By KAREEM FAHIM
November 21, 2012, CAIRO — A senior Libyan security official was assassinated outside his home in the eastern city of Benghazi, officials said on Wednesday. His death was the latest in a series of mysterious killings that have raised fears about the country’s precarious postwar security.
The official, Faraj Mohammed al-Drissi, who had held the post of Benghazi’s security director for only a few weeks, was shot to death late Tuesday night as he was returning from work, according to Wanis al-Sharif, a local Interior Ministry official.
About 10 p.m., a Mitsubishi Lancer pulled up on Mr. Drissi’s street. Three men got out and opened fire, Mr. Sharif said, adding that the motive for the killing was unknown.
————————–
What I want to know is, was Mr. Drissi about to go to Washington to testify before Congress and were the asassins wearing Re-elect Obama buttons? Just curious.
Clearly this action was taken to a protest an anti-Isalm film trailer on YouTube.
Obama Administration Front Person Liar Susan Rice Lies Again.
“I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/us-ambassador-rice-defends-comments-on-benghazi-attack/
This is despicable, Jack. Implying that the president had this man assassinated? That may be a new low for you.
Pie, how is that statement from Rice a lie? The intelligence community says she is telling the truth:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/comment-page-2/
“The intelligence community – not the White House, State Department or Justice Department – was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.
The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.”
Jack…another “new low”…Congrats!!!
Chris: “”The intelligence community – not the White House, State Department or Justice Department – was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi”
Yep, the intelligence community hid the information from the President (the leader of our nation). That’s why he could fly off to Las Vegas with a free conscience to campaign and raise more cash, cause he was totally unaware of what was really going on.
Susan Rice could also go on television, not once but 5 TIMES, and lie with complete innocence of knowledge to the American people. The West was to blame…point driven home!
Then, fully covered, Obama could run on over to the UN and scold and blame the West for the unfortunate attack saying it only happened because proper respect was not shown to the extremist terrorists religion.
Yeah…that’s the ticket!
MY GOODNESS, Chris cites CNN at the truth bearer! Clearly I am as despicable and low as Jack!
Love you, Chris. Without you I would not know how low is low.
Tina: “Yep, the intelligence community hid the information from the President (the leader of our nation).”
That’s not even close to what the article says.
“Susan Rice could also go on television, not once but 5 TIMES, and lie with complete innocence of knowledge to the American people.”
The very first thing Susan Rice said was that an investigation was under way, and that they had not concluded with certainty that the attack was a spontaneous protest, but that this was the direction the evidence was leading them:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421874n
The intelligence community has repeatedly confirmed that she was telling the truth:
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-on-the-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi,-libya
“The West was to blame…point driven home!”
Susan Rice never blamed the West for the attack. You are making that up.
“Then, fully covered, Obama could run on over to the UN and scold and blame the West for the unfortunate attack saying it only happened because proper respect was not shown to the extremist terrorists religion.”
Either you have never read Obama’s statements at the UN (even though I have previously provided them for you) or you have extremely poor reading comprehension. This is literally the exact opposite of what Obama said. In the real world, Obama defended Western values of freedom of speech and said that the video, while disgusting, did not justify violence. I can prove it by quoting his exact words yet again:
“I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&page=3#.UK72Q4eCl6Q
Thank you, Tina, for proving yet again that your opinion of the president is based almost entirely on things he’s never said or done.
Pie, you have no grounds to critique my citation of CNN after you just cited FOX News. The CNN article directly quotes the spokesman for the director of national intelligence. If you have any substantive critique of the article, let me know. Or you could stick with your usual tactics, which amount to the Internet equivalent of throwing your own feces. Your choice.
Chris: “That’s not even close to what the article says….but that this was the direction the evidence was leading them”
The CNN article says what it says. The question is, do you have any interest in finding out the truth?
See, I have trouble swallowing a story that insists the president doesn’t have enough information about an attack on our embassy on the anniversary of 911 in a country that is dangerous especially since the ambassador and others have communicated over a couple of months that they need more security. If I were president this information alone would make me suspicious that it was Al Qaeda related. It is also incredulous that the President would think an obscure video trailer would anger terrorist to the point of murder after he had bragged that he had taken out Bin Laden and after he had allowed the making of a big Hollywood film about taking Bin Laden out…a film, by the way, in which Obama is featured in a cameo…but he didn’t think these events (or his arrogance) in taking credit would anger terrorists?
I also find it curious that he would be unaware of the fact that the British had closed their embassy in Libya because they didn’t think their people were safe.
This man is the leader of the country but he leaves the decision making to underlings when American soil and an American diplomat and his staff are under siege? Is this the picture in your head when you think of the Commander-in-Chief? It is his job to know what is going on and if he doesn’t his underlings had better get him the information pronto because he has to make the call that will best secure our people in a situation like that…and instead he goes to bed and then flies off to a fund raiser?
The administration tried to float a false story for weeks when they could have just said they didn’t have all the information but oh, by the way, they never bothered to investigate at the scene…journalists were walking around in there and we had not even secured the building.
There is so much more that is fishy about this, Chris, but what’s the point in discussing it? You don’t seem interested in what we have read about the incident or the many questions that we and others have about what happened before, during, and after the attack.
Chris’s responses to Tina’s post, with all his links and artful paraphrasing reads a like a White House rebuttal to unfavorable questions.
For every one of the links Chris’s post to support his point of view, you can find just as many supporting Tina views as well from accredited reporters, news anchors and bloggers asking questions like, why so many versions of what happened, did you (the White House) not get a favorable response from your last release and most important will we ever know the truth now Obama has a second term.
It is apparent that many more careers will be scarified gratuitously to prevent the facts from surfacing anytime soon.
Tina: “See, I have trouble swallowing a story that insists the president doesn’t have enough information about an attack on our embassy on the anniversary of 911 in a country that is dangerous especially since the ambassador and others have communicated over a couple of months that they need more security. If I were president this information alone would make me suspicious that it was Al Qaeda related.”
They DID suspect it was Al Qaeda related. But that information was classified. You know this already.
“It is also incredulous that the President would think an obscure video trailer would anger terrorist to the point of murder”
No, it’s not incredulous, because there were riots in Cairo and other cities specifically about the video, and some of the attackers in Libya told journalists they were protesting the video as well. Again, you know this.
Do you have anything to say about your false claims about Obama’s UN speech, in which you accused him of saying the direct opposite of what he actually said? You see, when you say things that are so clearly in opposition to objective reality, it makes me not want to believe anything else you say.
Do you have anything to say about the man in the oval office who pretends to be the CIC?
A MIA CIC doesn’t make me feel confident about the safety of the men and women who must serve under him. Call me crazy but I want a CIC who stands four square behind Americans serving overseas…at all times. His campaign should have taken a back seat! That it didn’t should make you ill!
Don’t lecture me about what was done before, during, and after the hostile, terror attack on Benghazi. All of the evidence of a serious foul up is there and no amount of smooth talk from the President and his mouthpieces (who spout talking points verbatim) will change the facts. Dedicated, brave Marines took their oath VERY seriously! Why didn’t our President? Chris Stevens asked for help…why wasn’t it give?
What is wrong with you that you don’t care? T6hat you buy the BS so easily?
Never mind…question withdrawn.
To say the entire travesty angers and disgusts me would be a huge understatement…what you believe doesn’t matter.
Tina: “All of the evidence of a serious foul up is there and no amount of smooth talk from the President and his mouthpieces (who spout talking points verbatim) will change the facts.”
But you just demonstrated that you are wrong about basic facts surrounding this incident. Not only were you wrong when you falsely accused Susan Rice and the president of “blaming the West…” You are now saying you don’t even care that you were wrong. That goes beyond ignorance and into willfull self-deceit.
“Chris Stevens asked for help…why wasn’t it give?”
The New York Times explains:
“The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away. And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards a 16-member military security team through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
The handling of these requests has now been caught up in a sharply partisan debate over whether the Obama administration underestimated the terrorist threat in Libya. In a debate with Representative Paul D. Ryan on Thursday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said White House officials were not told about requests for any additional security. We werent told they wanted more security again, Mr. Biden said.
The Romney campaign on Friday pounced on the conflicting statements, accusing Mr. Biden of continuing to deny the nature of the attack. The White House scrambled to explain the apparent contradiction between Mr. Bidens statement and the testimony from State Department officials at the House hearing.
The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said Friday that security issues related to diplomatic posts in Libya and other countries were dealt with at the State Department, not the White House. Based on interviews with administration officials, as well as in diplomatic cables, and Congressional testimony, those security decisions appear to have been made largely by midlevel State Department security officials, and did not involve Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or her top aides.
While it is unclear what impact a handful of highly trained additional guards might have had in Benghazi were they able to deploy there, some State Department officials said it would probably not have made any difference in blunting the Sept. 11 assault from several dozen heavily armed militants.
An attack of that kind of lethality, were never going to have enough guns, Patrick F. Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, said at Wednesdays hearing. We are not an armed camp ready to fight it out.
A senior administration official said that the military team, which was authorized by a directive from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, was never intended to have an open-ended or Libya-wide mission.
This was not a SWAT team with a DC-3 on alert to jet them off to other cities in Libya to respond to security issues, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter.
Security in Benghazi had been a growing concern for American diplomats this year. In April, the convoy of the United Nations special envoy for Libya was attacked there. In early June, a two-vehicle convoy carrying the British ambassador came under attack by rocket-propelled grenades. Militants struck the American mission with a homemade bomb, but no one was hurt. In late June, the Red Cross was attacked and the organization pulled out.
We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, who was deployed in Tripoli as the leader of the American military security unit, told the House committee.
But friends and colleagues of Ambassador Stevens said he was adamant about maintaining an American presence in Benghazi, the heart of the opposition to the Qaddafi government.
Our people cant live in bunkers and do their jobs, Mrs. Clinton said Friday. But it is our solemn responsibility to constantly improve, to reduce the risks our people face and make sure they have the resources they need to do their jobs.
At American diplomatic facilities overseas, the host nation is primarily responsible for providing security outside the compounds walls. Inside the compound, the State Department is in charge, relying on a mix of diplomatic security officers, local contract guards and Marines. The Marines are responsible for guarding classified documents, which they are instructed to destroy if there is a breach of the compound. Senior diplomats are protected by diplomatic security officers, not a detachment of Marines, as Mr. Ryan asserted in Thursday nights debate.
In deciding whether to extend a military security team, the State Department often faces a difficult financial decision at a time when its security budget is under severe pressure. The department must reimburse the Pentagon for the cost of these soldiers, an expense that can quickly run into the millions of dollars. For that reason, the State Department typically pushes to make the transition to local contractors, who are much cheaper.
In their debate, Mr. Biden responded to Mr. Ryans attacks by accusing him and his fellow Republicans of cutting the administrations request for embassy security and construction. House Republicans this year voted to cut back the administrations request, but still approved more than was spent last year.
In an agreement between the Pentagon and the State Department, the military team was extended twice December 2011 and March 2012 but when it came to a third extension, Eric A. Nordstrom, the former chief security officer in Libya, said he was told he could not request another extension beyond August.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/cables-show-requests-to-state-dept-for-security-in-libya-were-focused-on-tripoli.html?pagewanted=all
Chris: “But you just demonstrated that you are wrong about basic facts surrounding this incident. Not only were you wrong when you falsely accused Susan Rice and the president of “blaming the West…” You are now saying you don’t even care that you were wrong.”
Really? How Extraordinary!
I see in your rebuttal efforts by this administration to obfuscate, to pass the buck, to paint over mistakes, and to deny the number one priority of the President…to protect the nation against enemies!
But the dim witted will continue to be gulled by this fork-tongued team.
(See Whittle video above for a demonstration of what a competent CIC actually would have looked and sounded like when responding to the attack in Benghazi)
Chris, Do YOU REALLY believe most of the crap you re-posted? Seriously?
“(See Whittle video above for a demonstration of what a competent CIC actually would have looked and sounded like when responding to the attack in Benghazi)”
He said that a competent CIC would have sent troops in, and then when all of those troops were killed and no one was saved, a competent CIC would have said he would do it all over again.
That is ####ing crazy, Tina. I thank God we have a president who wouldn’t do something that stupid.
Matt, if you have a rebuttal based on facts, I’d love to hear it.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/susan-rice-admits-she-was-wrong-and-john-mccain-gets-what-he-wants/59362/