RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Hillary in Trouble over Benghazi

By Larry Johnson on September 24, 2012 at 11:08 PM in Current Affairs

Pains me to admit it, but a major portion of the blame for the debacle and loss of our Ambassador and “Consulate” in Benghazi lies at the feet of Hillary Clinton. As Secretary of State she has the ultimate say over the security measures in place at our embassies and consulates and missions.

Prior to passage of the Diplomatic Security Act of 1985, security was a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposition at the State Department. That Act set up a professional cadre of security officers; provided funding to start hardening US facilities overseas by either building new structures or installing new systems; and providing training to foreign police, who would have the primary mission of protecting our diplomats and the facilities housing them. The 1985 Act was a reaction to two consecutive bombings of the US Embassy in Lebanon in 1983 and 1984.

I am shocked by the number of people who believe, INCORRECTLY, that Ambassador Stevens was responsible for his security. Utter nonsense. The average Ambassador has trouble figuring out how to lock and unlock their bathroom door. They are not security professionals nor are they capable of deciding what is and is not appropriate for security. Just as the President of the United States must defer to the Secret Service, who decides what is and is not appropriate security, the Ambassador relies on Diplomatic Security.

Here is the problem Secretary Clinton.

There is a memo from Diplomatic Security to the Office of the Secretary detailing recommendations for handling security in Libya, especially Benghazi. These recommendations were rejected and Ambassador Stevens was left with virtually no security. He paid the price for the political decision in Washington to not give him the same protection enjoyed by our Ambassadors in Baghdad, Kabul, Bogota and Sanaa.

In addition, it appears there also is an “Eyes Only” cable from Ambassador Stevens to the Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs (NEA), which included P and S on the distribution, warning of the deteriorating security situation.

Once these messages become public it will be clear that Secretary Clinton failed miserably in making sure that appropriate, necessary security measures were in place for the Consulate in Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens. While she may have delegated this decision to someone else under her, the blame will be placed squarely on her shoulders.

The only thing that could save her is if Diplomatic Security advised against doing anything. I am reliably informed that DS did not do that. To the contrary, DS had pressed for more security and was told to stand down. This story will come out.

  • sowsear1

    Many of us knew from Day 1 that no matter what happened, it would end up being Hillary’s fault… TaDa!

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      Yes. And as for her responsibility in ‘giving’ us President Obama, well, she did not compel the votes that went to him, at least in 2008.
      http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UGHWHlHmV-A

      • http://twitter.com/thebigotbasher The Bigotbasher

        Hey jbjd Mitt’s dad is listed as Mexican, why aren’t you teaching innocent school children about Mitt and “natural born”?

        • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

          No legally binding definition of NBC exists where the federal appellate courts, including the SCOTUS, has failed to rule on such definition in a case directly on point. Where would it get such case? Well, if any state had both enacted candidate ballot eligibility laws AND defined NBC in such a way as to trigger challenge, then… But I have been saying this for 4 years. And in all that time, no state has enacted such laws. Because citizens do not demand our President is a NBC.

          At any rate, I cannot imagine any court would find NBC means both parents must be U.S. citizens. But, your guess is as good as mine.

  • http://table9chat.com Rose

    From day one – you knew this was going to happen. Signing on with Obama was a MISTAKE of monumental proportions. What was she thinking?

    • BronwynsHarbor

      Yup. I will bet you anything that either Obama OR Biden AND/OR John Kerry (who is dying to become Secretary of State) would love to do this to Hillary. Or it could be Obama’s manipulative national security adviser, John Brennan — since Obama is too f–king lazy to bother with a time-intensive op like this.

      And Biden has a good motive: He is probably pissed off at all the people and HRC herself for the speculation that (1) HRC might replace him as VP, AND (2) that HRC wants to run in 2016 (if Obama wins 2nd term). Biden doubtless has fantasies of running for the presidency in 2016, which is why he wanted ______ (forget name) as his campaign manager this year … especially since he’s being spanked so much for his bloopers and, worse, his crude use of racism.

      It could even be an insider “mole” at the State Dept. who is glad to do the bidding of any of these men in exchange for a promotion or an attractive post somewhere.

      • http://table9chat.com Rose

        Obama was a clusterf*ck waiting to happen. She had to know she would get caught in the explosion when it all fell apart. I, like others here, cannot understand WHY she would sign on after what he did to her in the election. Now she has done herself irreparable damage, I think. Not necessarily of her own making.

      • getfitnow

        Hillary is a strong and intelligent woman. She’s also a political animal. I give her full credit for making her own bed. and she saw the “fleas” before she laid down.

      • akaPatience

        Bronwyn, I understand your rationale but I seriously doubt that Kerry or Biden would do anything that could hurt Obama’s chances of winning.

      • TeakWoodKite

        Mole = Susan Rice.
        Adults in the room since Hillary completed her journey to the dark side = ZEEERRRRROOOO.

        • HObama HObamanana

          Mole? I thought she was that boil on Obama’s ass.

          • TeakWoodKite

            I thought what Obama described as his Beauty Mark…I would say birthmark but that sealed document won’t fly.

          • KenoshaMarge

            Then he must have two. Isn’t the other one called Valerie Jarrett?

            • HObama HObamanana

              I’m pretty sure she is his pet name for his hemorrhoids.

              • KenoshaMarge

                My bad. Right part of the body, right person, wrong nickname.

  • http://table9chat.com Rose

    LOL, sowsear1, we think alike.

  • http://twitter.com/beyondpartisan beyond partisan

    I pretty much lost all respect for Hillary when she swept aside the caucus fraud and took a position in the Obama administration. Voter fraud and intimidation is serious. If she was unwilling to stick up for her women supporters who were harassed by Obama thugs, then she’s a coward at best.

    • getfitnow

      That did it for me too. There have been a few more nails put in that coffin, one being she thinks the SCOTUS decision on health care was “excellent.”

    • beachnan

      I don’t like what is happening, but these comments are too harsh for me. I would never call her a coward, because the media was eviserating her for everything already. She would have never won that arguement. I believe she has worked very hard for this country and it is Obama’s overall appeasement attitude that has caused this uprising in the middle east. I don’t believe a President Hillary Clinton would have let Egypt fall, and thus, not the rest of the middle east. Iert-you are one dumb idiot just like the rest of your liberal friends if you think the middle east is on the road to democracy. Islam and sharia law are filling the vacume left after the removal of former dictators. Women especially, have very few rights in sharia law. Having said all this, I do believe that she has to take the blame for the lack of security of the Libyan Ambassador. It’s a sad day for America.

  • Retired_from_SPOnaj

    Does Hillary have her bus mechanic’s license? She may be needing it if this story gets too big before the election.

    • TeakWoodKite

      Who said to stand down? Not my bus please?

  • HELENK2

    i can not understand why having any security should be questioned. It is and was a HOT zone. Common sense should tell you it was NOT safe for our people. Did the state dept think the good fairies would come in and protect our people??

    everyone who vetoed the proper security should step down NOW. No matter who they are.

    • getfitnow

      Especially on 9/11.

    • DianaLC

      No, as in the famous photo during the Vietnam era, they were expecting Stevens to walk up to the gun and stick the stem of a flower down the barrel.

  • BronwynsHarbor

    Dear god. Larry, this is stunning news. Are you the only person on the planet who’s unearthed this set of failed execution of recommendations, events and wrong decisions as well as horrific results?

    If Ambassador Stevens sent his OWN cable and it was ignored, then all hell SHOULD break loose. (But need I state what will occur instead?)

    LARRY: Just one question, in case I missed it: What do the initials P and S stand for? (Just guessing — might P be for President and S be for Secretary of State? Probably wrong — but I need to know!)

    What you say here: “This story will come out” is certain.

  • akaPatience

    Larry, I hope you’re correct that this story gets out. The way the administration so doggedly tried to blame this horrible incident on that stupid video trailer PLUS the way Media have fiercely stepped up their game of running interference for the WH have made me suspicious from the very beginning. Something really damning is being kept under wraps. It’s obvious. How a deadly terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 could fade from the radar screen so quickly is highly suspicious, especially in light of the worldwide anti-American protests that ensued. If Stevens was raped and tortured it would’ve likely been IMMEDIATELY apparent in an autopsy. Why else would Agence France-Presse (similar to the AP here) report such a thing only a day or two later if word hadn’t gotten out? And now there’s this scandal about Stevens’ diary being found by CNN who was able to roam freely around the still-unsecured mission. If what you’re telling us is true, it explains why there’s been so much lying and obfuscation. It’s absolutely shameful that Media aren’t sniffing around this terror attack but instead are helping to sweep it under the rug. They not only want to shield Obama but also Clinton. It’s sickening.

  • Theymustbemorons

    What a horror story. Larry, what on earth could the reason be behind, as you put it “…the political decision in Washington to not give him (Stevens) the same protection enjoyed by our Ambassadors in Baghdad, Kabul, Bogota and Sanaa.”?

  • Fred82

    Larry,

    Since we are on the subject, is there any truth to rumors that al Qaida training camps are springing up in Egypt and Libya, especially in and around the border region?

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      Yes. Biggest problem is in Libya.

      • TeakWoodKite

        Isn’t where a relative thing, given the volatility on any given Tuesday? Obama syndrome.

      • JohnnyTwoDog

        I am astonished that the gratuitous cruise missle or two has not landed in the nether regions of the Libya border. Maybe that is being saved for an October surprise. “Cooperative freedom loving Libyan’s rat out border running terror cells responsible for Ambassador Stevens death aiding US response”

        • TeakWoodKite

          Not enough targeting drones to go around?

  • MG6

    Just out of curiosity, does Huma, Wiener wife, (not sure how to write her name), assistant to Hillary could have influenced any decisions made? She has a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. My understandings is that he MB has people placed in this adm to help bring down our country. Couldn’t ‘t she had placed a role in this tragedy?

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      I think that charge against Huma is very unfair and unfounded. Having met her, I am certain she is not anything near a MB supporter. What kind of MB supporter marries a Jew?

      • MG6

        Well, maybe. But what about:

        Islam permits lying it is called “Al-taqiyya.”or Kitma. Taqiyya means saying something untrue and Kitman is lying by ommission. All are in the Hadith and the Quran. Lying is permitted to advance the cause of Islam…”Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and “Allah” will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They can lie without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved even applauded in their “holy” books.” (/www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qur…

        Maybe you are right. But with MB determined to undermine the West in order to advance their cause, one has to be on alert.

        • skep247

          I have just one question: Did Mr. Wiener convert to Islam? Muslim women are not allowed to marry non Muslims. Muslim men are allowed to marry non Muslims, but a woman is subject to a barbaric ‘honor killing’.

          • MG6

            That is a good question…

          • MG6

            That is a good question…

          • Retired_from_SPOnaj

            Well, Huma married Wiener, and Weiner certainly didn’t convert to Islam (he doesn’t even take Judisim that seriously). So I guess perhaps Huma is no longer a Muslim, or, alternatively, there is at least one Muslim woman that is married to a non-Muslim. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth in the progressive colony of America…

            • skep247

              Interesting…
              And progressive indeed.

      • Hokma

        “What kind of MB supporter marries a Jew?”

        Reverse that. What kind of a Jew would marry a supporter of MB? Especially one like Anthony Wiener who, unlike the other Dem Jews, took public issue with Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu when Obama intentionally undercut Netanyahu and embarrassed him before he was to speak to Congress.

        By the way, it was soon after that public lashing by Wiener of Obama that the scandal suddenly became public which I never believed was a coincidence.

      • Retired_from_SPOnaj

        Huma is a “social Muslim,” and Weiner is a “social Jew.” Loyalty to radical Islamists or radical Zionists doesn’t enter into the picture for such.

  • Dbb3

    So is this the Whitey Tape that will save Romney, Larry? The other day I tried to inject some levity into one of Bronwyn’s typical rambling posts saying that his campaign is so dead the Mormon Church has decided to posthumously baptize it but she apparently zapped it. Oh and congrats for getting money from Karl Rove. Can’t be very much but Val and Joe would be proud.

  • KenoshaMarge

    From your post it appears that this is indeed on SoS Clinton.
    Unless it can be proved in some way that Obama tied her hands this murder is on her head.

    I ceased being a Hillary Clinton fan when she betrayed her supporters and then joined the Obama camp. It seemed to me then and still does now that a person of principal would not do that.

    Once the media can savage her to protect Obama she’s toast. And she has no one to blame but herself.

    Will Bill still shill for Obama once Hillary gets attacked by the obamamedia? He’s all ready shown that he cares about party over country, will he now show he cares about party over wife?

    • http://www.facebook.com/mary.cusack Mary Cusack

      of course he will. bill is a bendict arnold

      • HObama HObamanana

        More like Isadick Arnold.

      • KenoshaMarge

        Can’t argue with you there. While I can, and sometimes do, admire Bill Clinton’s political acumen as a human being I find him too seriously flawed to ever respect or admire. I find it very sad that so many Americans still admire him. Didn’t we use to have much higher standards?

    • TeakWoodKite

      “will he now show he cares about party over wife?”
      As Monica.

  • elizabethrc

    Hmmm. It would seem that Obama’s incompetences and poor choice making are catching. Hillary has the bug.

  • HARP2

    Hillary is now part of the enemy. I don`t care when she decided to become part of the cabal.
    Now she wants the elites of the world to cough up more money, as her and Bill sit on well over 100 million but is still trying to get suckers to pay off her campaign debt.
    I hope you do run in 2016 Hillary. It will be a pleasure to watch you lose AGAIN.

    Anyone who still supports her must have the battered wife syndrome.
    I`ve heard it all to often from the abused………”but he loves me”.

    Go to Hell Hillary, because that`s where you are trying to take this country.

    • iert2

      “Hillary is now part of the enemy.”

      Mr. Tea Partier you have a warped sense of fellow Americans. Just because you disagree with them, you should not be caling them “enemies”. Thank god Tea Partiers like you are now massively rejected by the U.S. population. You yourself are ashamed to fly you Tea Party flag any more.

      • Changes

        Maybe many are flying the patriotic flag! Many fly the American flag proudly not under the guise of any group! Americans can think both logically and independently!!

        After all it was directly from the top that Americans were called terrorists! Fellow Americans??

        Sources: “Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists”

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz27Uzw6smz

        Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

        Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis
        Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying:
        “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy
        clear………

      • http://twitter.com/beyondpartisan beyond partisan

        Tea Partiers “massively rejected”? Hardly. They are taking over the GOP! And there’s a growing exodus of blacks from the Democrats because the Dems have gone too far left. Try again.

      • HARP2

        Maybe you forgot that Obama called republicans enemies to a Latino audience in 2010.

        SUCK IT UP CUPCAKE.

  • http://twitter.com/StrayYellarDawg SYD

    Breaks my heart. But, let’s face it…. this WH is delusional about the wonders of the Arab Spring. And Hillary is surrounded by their idiocy.

    • http://twitter.com/JangoBear Sonya A. Willis

      She’s not simply surrounded by the idiocy she’s a part of it. She has been willingly lying and denouncing the Coptic Christian filmmaker and falsely blaming the video for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and the rest of the US Embassies being destroyed.

      • JohnnyTwoDog

        True that. Hillary is not surrounded. She is complicit.

  • HObama HObamanana

    I lost all respect for Hillary Clinton on August 26, 2008. That was the night of her keynote address at the 2008 Convention. That was the night that she betrayed her supporters by giving in to the party bosses that shoved Obama down our throats. That was the night she gave her consent to allow what started on May 31, 2008 to come to full fruition.

    Since that night, I have watched as supporters found every reason imaginable to excuse her behavior. She had no choice, she needed help paying her debt. She took one for the team because she is a woman and stuff like this always happens to women. She had to think about her political future. And on and on. Supporters were so shocked by the reality that they had been betrayed by someone they trusted that they had to find some way to ease the pain by shifting the blame elsewhere rather than accept the damned painful reality that they had been had.

    I am not surprised that Hillary has shown she is not up to the task at hand. She has always been more political than anything else, just like her hubby Bill. But I don’t hold her entirely responsible for what happened in Benghazi. I am quite certain that Obama set the tone, gave her his marching orders and then took off to go fund-raise and be adored by millions of fucking idiots.

    Does anyone believe that these documents will see the light of day before the election? And should some patriotic American take the risk to make them public, do any of you believe that the media will cover it? Even if they did, do you think for one minute that anything contrary to Obama’s explanation will be promoted and any criticism offered by Romney demonized?

    Facts are not important in this Administration. All that matters is image. But boy isn’t that a nice looking empty suit? Style has replaced substance and hero worship has replaced patriotism. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think that on October 31st we should hold a seance and ask the Founding Fathers for some guidance. Hopefully they can remind America how important it is to be free.

  • Retired_Coach

    Thanks Larry for being honest and, as Bill might say on The Factor, for being a stand up guy. I know you were hoping for a Hillary presidency 4 years ago. Not only this breach lays at her feet but now she is pushing for world wide wealth distribution. She is showing what many us knew long ago: There is very, very little difference between her and Bambi when it comes to ideology.

  • DianaLC

    Sad and shocking news. In any case, you’ve confirmed what I suspected, that the buck stops at the top.

  • Hokma

    If she had ambitions for a 2016 run this will negate her ability to run.

    The handling of this would probably be rich fodder for whatever Dems go for the 2016 nomination so I do not think she would even come close for the nomination.

    This is coming at the end of her tenure and there will be no chance to fix this or redeem herself, so this will be the lasting memory as she leaves.

  • Theymustbemorons
  • HARP2

    Presidents in uniform.

  • Theymustbemorons

    Where are Gen. Petraeus and Sec. Panetta in all of this?

  • Popsmoke

    This does not make sense. Hillary is not this stupid… Is someone trying to take her out politically?

    • Hokma

      Absolutely agree.

      Unfortunately we will have to wait for the book after she leaves office.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      Wrong Pop. Sadly. Dead ass wrong. It does not matter what you think or believe. What matters is what actually happened. The facts tell the story. Once all the facts become public you will understand.

      • Popsmoke

        Sorry LJ I am just not buying it and by the time the so called truth comes out the spin machine will be in full motion so that the only one who would know the truth would be Christ himself. This is totally out of character for her. Why would she just disregard a warning from the IC that we all thought was asleep at the switch in the first place? This is making no sense…

        • JohnnyTwoDog

          Popsmoke, at some obscure embassy in a remote part of the world that wasn’t a war zone with committed US assets like maybe Tazmania, I might give Hillary a smidgen of benefit of doubt.
          BUT, Libya is Hillary’s BABY. Hillary pushed NATO to intervene to the point of calling the shots with military intervention.
          Benghazi sadly is the result of Hillary’s true delusions.

          • Popsmoke

            I agree that to much faith was placed with local security. But before we accuse Hillary of anything. I would like to know what CIA and BIR warned of… Then I would like to know the actions of both State and the locals took before everything fell apart. Then I would like to know what Stevens knew. If he had ample warning or not?

      • TeakWoodKite

        “Once all the facts become public you will understand.”
        Will that be before or after November 6th?

  • iert2

    “These recommendations were rejected and Ambassador Stevens was left with virtually no security. ”

    Rejected by who?

    “To the contrary, DS had pressed for more security and was told to stand down.”

    Who told DS to stand down?

    Even if your information is correct, it makes no sense. Why would anyone want to reject more security?
    I am sure the Embassy is and was well protected. However, it is not common at all that outpost/consulates receive the same level of security. I understand there is simply not the funds to protect every consulate or outpost with a very high level of security and therefore the local security is relied upon.

    The real question is not the consulate security, but why was Stevens not traveling with more personal security?
    Maybe Stevens himself did not want to travel with a ton of personal security? Stevens was particularly know to be a diplomat who did not beleive in hiding within the security bubble of an Embassy (which most Ambassadors do in high risk countries), as he believed in getting out amongst the people.

    The reality and tragedy is that given the overall general lack of significant security at outposts like consulates, Stevens should have never been there in the first place. There just is no money to protect these outposts from very large military attacks like that that occured. Stevens himself was likely nieve in his own thinking about how safe he was in Libya, given he had previously be able to get away with more limited security and his desire to walk amongst the people.

    Another question for you to ponder, is what kind of budget cuts would the GOP push through in their Romney/Ryan budget regarding global diplomatic security, which already has budget issues?

    • http://twitter.com/beyondpartisan beyond partisan

      Another Obot, paid or volunteer, come here for the day shift and tag teaming the site along with Stinky Malinky. Sorry, your propaganda isn’t working on us. Go back to DailyKos.

    • HObama HObamanana

      So it’s Stevens and the Republicans that are responsible for his murder? Nice try asshole. You Obots really do stretch the truth just a mite. Does it really even concern you that under the leadership of your master 4 Americans were murdered? I thought not.

      • beachnan

        They are just following their leader whose motto is: Never take responsibility for anything unless it’s positive and then preen like a queen.

  • Hokma

    Apparently Obama has still not received the memo. The attack on the consulate was a pre-planned terror attack and had nothing to do with the video.

    In his U.N. speech, Obama doubled down on the video as the cause:

    “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy,” Obama said. He stated that our first amendment protects videos like that. He then added that other countries reject that first amendment to which he said, “We accept that.”

    This is the measure of a very, very weak President.

  • HELENK2

    has anyone had the stomach to listen to backtrack at the UN??
    from bits and pieces I am getting,because he makes my stomach turn i won’t watch him.
    Is he really praising the people that are killing ours??? Playing into to their victim mentality?

  • HELENK2
  • Constance

    It is interesting to me that Mitt Romney’s supporters on this website are so intent upon making Hillary shoulder the responsibility for this one incident. Maybe they think they can discredit her to the extent that she won’t have a chance in the Presidential race next time around. It doesn’t matter as far as her current SOS position. She’s been saying for months now that she will resign at the end of this term if Obama is re-elected.

    I used to be a bureaucrat and have some idea how they operate. If you have a less-than-straightforward administration, such as the Obama administration (meaning the WH and the controllers), the operative decisions within the bureaucracy are made by fanatic political appointees (who are often corrupt; you know, the kind who think the rules are made for everybody but themselves). They are often part of the package and not just for Hillary.

    Hillary is not a security expert. She could easily be overruled either by the political appointees or the career security people or input from Ambassador Stevens himself. She has to depend on the advice of some so-called expert. She is not a security expert; that is not why she was appointed to the position.

    I really don’t believe anything from a political partisan at this point in such an important Presidential election. It is clear, though, that, once again, Hillary is the object of more treachery. And it is not because she naive or a dummy walking around with blinders. It’s because she’s one of the good guys.

    • http://twitter.com/JangoBear Sonya A. Willis

      Don’t blame Romney supporters for Hillary being sharing the blame. As the SOS she most certainly does. She’s no longer one of the “good guys” when she joined Obama’s administration and put party over country. She doesn’t even stand up for American values. She’s shown her true colors.

      • getfitnow

        And at the Clinton Global Initiative she’s was supporting Obama favorite talking point–talking about rich people around the world need to pay more. WTF?

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      I’m not eager to pin this on Hillary. But the facts are what the facts are. Hillary made a bet and lost. It was her responsibility. That is how the chain of command works.

  • iert2

    “These recommendations were rejected and Ambassador Stevens was left with virtually no security. ”

    Rejected by who?

    “To the contrary, DS had pressed for more security and was told to stand down.”

    Who told DS to stand down?

    Even if your information is correct, it makes no sense. Why would anyone want to reject more security? I am sure the Embassy is and was well protected. However, it is not common at all that outpost/consulates receive the same level of security. I understand there is simply not the funds to protect every consulate or outpost at a very high level of security and therefore the local security is relied upon.

    The real question is not the consulate security, but why was Stevens not traveling with more personal security? Maybe Stevens himself did not want to travel with a ton of personal security? Stevens was particularly know to be a diplomat who did not beleive in hiding behind the security bubble of an Embassy (which most Ambassadors do in high risk countries), as he believed in getting out amongst the people.

    The reality and tragedy is that given the overall general lack of significant security at outposts like consulates, Stevens should have never been there in the first place. There just is no money to protect these outposts from very large military attacks like that occured. Stevens himself was likely nieve in his own thinking about how safe he was in Libya, given he had previously be able to get away with more limited security and his desire to walk amongst the people.

    What kind of budget cuts would the GOP push through in their Romney/Ryan budget regarding global diplomatic security, which already has budget issues?