Officials: No Warning of Benghazi Compound Attack
But State Dept was aware security situation was getting worse
By Rob Quinn, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 30, 2012 4:26 AM CDT
Updated Oct 30, 2012 7:11 AM CDT
Libyan military guards check one of the burnt-out buildings following the September 11 attack in Benghazi.   (AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon)

(Newser) – The State Department received plenty of warnings about deteriorating security in Libya before the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate last month, but there was no specific warning that the compound would be a target, the New York Times reports. But while interviews with officials and a review of State Department documents do not reveal any sign that warnings were overlooked, the security strategy for Libya appears to have been geared toward a different environment than the one that existed at the time of the attacks.

The Obama administration had received warnings that militants linked to al-Qaeda were operating training camps near Benghazi, but officials in Washington do not appear to have paid much attention to security arrangements for American personnel in the city. "Given the large number of attacks that had occurred in Benghazi that were aimed at Western targets, it is inexplicable to me that security wasn’t increased," says Sen. Susan Collins, the ranking Republican on one of the congressional panels probing the attacks.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Officials: No Warning of Benghazi Compound Attack is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 73 comments
Nov 1, 2012 9:15 PM CDT
What other countries had consulates in Benghazi? Did they take steps to beef up security?
Nov 1, 2012 7:52 AM CDT
Just a little perspective... "The 9/11 commission has documented that President George W. Bush received and failed to act upon an Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing whose subject line read, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The Bush people have tried to characterize that warning as mere conjecture too uncorroborated to warrant action, even if it did prove to be catastrophically true." Both past presidents have "blown it" (3,000 to 4 American deaths) on security. But I think the blame game is not going to fix anything without looking at the real problem. Is the "War on Terror" accomplishing anything? Are we any safer now than we were before all of this? "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison (Father of the the United States Constitution)
Oct 30, 2012 7:00 PM CDT
Ambassador Stevens had noticed increased al-Qaeda activity. He feared for his safety, and he, and other, requested there to be added security in Tripoli and Benghazi. They were turned down. The next day, the Obama administration continued to blame everything on a spontaneous revolt over the Internet video. Obama set the meeting up with Stevens and the people who killed him, and, ironically on 9/11. Tyrone Woods and his team were told to stand down. Repeaded requests for military aid to help Stevens and others were denied. Hillary Clinton didn't order the add'l security to Benghazi from the DoS or the DSS. Rather the DoS hired a British co, Blue Mountain, to manage security in Benghazi. They subcontracted the job to a local jihadist militia called the Feb 17 Martyrs Brigade, who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And we all know how buddy-buddy they are with Obama. Obama, Hillary, and all the other radicals are not clueless or irresponsible, or decision-impaired, and I'm tired of people giving themm that inch. He knows exactly what he's doing and he has the terrorists to help him - in the US and abroad. He is systematically weakening the US to prepare for an easy Islamic takeover.