07 Oct
Posted by MacRanger as 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Election 2012, News
It begins.
“(CBS News) WASHINGTON – CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya.
Lt. Col. Andy Wood led a 16-member Special Forces site security team responsible for protecting U.S. personnel in Libya. / CBS News/Andy Woods The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.
Libya consulate: Was security added or taken away?Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that’s despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.
Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack.
A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.”
How is an attack “routine”? Nevetheless as I said yesterday, in addition to the overall security laspe, there is the question about why Stevens and his crew were there in the first place. One possible tie in is that excessive security is always tip off when you’re trying to work covertly.
Top Stories in the Blogosphere News

The Commander in Chief at Work!
Reading List
Most Popular Posts
One Response
Redteam
October 9th, 2012 at 10:39 am
1It will be very interesting to read a report that describes just who, why, when, the decision to remove the security forces was made. Someone had to suggest or recommend that forces be ‘reduced’ or ‘removed’. Who did that? Someone had to consider it. Who did that? Someone had to make a decision and implement it. Who did that? This was one of the hottest spots on the entire globe, locals recommending increasing security, and someone ‘removes it entirely”. This had to be treason, a desire for the American interests to be overrun. There can be no other explanation.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.