CBS/AP/ October 10, 2012, 2:41 PM

House probes security leading up to Libya attack

WASHINGTON State Department officials said Wednesday that security levels at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were adequate for the threat level on the anniversary of 9/11 but that the compound was overrun by an "unprecedented attack" by dozens of heavily armed extremists.

The officials testified before an election-season congressional hearing on accusations of security failures at the consulate that led or contributed to the deaths of the Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said the number of U.S. and local security guards at the compound was consistent with what had been requested by the post.

Play Video

Issa on State Dept official's testimony: "Doesn't seem to ring true"

"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11," said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state for diplomatic security in charge of protecting American embassies and consulates around the world.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, on one of several contentious moments between lawmakers and witnesses, told Lamb that explanation didn't "ring true" in light of the deadly attacks.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday that in hindsight "there is no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening."

"There were four Americans killed," he said.

Lamb noted that there were five diplomatic security agents at the consulate at the time of the attack, along with additional Libyan guards and a rapid response team at a nearby annex.

In a hastily scrambled post-hearing presser, State Department official Pat Kennedy said of keeping a consulate in Benghazi: "It was worth the risk."

Kennedy is one of the highest-ranking State Department officials to speak on the issue so far. He said "we had to be there" as the new Libya was being born. However, the State Department is reassessing whether or not to return to Benghazi and have a presence there.

The security support from the Department of Defense was "superb," but it was focused on Tripoli, not Benghazi. Staffing in Benghazi was consistent with the numbers that Eric Nordstrom requested, according to Kennedy. Having extra guards or agents wouldn't have allowed them respond any differently to the type of assault that occurred.

Kennedy was "surprised" to hear Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer in Libya, say that he felt that the "Taliban is inside the building" when referring to State Department refusals of asset requests.

He said that he spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the hearing, but hasn't since the hearing.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has criticized the administration's early response to the attack and has made it a campaign issue, saying Monday that President Barack Obama has led a weak foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Eric Nordstrom earlier told congressional investigators that he had requested more security but that request was blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." Under questioning, though, he said he had sought mainly to prevent any reduction in staff, rather than have a big increase.

"I'm confident that the committee will conclude that Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service and Mission Libya officers conducted themselves professionally and with careful attention to managing people and budgets in a way that reflects the gravity of their task," Nordstrom said.

Play Video

Sec. Officer on Libyan attack: Unlike any I had seen

In his prepared statement, Nordstrom said the "ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault."

A memo Tuesday by the Oversight Committee's Democratic staff provided details of Nordstrom's interview with the panel's investigators. In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses.

He stated that Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.

Nordstrom's Oct. 1 memo to the congressional investigator said, "You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions.

"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.

"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi."

Nordstrom, who served in his role as regional security officer until July 2012, also provided the committee with a list of 230 security incidents between Sept. 2011 and July 2012.

Lamb rejected allegations from Republican lawmakers, supported by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli, that an extension of Wood's mission could have made a difference during the attack.

"It would not have made any difference in Benghazi," Lamb said, pointing out that Wood's team was based in Tripoli and spent nearly all of its time there.

Play Video

Lt. Col. Wood testifies that more security was needed in Libya

Wood, a member of the Utah National Guard who left Libya in August, told the committee that the security in Benghazi "was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there."

In testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he said that U.S. security was so weak that in April, only one diplomatic security agent was stationed in Benghazi.

However, Lamb and Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy stressed that the regional security officer's requests for personnel had been met.

"The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security, a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available," said Kennedy, a four-decade veteran of the foreign service.

"The assault that occurred on the evening of Sept. 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," he said.

The attack on the consulate and the Obama administration's evolving explanations of what happened have become a political football in the run-up to November's presidential election with Democrats saying that Republicans are trying to use a tragedy to score partisan points.

In statements immediately after the attack, neither President Barack Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton mentioned terrorism. And both gave credence to the notion that the attack was related to protests about an anti-Islam video.

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said on the night of the attack. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Play Video

Labrador presses State Dept. official over who knew what and when

Republican lawmakers leveled heavy criticism at Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for saying five days after the attack that it was an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest linked to the anti-Muslim film.

"If any administration official including any career official were on television on Sunday, Sept. 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said," Kennedy said. "The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point."

CBS News, as early as Sept. 12, reported that U.S. officials suspected the attackers were either associated with or sympathized with al Qaeda and took advantage of the so-called protest to stage a coordinated attack.

But witnesses in Benghazi later told CBS News that no protest had occurred at all, a fact the State Department acknowledged Tuesday in a briefing with reporters.

Asked about the administration's initial - and since retracted - explanation linking the violence to protests over the anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion."

He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

Republican committee members sought to take the witnesses to task for that shifting explanation of what happened in Benghazi, suggesting that the administration was trying to cover up that it was unprepared for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The hearing opened with a blunt partisan exchange between the committee chairman, Issa, R-Calif., and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland who accused Republican members of withholding documents and witnesses and keeping Democrats out of the loop on a fact-finding trip to Libya last week.

Issa denied any wrongdoing.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
158 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gaboville says:
Republicans and their puppies have been trying to politicize the Benghazi attack.
But as a matter of fact the House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget.
Republicans are the worse hypocrites.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
carolo43 says:
Republicans are trying to base this entire election on the Embassy attack when all the facts are not out there yet? If the Embassy had two prior attacks, it should have been better protected by the Iraq Government paid to protect it. Or better yet, the Ambassador and the others moved out of there. It was not even a forfeited compound but a small consulant. If the Ambassador felt threatened, why didn't he leave? These are questions we do not know yet. And neither does Newt Gingrich.

Maybe an error had been made. We will find that out in time. But the war in Iraq was also an error and thousands were killed. But let's not put our own spin to things we know nothing about.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
1ATL1 says:
Holy crap! Good old American political mud slinging use to be a lot of fun. You guys are getting way to serious! That scares the hell out of me! What on earth has driven you to the level of hatred your spewing, and turning everything into some bizarre conspiratorial plan to destroy America? You guys really need to get a grip on reality! We have a Constitution and it works. Even if it's determined that mistakes were made, suggesting criminality as if the administration was responsible for the attacks is beyond bazaar! We need to determine what actually happened so we can lessen the chances of it reoccurring. War is like that regardless of who's in office. And yes we are still at War or have you all forgotten that War is the same regardless of who is in office. I can't count the times my Republican friends reminded me we were at War, anytime I had even the slightest off color remark concerning GW, and I would politely consed that they were probably right. The War didn't end just because a democrat won the election by a large margin I might add.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
USSAmerikan says:
If you watched any portion of the CSPAN broadcast, you'd have heard The question "Was the reduction in personnel a reaction to a budget constraint?" The answer was categorically no.

So multiple attacks, Ambassador Stevens' begging for his life and recommendations to augment protection were not a sufficient call for action. This only leaves one other possibility and it is horrifying to think that Ambassador Stevens may have been sacrificed to appease the fundamentalists for the death of Bin Laden. I don't put is past President Soetoro.
reply
REDUNDANTREDUNTANT replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rmoney is a lier so is ussameriklan inbread.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
josephp5 says:
Republicans voted to cut funding for embassy security, despite Secretary of State Clinton's objections. Now they want to blame the lack of adequate security on Obama.
reply
whatsdowns replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
No, I blame the White House for accepting Libya's restictions on the use of armed US guards at US embassies and consulates. Is is typical Democrat logic to blame everything on a supposed budget cuts. The leaders of all organizations must set priorities. The US has lots of people of the payroll with guns. The White house accepting orders from foreign leaders after we freed their country is weakness at its worst.
tater27 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Spin it, baby!!! How pathetic!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
whatsdowns says:
It is pathetic the way many Democrats are defending the Obama administration's negligence in preventing the Libyan embassy massacre by blaming the Senate Republicans for supposedly cutting funding to the State Department. It is typical for a government agency to response to its screw ups by blaming it on a lack of funding. The agency then is often rewarded for its incompetence by having is budget increased. Some where in its 56 billion dollar annual budget the State Department I bet could have found the funds to protect the lives of the four who were killed. The problem wasn't a lack of funds but rather a lack of leadership in setting priorities. Now the State Department is trying to convince the public that security was adequate, except for the fact they were warned and four people are dead. The real problem is the Obama administration's weakness in accepting the restrictions on using US military as security. After the US had facilitated the overthrow of Gaddafi the White House was so weak it didn't demand that armed US personnel would be used for security. To cover his tracks Obama created this fantasy story that a riot gone bad was to blame and forced Susan Rice to lie. It is time to get a real leader as Commander in Chief.
reply
tater27 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It doesnt matter to them. They are just like Obama in they only care about getting re0elected so they can protect the enviornment. Who cares if a bunch of baby-killer, jarheads get killed anyway? I know that sounds harsh, but Ive been to the Occupy rallies, its 100% accurate.
heyyou11111 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Did anyone here see the article that the Venice embassy received Chevy Volts and Libya got 4 dead Americans. If Venice can afford Volts, methinks the budget cuts were not the cause of this debacle. Obama's inept foreign policy is to blame and now the major news agencies are helping them cover it up. In Watergate, no one died.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
josephp5 says:
Republicans voted to cut funding for embassy security, despite Secretary of State Clinton's objections. Now they want to blame the lack of adequate security on Obama.
reply
whatsdowns replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The massacre had nothing to do with funding. It had everyting to with the White House accepting restrictions on the use of armed American guards at our Libyan embassies. After we free that country typical Obama weakness allowed the US to be pushed around and four Americans are dead because of it.
shelleyfannin replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It was both Dems and Republicans, bipartisan....but again this has nothing to do with it...Charlene Lamb said that funding was not an issue!!!!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
eteamer says:
War criminals can't go overseas as they will be arrested. Who would that be?
reply
alanrobisch replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Let me guess George Bush. Oh how clever. lame in the extreme
tater27 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I told you they would find a way to get GWB in the middle of this! HA! You should have to put your age by your name when you comment here. Then we would know how to respond to your comment. In this case I would have to say - Dont you have a book report on Superfudge due tommorow?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
alanrobisch says:
I hadhoped that even liberals would see the horror what has happenned and the dishonesty of the Obama administration. They won't. I see retmw defending this horrific event and he can see nothing wrong with the president lieing to us for political gain
reply
l3lessed replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The horror of the republican house cutting funding for embassy security than trying to shove the blame of their austerity measures, and the resulting lives it cost, on the president. This GOP doesn't have a depth they won't sink to to try and capture the whitehouse.

Jason Chaffetz admitted they cut funding for embassy security, and this is some how all Obama's fault. Keep your partisan blinders on. It is just how they want it so you can't see when they're running rickshaw over our democracy for the benefit of a small percentage of extremely wealthy and connected people.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
A_Moderate says:
This topic is being used by Romney and the House GOP to gain votes... Romney is getting slammed by the family of a navy seal killed at Benghazi... the mother says Romney is using her dead son to denigrate President Obama for POLITICS! Pretty much everyone else is calling it a Terrorist Attack. So lets waste tax dollars for a partisan witch hunt - pretty much like "Fast and Furious". No wonder our Government can't get anything done!

For those who want to point fingers remember this fact: Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things' So you cannot place the blame only in once place.
reply
alanrobisch replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
moderate you are as clueless as they come. You have been lied to but its okay because its president Obama
tater27 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Reading your comment makes me realize how clueless and brainwashed the youth in this country have become.
See all 158 Comments