be given a good deal of weight although I have no doubt that it will bounce directly off the right wing bubble.
We all know their faith will not be shaken:)
1 comment:
"As a result of the deterioration in security in Libya, we at CIA at least twice reevaluated our security posture in Benghazi and made significant enhancements at the Annex. It was only later—after the tragedy of 9/11/12—that we learned that only a few security enhancements had been made at the TMF. CIA does not provide physical security for State Department operations. Why so few improvements were made at the TMF, why so few State Department security officers were protecting the US ambassador, Chris Stevens, why they allowed him to travel there on the anniversary of 9/11, and why they allowed him to spend the night in Benghazi are unclear. I would like to know the conversations that took place between Stevens and his security team when the ambassador decided to go visit Benghazi on 9/11/12. These were all critical errors. When I traveled to Libya, my security detail would not even allow me to spend the night in Tripoli, and the leader of my security team brought what seemed to me like a small army to Libya to protect me."
Which, along with disgust at the Administration's characterization in the several weeks, has always been my complaint. What in God's name were they (State Dept.) thinking? Were they thinking at all? Based on relatives accounts of working in State Dept. overseas, a fair degree of cluelessness and bureaucratic inertia pervades everything. They weren't surprised by State being caught with its pants down in Benghazi. It was as if they'd learned nothing from Iran in 1979 or Lebanon in the 1980s. And then Susan Rice's harfing out her performance like a trained seal. That was sublimely putrid.
Post a Comment