The FBI in Benghazi

    The title of my post is somewhat misleading because as of Friday, they were not in Benghazi.  More than two weeks after the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the Washington Post reported on September 28:

WASHINGTON — For security reasons, FBI agents are staying away from the Libyan city where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed, two law enforcement officials said Friday.
The officials say the bureau is not going to put agents in harm’s way and that the city of Benghazi must be made secure before the FBI sends investigators there.

    After the death of four US citizens in Benghazi, no one is anxious to see any more lives put at risk.  But isn't a delay in the investigation of this attack putting more lives at risk in the long run?  So many questions remain unanswered and the scene of the attacks grows colder and more contaminated by the day.  If this attack truly represents a resurgence of al-Qaeda, the United States needs answers now before they strike again.  As I have documented, the Obama administration did not anticipate these attacks or even the likelihood that something similar would occur.  If we insist that "Benghazi must be made secure" before our investigators can be sent in, the wait will be long indeed.

    But why must we wait?  The Obama administration's greatest foreign policy victory and talking-point is the killing of Osama bin Laden.  In that mission, the US flew SEALs into Pakistan, hardly friendly territory, landed in bin Laden's compound less than a mile from a Pakistani military academy and base, killed bin Laden, quickly grabbed documents and other materials, losing only a helicopter but no US lives, and got out.  Libya, on the other hand, was recently freed from the reign of Moammar Khadafy in part due to the military assistance of the US.  The government, such as it is, is friendly toward the US.  And 10,000 Libyans marched in the streets of Benghazi in the days following the attacks to protest the very militias that likely played some part in the assault on the consulate.  The AP reported:

Other signs mourned the killing of Stevens, reading, "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Military helicopters and fighter jets flew overhead, and police mingled in the crowd, buoyed by the support of the protesters.

    No doubt Benghazi remains a dangerous place.  But Chicago has had 400 murders so far in 2012.  Is the FBI waiting for Chicago to be secured before venturing into the city?  I am not being flippant.  Danger is a given in law enforcement, and if the United States shows further weakness by not pressing this investigation, that weakness along with the lack of intelligence that might be (or might have been) gained by a thorough investigation in Benghazi will trade the short-term security of FBI agents for long-term peril of all US citizens, not only abroad, but at home as well.

Source: State Dept. OSAC Report is Behind Subscriber Wall

    Since September 12, 2012, the day after the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, I have been following the story of a report issued by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.  The report was originally issued on 9/6/12, five days before the attack, and a summary of the report appeared on the OSAC website in a menu of available reports as follows (entitled "Terrorism and Important Dates"):

    However, on September 14, three days after the attack and two days after my original post, that item disappeared from the menu of available reports and remains missing through the present.  From the beginning, I have allowed the possibility that the report was simply placed behind the subscriber wall on the site.  Certain reports are only available to "constituents". (The OSAC site says "OSAC constituency is available to any American-owned, not-for-profit organization, or any enterprise incorporated in the U.S. (parent company, not subsidiaries or divisions) doing business overseas.")  I did, however, think this was unlikely as summaries of other reports available only to subscribers remained in the site menus (for instance, one entitled "Narco-roadblocks in Colima and Jalisco" from 8/31/12; go back to 8/31 in the menu, and the summary is still listed; but to view the full report requires logging in.)  In my comparison of present menus with Google-cached versions of the same menus from earlier dates, I could not find a single report that was once listed that was subsequently removed as the report in question.

    Despite all this, I received confirmation today from an OSAC website subscriber that the Terrorism and Important Dates report is still available behind the subscriber wall via the original link address.  Although I admit my inner-conspiracy-theorist was somewhat disappointed at the news, it helps bring the remaining issues into focus:

• Why was the State Department downplaying the possibility of a 9/11 anniversary attack overseas and implying fears of such attacks were media creations?  (From original summary [emphasis mine]: "Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.")
• Why was the summary and link removed from the list of available reports on Friday, September 14th, three days after the attack, and placed behind the subscriber wall?  And who at the State Dept. removed the report or instructed that it be done?
• Is the tone of the memo indicative of a wide-spread attitude in the Obama administration that would explain the reluctance of administration officials to label the Benghazi incident a "terrorist attack" until days after many independent observers had already reached that conclusion?

    As of today, my inquires to the State Department/OSAC remain unanswered.

Let's Do the Math

    About that previous post on the Obama campaign's figures on the cost of birth control:  Let's do the math.  The Obama campaign manages to leave the impression that the cost of a woman's contraceptives over her lifetime can be $18,000.  The accountant in me is all over this.  According to the Guttmacher Institute (formerly connected to Planned Parenthood,) "[t]here are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years."  Since the Obama campaign chose to phrase it this way, how much money could all these women "save" over the next thirty years? Well, 62,000,000 times $18,000 is a little over $1.1 trillion, or about $37 billion a year!  Whew.  I'm glad no one has to pay for that!

Obama Campaign eCard: $18,000 for Birth Control!

    Both Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard and Ed Morrissey at HotAir drew attention today to the new eCards offered by the Obama campaign.  One card in particular caught the eye of both:

    Morrissey was almost struck speechless, only managing a "I think my head may have just exploded."  Daniel Halper on the other hand gamely offered a rebuttal:

It would seem the point of the eCard is to get daughters to encourage their mothers to vote for Obama. (Would any daughter really send this card to her mother?)
And as John McCormack reported after the Sandra Fluke controversy earlier this year, the numbers don't add up. "Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus."

    So where did the cranium-combusting $18,000 figure come from?  Would it shock you to learn that the source is Planned Parenthood?  I didn't think it would.  A visit to the Women's Health and Contraception portion of the Obama campaign website presents viewers with a graphic entitled "Contraception Facts."  There we find "Saving Women Money:  $18,000 - Amount some women could save over a lifetime on birth control."  The footnote says "Planned Parenthood, accessed 2/3/12." A search of the PP website turned up a Press Release dated 2/3/12 entitled Planned Parenthood Applauds HHS for Ensuring Access to Affordable Birth Control, which contains the following passage:

"Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern," said Kim Custer, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northeast and Mid-Penn. "This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year."

    As the cool people on Twitter say, do you see what they did there?  They took the high-end figure for "some women" of $50/month, annualized it ($600/year), and calculated it over a woman's child-bearing years.  Since $18,000 at $600/year comes out to 30 years, the only question is at what age does Planned Parenthood and the Obama campaign expect women (read "girls") to start taking birth control?  But that's an issue for another post.

    By the way, remember the Obama website graphic on Contraception Facts that I mentioned above?  Here it is below on the left.  And on the right?  A graphic from the Planned Parenthood of Nassau County Spring 2012 newsletter?

    So, what do you think?  A little collusion between the Obama campaign and Planned Parenthood?  Nah.  It's probably just a fluke.

It's Come to This: "Benghazi-gate"

    Fox Nation has picked up (via Gateway Pundit) on my reporting of the disappearance of the pre-9/11 anniversary State Department report from the website of its OSAC division.  This morning, Gateway Pundit noted that Rush Limbaugh mentioned the story on his show yesterday.  From the transcript at Rush's website:

 And, by the way, this was a truth that revealed reckless incompetence in planning for the security and safety the people that work for him. The State Department -- you know this -- five days before put a notice up on one of their websites that there was no credible information of any threat. Yeah, 9/11's coming up, but they don't have any credible information.
That has now been scrubbed. The Gateway Pundit is reporting that that warning... Well, it was not a warning. That little memo from the State Department to employees that work there has been scrubbed from their site. You can't go find the posting on the State Department website that told everybody over there that there was no problem. They've taken it down. The most transparent regime in history, they promised? So this campaign of deceit was deployed, was put out there because Obama has a reelection campaign.

    As I have noted (in an attempt to be cautious and give the benefit of the doubt, if any remains) the exact fate of the report is still in question, but at the very least it has been removed from the publicly accessible portion of the website where it was visible from its posing on 9/6 through 9/14 when it disappeared.

    The only quibble I have with Rush's characterization is when he refers to the "memo from the State Department to employees that work there."  The report was actually issued by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.  Technically it was not a report to "employees that work" at the State Department, but rather to "American private sector interests worldwide".  But given that Christopher Stevens, according to President Obama's speech to the United Nations this week, had "travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital," this OSAC report seems particularly relevant.

Greatest Visual Metaphor Ever

    The modern day mainstream media is often referred to as an echo chamber.  Once the narrative of a particular story has been set, all subsequent stories tend to fall in line.  At four minutes, this video might seem long, but at times it seems it takes no longer for the media to fall in step with the beat of the same drummer... so to speak (via Twenty-Two Words):




Admittedly, the conservative media has the same tendency.  Hey, but when you're right, everyone should march to the same beat!

Change

    In an interview with Univision last week, President Obama made a startling admission (via FoxNews):

Four years after Barack Obama campaigned on a promise of "hope and change," he now is admitting that a president isn't able to change Washington "from the inside" -- an admission that rival Mitt Romney promptly blasted as "the white flag of surrender."
President Obama, at a forum Thursday hosted by the Spanish-language TV channel Univision, lamented the challenge of shaking up the status quo in the capital.
"The fact that we haven't been able to change the tone in Washington is disappointing," Obama said, in response to a question about his greatest failure. "The most important lesson I've learned is you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

    Ever since that interview, instead of acknowledging the gaffe, the president has doubled down on his framing of the statement:

    In many ways, this "change comes from the outside" sentiment embodies the president's method of governance.  His modus operandi is decidedly characterized by imposition.  Some in society don't have health insurance?  Make everyone buy it!  Children aren't eating enough healthy foods?  Force every public school cafeteria to conform to strict calorie standards.  Not enough people are buying electric cars?  Give enormous tax credits that force everyone to subsidize those who do buy them.

    The now infamous 2001 interview that Barack Obama did with Chicago Public Radio contains the essence of this philosophy [emphasis mine]:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

    Change from the inside is apparently too hard to control and takes too long.  Short term satisfaction can be achieved through raw power rather than persuasion.  But it is rare to hear someone so publicly and blatantly disparage what is almost a truism about the superiority of internal versus external change.

Not all cliches are bad, and although it sounds trite, true and lasting change must come from the inside.  This goes for Washington and politics as well.  Our founders often warned that our Constitution and system of government would only function well under people of character.  Until the people in politics and Washington change, no amount of Hope and Change from the outside will make a difference.

None of the Above

    I just received my latest email from the Obama campaign.  It begins:

Jerry --  

On November 7th, there are two things you could be feeling: 

1. Elated that President Obama won, OR
2. Regretful that you didn't do everything you could to stop Mitt Romney from winning this election.

 I hate to break it to them, but...

Apparently Civility is Stoooooopid

    In January 2011, after the shooting in Arizona that killed six and wounded many others including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, President Obama said the following at a memorial for the victims:

At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do,” he said, “it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds...

If, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse,” Mr. Obama said, “let us remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. 

    More recently, however, the president seemed less sanguine about changing business as usual in Washington (via Fox):

"The fact that we haven't been able to change the tone in Washington is disappointing," Obama said, in response to a question about his greatest failure.

    Based on recent tweets from the BarackObama and TruthTeam2012 campaign Twitter accounts, the president has thrown in the towel on civility and changing the tone:

    Ironically, that first quote is from Mark Halperin who was suspended from MSNBC in 2011 for calling President Obama and unprintable (at least on my blog) and unbroadcastable name on live TV. (Come to think of it, Halperin would fit right in on the Obama campaign team.)  I guess we're fortunate Governor Romney is not as free with his use of uncivil Halperin quotes as the president.

New Obama Campaign Contest: Eastwooding With Barack

    I just received my latest email from the Obama campaign inviting me to enter the final Dinner With Barack drawing.  This one included a helpful seating chart of the dinner that is currently up for grabs:

    The president is in one chair, my guest sits to his left, and I'm on the right.  So... who is in the rest of the chairs?  I mean the empty chairs?

    Seriously, wouldn't you have thought Jim Messina would have issued a NO EMPTY CHAIR REFERENCES, PHOTOS, OR GRAPHICS directive for the remainder of the campaign?

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans: Part 4

    This past Friday, September 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released state-by-state unemployment data for August.  Several times since April (here, here, and here) I have written about "President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans" in relation to the jobs data via an analysis of what I call Republican-controlled states versus Democratic-controlled states.  Those states I have defined as Republican-controlled have far outpaced Democratic-controlled states in improving their rates of unemployment since 2009.  For instance, in my July post, I noted, among other things:

• When looking at the 50 states plus D.C., out of the top 26 with the best performance on unemployment [since 2009], 21 are Republican-controlled and only 5 are Democrat-controlled. 
• Of the bottom 25, 15 are Democrat-controlled and 10 are Republican-controlled.  

    As I have explained in the past, I have defined "control" as the party that holds at least two out of three of the following: the governorship and the two legislative houses.  So, for instance, even though New Jersey has a Republican governor, Chris Christie, both legislative houses are held by Democrat majorities, so New Jersey is considered Democratic-controlled.

     Using this metric, I'd like to highlight just a single contrast from the recently released August BLS figures that I analyzed.  When the states under control of the respective parties are combined and considered as one, the rates of unemployment are as follows:

• Republican-controlled states    7.7%
• Democratic-control states        9.2%

    The rate in Republican-controlled states is a full one-and-a-half points better.  If the 7.7% rate had been reached in the Democratic-controlled states, almost one million more people would have jobs.

    For a campaign that has been criticized for lacking specifics, this real-world example of what Republican policies versus Democratic policies can produce would be a real boon.  Mitt Romney should make the case that his economic plan will tackle (as Joe Biden would say) that "three-letter" issue "jobs" with three letters of his own: G-O-P.

Hope and Exports

    The Obama campaign's "Forward" slogan is meant to invoke not only the positive, feel-good aura that surrounded the 2008 Hope and Change campaign, but is also specifically focused on five major areas:  exports, reducing foreign oil dependency, new jobs in natural gas, new jobs in manufacturing, and investing in America by ending the war in Afghanistan.  The question could be asked of all five, why weren't these priorities during the first four years?  However, I will only address exports at the present.

    If the Obama administration wishes to run on the idea that the Second Obama administration will lead to a doubling of exports, it's worth asking what has taken place in the last four years.  Here's a graph showing the growth (or decline) of exports during the end of the Bush administration up to the present:

    Note that the first two years under President Obama were spent simply recovering ground that was lost during the great financial crisis.  The next six months saw some moderate growth, but then look what happens: a plateau.  And the most recent month on record actually shows a decline.  The policies of the administration so far have seen a little under a fifty percent increase in three and a half years, and that includes the rebound off of the Great Recession dip.  The president is now expecting the country to believe that those same policies (because he has not acknowledged any deficiencies in those policies or any need to change them) will lead to a growth rate twice what they have achieved so far.  The claim is even more dubious since this doubling would have to take place from the virtual dead-stop where exports have been idling for the past 12 months.

   Steven Hayward of Powerline recently posted two items on the state of the economy, both global and here at home.  Neither bodes well for Obama's optimism regarding exports.  Back in July, I wrote the following about government's role in the economy:

    It is often said (usually by the party in power when the economy is faltering), "There's really not much the president can do about the economy."  In some ways, that's true.  To go with the road-analogy, if the economy is a runner, there's not much anyone can do to help him run faster.  It's not as if someone can double his speed.  But someone (think Barack Obama) can sure put obstacles in his way and even slow him down or even stop him.  The way to help then becomes removing the obstacles and protecting the runner from interference.
    If we were starting with optimal conditions, the president could not do much to improve the economy - but we're no where near optimal.  Romney should not campaign on "I will create jobs," but rather, "I will remove obstacles keeping the private sector from creating jobs."

    The same could be said of exports.  Government can do trade deals and help fight unfair trading practices in other countries to help our businesses compete globally.  But for the most part, government just needs to get out of the way.  Barack Obama has shown little inclination to do this in his first term.  There is no reason to believe a second term would be any different.  Rather than doubling exports, the United States would be likely to spend the next four years struggling just to hold its own.

"Fair Share": Are We There Yet?

    On Thursday, Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner reported that Charlie Rangel made some Twitternews:

New York Rep. Charles Rangel, censured by the House for ethics violations over squirrely financial dealings like failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets and failing to pay income taxes, today called President Obama's goal of killing some Bush tax cuts "paying your fair share!"

Here's the tweet:

    While I am not a good judge of ear perkiness, I do recognize a liberal cliche when I see one.  "Paying your fair share" has probably been around as long as the income tax itself, which incidentally turned 99 this year. (I wonder if the Democrats are planning a 100 year anniversary celebration for the 16th Amendment in 2013?)  Since virtually every discussion of taxes involves some iteration of the rich-paying-their-fair-share canard, I've produced a handy graph summarizing the results of a quick research project looking into how often according to Democrats the rich have actually had to pay their fair share since the advent of the income tax.  Here are my findings:

Note: There were two years, 1944 and 1945, when the top marginal tax rate was 94% and the rich almost paid their fair share, but when 1946 arrived and it was discovered the rich still had some money left, those two years were moved back into the first column again.

The World's Bravest Atheist

    An AP Photo, via the Drudge Report:

That awkward moment when you realize your sign can be read two different ways.

The World's Bravest Atheist

Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirate's Life for Meeee... ting!

    President Obama's apparent brush off of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caused quite a stir recently.  Despite a trip to New York for a high-dollar fundraiser with the Z's, Jay and Beyoncé, and various other extra-curricular activities, the White House declined to arrange a meeting between the President and the Prime Minister citing "scheduling conflicts."

    However, Speak With Authority can now reveal that after the Israeli government consulted with another visiting dignitary who had previously managed to finagle a White House meeting with the president, Netanyahu landed a meeting of his own.  For the first time, here is an exclusive photo of the secret visit:

    The meeting, however, did not go well.  After Netanyahu made a reference to Israel being made to "walk the plank" and being "hornswaggled," President Obama let loose a mighty "Aaarrrggghhh, ye scurvy dog!" and Netanyahu, as his press aide later put it, "weighed anchor, hoisted the mizzen, and headed for friendly seas."

Missing State Department Report: "Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently."

    More information is surfacing that contradicts the Obama administration's claims that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11 was a spontaneous reaction to the trailer for an anti-Muhammad movie that was posted to YouTube in July.  US Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and the president himself have all suggested the movie was the catalyst and that there is no evidence the Libya attack was pre-planned.  However, CBS is now reporting (via the Weekly Standard) that unlike Cairo, there was no movie protest in Liyba at the consulate the night of the attack:

CBS reports this morning that witnesses are saying "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."

    During the past week, I have posted several stories about a State Department memo issued on 9/6/12 by the OSAC division downplaying the possibility of a 9/11 anniversary attack.  The memo subsequently disappeared from the OSAC website after the attacks.  I found and posted a cached version of the website showing the report listed prior to its removal on 9/14.

    However, it turns out I was only re-printing the opening paragraph of the report.  I subsequently realized the full report was much longer and was reproduced on the day it was issued (in full, as far as I can tell) on this website for Crisis Counseling International, an organization that apparently subscribes to the OSAC full-access website. (I had linked to this site in an earlier post, but did not fully recognize the entire post was part of the OSAC report.)  I have since discovered that much of the report was reproduced from a July 2011 OSAC newsletter (available here in PDF format.)  Here is the relevant portion of the extended report:

Terrorism and Holidays/Anniversary DatesHistorically, al-Qa’ida and other transnational terrorist groups have not conducted successful attacks on major U.S. holidays and anniversary dates. One possible explanation for this lack of activity is due to the increase in security on major dates because of a perceived vulnerability. A terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level. 

Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently. 

     That last line stands in sharp contrast to the week-long insistence by the Obama administration that what was clearly a well-coordinated attack by a large group or groups with serious firepower was just a spontaneous response to a movie.  As the report above says, "Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently." The question now becomes, if, again as the report above states, a "terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level," then why was this group able to conclude that security at the US consulate on a 9/11 anniversary in a very volatile country was not "heightened"?  Had the state department indeed grown complacent as I suggested here?

    Reports today indicate the administration has realized its movie-based explanation was crumbling.  The president made this explicit in an interview today:

President Barack Obama said that protests over a video that ridicules the Prophet Muhammad were used as a pretext for a planned strike against Americans.
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.  Well, we do not know yet.  And so we are going to continue to investigate this,” Obama said.

 Now the administration will have to fully explain its apparent lack of readiness for the 9/11 events in Libya.

I Pledge Allegiance to... What?! [Updated]

    In yesterday's Best of the Web column on wsj.com, James Taranto called attention to the latest gimmick from the Obama campaign:

The "For All" initiative asks supporters to post a photo on social networks such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter that highlights why we are greater together regardless of race, background, sexual orientation or zip code. The campaign will launch "For All" on its Instagram account and asks young people to join in protecting the progress we've made and moving our country forward. These images will be online at barackobama.com/photos-from-the-field/forall.
It's an easy three step process: 1) write on your right hand what progress means to you, 2) put your hand over your heart for a quick smartphone photo, and 3) tweet using the hashtag #forall. Supporters kicked it off with their own photos asking young people to join them in protecting the progress we've made and moving our country forward.

    Here are just some of the photos so far:

    I must admit the idea seemed somewhat bizarre, but then a tweet from the Obama campaign (which I noted here) filled in the missing piece of the puzzle:

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of..."

Update: I just realized!  How could I have missed this?!   "...liberty and justice for all."  Forget "liberty and justice"!  Instead, "clean energy", "equality", "education", and "women's rights."  Just fill in the blank... or the hand...

Update:  Jessica, I was KIDDING!

No Red States, No Blue States, Only Obama States [Updated]

    The Obama campaign at @BarackObama just tweeted the following:

    A lovely, bipartisan, can't-we-all-get-along, feel-good tweet, no?  However, clicking on the link takes you directly to the Barack Obama campaign web store and the following items:

That's right, no red states, no blue states.  In fact, no states at all!  Just the traditional blue field and white stars (what was Betsy Ross thinking, anyway?) replaced with the ubiquitous Obama O!  At least the red and white stripes are retained, although two of each are missing.  I wonder which of the four original colonies went for McCain in 2008?  Just when you think the Obama campaign has reached the peak of self-aggrandizement, it goes and demonstrates there are higher heights to climb.


UPDATE: By the way, the last time the campaign used this "No red states, no blue states, only the United States" slogan, they tweeted an image of the President superimposed over a map of the country. Apparently they thought better of it, because the photo disappeared from the tweet.  However, the image lives on, where else?  In the campaign store on a shirt!

Jay Carney: That's My Story and I'm Sticking To It

    Jay Carney is continuing to stick to the administration's position that the Benghazi, Libya 9/11 anniversary attack was not pre-planned (via The Cable):

Today, Carney didn't repeat the assertion that the video was solely to blame, but he said again that there is no evidence the Benghazi attack was pre-planned.
"What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as ... our ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack," Carney said Wednesday. "It is a simple fact that there are in post-revolution, post-war Libya armed groups; there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites, or American sites."

    So a bunch of "bad actors" are sitting around in a Benghazi bar on 9/11 and somebody says "Hey, that Muhammad movie the American infidel made was really bad.  What do you say we go raise a ruckus at the US Consulate?"  So everybody grabbed their RPGs out of their pickup trucks in the parking lot and headed over to the US compound on a lark.  I guess we were lucky.  Imagine how bad it could have been if they'd actually put together a plan.

State Department 9/11 Anniversary Warnings Dropped Off Significantly from 2011 to 2012

    My investigation published last Friday garnered a significant amount of attention over the weekend.  The only pre-9/11 anniversary warning from the government had come via the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), part of the U.S. Department of State.  The report was issued on 9/6 and subsequently disappeared from the OSAC website sometime on 9/13, possibly due, as I have speculated, to the rather optimistic tone of the report that in retrospect looked rather unjustified:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

    Over on the main State Department website, I found no alerts, warnings, or other communication regarding the 9/11 anniversary for 2012.  However, last year, the occasion of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was a different story.  On 9/2/11, the State Department issued the following Travel Alert, also called a Worldwide Caution:

Travel Alert
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
9-11 Anniversary
September 02, 2011 

As we mark the 10th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Department of State informs U.S. citizens traveling and residing abroad of the continued threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates.  While we have not identified any specific threats from al-Qa’ida affiliates and allies to attack the United States or our interests on the 9/11 anniversary, U.S. citizens should be aware that al-Qa’ida affiliates and allies have demonstrated the intent and capability to carry out attacks against the United States and our interests around the world.  In the past, terrorist organizations have on occasion planned their attacks to coincide with significant dates on the calendar.  This Worldwide Travel Alert supplements the July 26, 2011, Worldwide Caution, and expires on January 2, 2012.

    Granted, the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was bound to attract more attention due to its milestone status, plus the killing of bin Laden in May 2011 had already prompted the State Department to issue a special Worldwide Alert.  But notice the reference at the end to "significant dates":

In the past, terrorist organizations have on occasion planned their attacks to coincide with significant dates on the calendar.  

    This stands in contrast to wording in this year's OSAC report [emphasis added]:

[C]onstituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

The OSAC report made the anniversary concern sound more like media hype than a legitimate threat.  In further contrast, most recent Worldwide Caution issued by the State Department on July 18, 2012, sounds more like the 2011 warnings than this more recent OSAC report:

The Department of State has issued this Worldwide Caution to update information on the continuing threat of terrorist actions and violence against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. U.S. citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. This replaces the Worldwide Caution dated January 24, 2012, to provide updated information on security threats and terrorist activities worldwide.
The Department of State remains concerned about the continued threat of terrorist attacks, demonstrations, and other violent actions against U.S. citizens and interests overseas. Current information suggests that al-Qaida, its affiliated organizations, and other terrorist organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. These attacks may employ a wide variety of tactics including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, and bombings.
Extremists may elect to use conventional or non-conventional weapons, and target both official and private interests. Examples of such targets include high-profile sporting events, residential areas, business offices, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, public areas, and other tourist destinations both in the United States and abroad where U.S. citizens gather in large numbers, including during holidays.
U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Extremists have targeted and attempted attacks on subway and rail systems, aviation, and maritime services. In the past, these types of attacks have occurred in cities such as Moscow, London, Madrid, Glasgow, and New York City.

The report then goes into more detail on specific areas of the world, including:

MIDDLE EAST and NORTH AFRICA: Credible information indicates terrorist groups also seek to continue attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East and North Africa. 

    There is no explanation in the Alert as to the timing, or what prompted the State Department to choose July 18, 2012 to issue it rather than more proximate to the anniversary of the worst attack on the United States in recent memory.  This seems even more curious in light of a September 7, 2011 press briefing given at the State Department:

QUESTION: Pentagon this morning said that the level of vigilance and security at U.S. bases in United States and around the world has been increased, not because of any direct threat but as a precaution. Do you see any such threat in your interaction with other countries’ attacks on 9/11 anniversary in other countries and installations like in Pakistan and Afghanistan or elsewhere?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I think you know that it is normal and usual for us to be vigilant both at home and at our facilities abroad around September 11th given what al-Qaida has said in the past about the anniversaries. That said, I’m obviously not going to speak about intelligence issues one way or the other, and I’m going to refer you to DHS with regard to our posture here. With regard to our posture overseas, we are always vigilant on September 11th and we will be so again this year.
QUESTION: You put out a Worldwide Caution, didn’t you, just a couple days ago?
MS. NULAND: We always do. We always do.

    "Always" did not include 2012.  As I have reported, the only caution issued by the State Department this year was withdrawn after the fact.

    My initial report on September 12th included a quote from an unnamed administration official that asserted the State Department had prepared in advance for the 9/11 anniversary:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of how we were postured in terms of security at our mission in Benghazi beyond what I said. So – because we don’t ever talk about the details of those kinds of things.
What I would say, though, is that we did, as we did in missions around the world, review the security there in the context of preparing for the anniversary of September 11th. And at that point, there was no information and there were no threat streams to indicate that we were insufficiently postured.

However, the details of whatever "security review" was conducted are not public information, so the lack of public statements regarding the 9/11 anniversary is even more glaring.

    Lisa Myers of NBC News reported Monday night about the growing evidence of the lack of adequate security in Benghazi prior to the 9/11 assault that left four U.S. citizens dead.  The demonstrable decrease in public statements from the State Department from 2011 to 2012 only lends credence to those assertions.

A Possible Motive for Scrubbing the State Department Memo

    A recent CNN report could shed some light on the motive for the removal of the State Department's Overseas Security Advisory Council report issued on 9/6/12, before the 9/11 anniversary attacks in Egypt and Libya.  As I reported on Wednesday, September 12, the memo read as follows:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

 In my previous post, I wrote:

The phrasing of the last sentence of the memo ("these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence" [emphasis mine]) could have even inspired complacency with its rather glib assessment of the potential threat.

Besides the obvious reasons, why would someone at the OSAC think it was worthwhile to make the memo disappear?  A clue is in the stated mission and objectives of the U.S. State Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Council on its website [emphasis added]:

Mission
The U.S. State Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Council (Council) is established to promote security cooperation between American private sector interests worldwide (Private Sector) and the U.S. Department of State.
The objectives of the Council as outlined in its Charter are:
A. To establish continuing liaison and to provide for operational security cooperation between State Department security functions and the Private Sector.
B. To provide for regular and timely interchange of information between the Private Sector and the State Department concerning developments in the overseas security environment.
C. To recommend methods and provide material for coordinating security, innovation, planning and implementation of security programs.
D. To identify methods to mitigate risks to American private sector interests worldwide.

In other words, this division of the State Department, the OSAC, is specifically focused on the Private Sector and overseas security.  Now, back to that CNN report I referenced above [emphasis added]:

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.
"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.

    As I've said before, there is as of yet no credible evidence that there was "credible evidence" of a terrorist plot planned for 9/11/12.  But for an agency charged with providing "regular and timely interchange of information between the Private Sector and the State Department concerning developments in the overseas security environment," this memo is embarrassing at best.  Could an image-conscious staffer at OSAC acting on impulse have deleted it?  Or at least have placed it behind the subscriber wall?  Or have been instructed to do so by a higher up?

    Certainly if someone at the OSAC deliberately erased the memo from the website, it was a ham-handed effort to paper over it.  At least one organization had already posted the report on its website on 9/6/12, the day it was issued.  The "memory hole" in the age of the internet just isn't that deep.  Until the State Department responds with an explanation about the fate of the report, the operational assumption will be that someone at OSAC thought that the memory hole just might be deep enough.

Update:  As long as I'm speculating, an even more conspiratorial thought would be that if the State Department is attempting to purge embarrassing memos from the notoriously permanent internet, perhaps the FBI should be stocking up on rubber gloves (for digging through State Department dumpsters for paper-shredder-trash-bags) and Scotch tape for reassembling documents.  Never hurts to be prepared.

Benghazi Car Bombing on September 2nd Killed Libyan Intelligence Officer

    Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit and John Sexton of Breitbart's Big Peace have reported about other recent bombings/attacks in Benghazi, Libya in the months leading up to the 9/11 anniversary attacks.  Hoft's post shows the four attacks as listed in a Fox News screen grab:

However, not included in the list is the most recent attack in Benghazi on Sunday, September 2, 2012 (Reuters via Yahoo News):

9/2/12 Benghazi - Source: Al Arabiya

BENGHAZI (Reuters) - A Libyan intelligence officer was killed and another wounded on Sunday when their car exploded in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, a security spokesman said.  A bomb planted in the car, which belonged to one of the officers, was remotely detonated when the two got into the vehicle in a busy shopping district in Benghazi, Supreme Security Committee spokesman Abdel Moneim al-Hurr told Reuters.

    This attack was not against a foreign target as the other four were, but it came only nine days before the attack on the Libyan consulate that is now looking increasingly likely to have been planned well in advance, as even the Libyan president conceded.  Politico  reports:

Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week's "preplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?" CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.
"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

    If this is so, then the car bombing of two Libyan intelligence officers a little more than a week before the attack may take on new significance.  An Al Arabiya report names the two officers as "Colonel Juma Alkadiki" and "Capt. Abdel Basset al-Mabrouk," members of Libya's general public intelligence service.  (The headline of the Al Arabiya story inexplicably reads "Benghazi blast failed attempt to kill intel commanders: sources".)

    This is pure speculation, but could these intelligence officers have obtained some information regarding the impending attacks and the car bombing was an (at least partially successful) attempt to silence them?  The report does not indicate the condition of the injured man, and I could not find any further reports about the incident after the initial stories.  As the investigations continue, it will be interesting to learn if the Benghazi U.S. Consulate attack actually claimed its first victims nine days earlier.

State Department Memo from September 6th Downplaying Threat of 9/11 Anniversary Attacks Disappears [Updated]

    Wednesday night, one day after the 9/11 anniversary protests/attacks in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya, I wrote about a September 6, 2012 memo issued by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.  Both Jim Geraghty of National Review Online and Paul Bedard/Washington Secrets of the Washington Examiner picked up the story.  The memo, to my knowledge the only one issued by the government specifically relating to 9/11 anniversary threats (or lack thereof) read as follows:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

    Obviously, although there is no smoking-gun proof yet that the government had, or should have had, "credible information" about any of these attacks, in retrospect the memo is an embarrassing reminder of how the United States and its overseas embassies were caught flat-footed on Tuesday.  The phrasing of the last sentence of the memo ("these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence" [emphasis mine]) could have even inspired complacency with its rather glib assessment of the potential threat.

    There is now evidence that someone at the State Department drew the same conclusion about the memo, because as of today, it is no longer listed on the OSAC website.  Here is a Google cache version from September 8, 2012 of the list of reports [Update 9/29-The Google cache at that link has since been updated, so the screen capture below of the 9/8 cache is the only version now available.] in question:

    Note that the Terrorism and Important Dates memo is listed after Major Events Monthly (July/August 2012) and before Cyber Awareness Bulletin: September 6, 2012.  Now here is the current version of that page as of Friday, September 14, 2012:

    This time, note that although there are three new entries, there is nothing listed in between Major Events Monthly (July/August 2012) and Cyber Awareness Bulletin: September 6, 2012.  The Terrorism and Important Dates memo is gone.  Advancing the list to include more and older entries yields no results, either.  A Google search for "Terrorism and Important Dates" on the website returns four hits, but the memo cannot be found by clicking on any of them.  All have been updated and no longer contain the memo or any reference to it.

    The only other explanation for its disappearance is that the memo has been placed behind the subscriber wall of the website.  Clicking on the link for "Terrorism and Important Dates"in the cached version of the reports page simply brings up the logon page for subscribers.  However, this scenario seems unlikely because the memo is no longer listed in a publicly accessible menu as it was on Thursday and all the preceding days since its publication on the 6th, so unless users already had the original link to the memo, they would not even know of its existence.

    I have emailed the OSAC for an explanation of the missing memo.  Given the retractions and deletions that have already marked this whole series of events, the admittedly conspiracy-theory-sounding explanation seems the most persuasive.  Until I receive a reply or the State Department issues a public statement, this latest disappearance will maintain an understandably sinister air about it.


Note (added 9/28): Here is more on what is apparently the full OSAC report from 9/6.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

UPDATE: It turns out Rush Limbaugh mentioned the original story on his show on Thursday (9/14):

RUSH: This is interesting. There's an organization called OSAC. It's the State Department's Overseas Advisory Council. OSAC. The State Department Overseas Advisory Council, five days before the attacks in Libya and Egypt, sent a memo everywhere declaring there was no threat. "OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that Al-Qaeda or any other terror group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of 9/11."
They had no clue. The State Department had no clue, and now these things have erupted all over the region -- and the focus now is America. 

UPDATE 2:  Please note: While I appreciate the coverage this post has received by other bloggers, I want to emphasize what I said in the penultimate paragraph above:  "The only other explanation for its disappearance is that the memo has been placed behind the subscriber wall of the website."  I do not have definitive proof that the report is completely scrubbed, only that it's gone from the menu of reports where it had been listed prior to 9/14.  I am not a subscriber, nor does it appear that I would qualify to subscribe in order to verify whether or not the report is still accessible to subscribers.  I have taken to emailing the OSAC daily to try to elicit a response, but so far to no avail.  Until a subscriber can log on and provide verification one way or the other, or until the OSAC responds to my emails or makes a public statement, the disappearance from the publicly accessible menu remains suspicious to me.

UPDATE 3: Rush Limbaugh mentioned this story on his show on Thursday based on the Gateway Pundit report which was in turn based on my original 9/12 and 9/14 posts.  I have commented on Rush's comments in a new post on 9/28.

Support Barack Obama, Catch Some Z's

    Today millions (I assume) of Obama campaign email mailing list subscribers received the following email, myself included:

I usually don’t email you — but I have an amazing invitation I have to share.
Jay and I will be meeting up with President Obama for an evening in NYC sometime soon. And we want you to be there!
Until midnight tonight, if you pitch in $15 or whatever you can, you’ll be automatically entered to be flown out to join us.
I’ve had the honor of meeting President Obama and the First Lady a few times — and believe me — it’s an opportunity you don’t want to miss.
Don’t worry about the airfare and hotel, it’s taken care of. And you can bring a guest.
But the countdown is on — this opportunity ends at midnight:
Can’t wait to meet you!
Love,
Beyoncé

I cannot speak for anyone else on the mailing list, but to my memory, Beyoncé doesn't just not "usually" email me, she never has.  It's almost enough to make me doubt her sincerity.  Anyway, the contest to meet the president along with Mr. and Mrs. -Z is also featured on the campaign website:

Hmmm... a meeting in New York City with the president sometime soon?  I wonder if Benjamin Netanyahu knows about this drawing?

The Incredible Disappearing U.S. Embassy Press Release

    Yesterday I wrote about how the controversial press release from the U.S. Embassy on the morning of 9/11 was getting more difficult to find.  Now it is completely gone from the Embassy's website.  The original link no longer works, and a Google search for the text of the release does not show up on any government websites at all.  The list of 2012 press releases has been fixed to remove the odd "Page Layout" entry that I noted yesterday, but there is still no listing of the press release in question:

    Is this disappearance simply an oversight?  Or history revision right before our eyes?

 * * * * * * *

Update:  Here's a screen shot of the Google cache version of the original statement that is now missing:

Egypt an Ally? What a Difference Five Months Makes [Updated]

    From an March 23, 2012 Press Briefing.  Jay Carney:

Egypt is an important ally in the region.  We have worked closely with Egypt in this period of transition and will continue to do so.

    From an April 5, 2012 Press Briefing.  Jay Carney:

 What I would say to you is that we believe it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties in Egypt, and to engage -- to continue to engage with Egypt because Egypt has been an important ally of the United States and an important -- has played a significant role in the region. And we believe it is in our interest to engage with Egypt, in part in an effort to encourage Egypt to maintain its commitment to its international obligations and to maintain its -- to maintain a positive role in the region.

    From a September 12, 2012 NBCUniversal/Telemundo interview with President Barack Obama:

Jose Diaz Balart - Would you consider the current Egyptian regime an ally of the United States? 

Pres. Obama: I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy. They’re a new government that is trying to find its way.

With non-allies likes these, who needs enemies?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UPDATE:  White House clarifies... (via The Cable)

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable Thursday that the administration is not signaling a change in that status.
"I think folks are reading way too much into this," Vietor said. "‘Ally' is a legal term of art. We don't have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is longstanding and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt's transition to democracy and working with the new government."

 What exactly should be read into the statement "I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy"?  Perhaps this is the diplomatic equivalent of "She's a girl, and she's my friend, but she's not my girlfriend!"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UPDATE 2: Jay Carney (yes, the same Jay Carney who made the two statements above) today said this (via Politico):

"The president, in diplomatic and legal terms, was speaking correctly," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "We do not have an alliance treaty with Egypt. Ally is a legal term of art. As I said, we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, like we do, for example, with our NATO allies."

 Now both White House spokesmen Jay Carney and Tommy Vietor have used the phrase "Ally is a legal term of art."  Look for the t-shirts and bumper-stickers in the Obama store any day now.

Embassy Attacks on 9/11 Not Anticipated by U.S. Government [Updated]

UPDATE:  The memo in question has now disappeared.  Story here.

    The Overseas Security Advisory Council is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.  The mission of the council is "to promote security cooperation between American private sector interests worldwide (Private Sector) and the U.S. Department of State."  Part of its function is to issue Travel Warnings, Travel Alerts, Emergency Messages to U.S. Citizens, and the like.    On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, the following Emergency Message (first paragraph only) was posted by the OSAC:

Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens: Cairo (Egypt), Demonstrations
Riots/Civil Unrest
Near East > Egypt > Cairo
9/11/2012  

Several different groups are calling for demonstrations in both downtown and Garden City this afternoon to protest a range of issues. These groups may gather in front of the U.S. Embassy, or Egyptian government buildings such as the People’s Assembly and Ministry of Interior, beginning in the early afternoon and continuing into the evening.  It is unclear if large numbers will take to the streets, but clashes may occur should two opposing groups come into contact with one another. Large gatherings and non-essential travel in and around Downtown and Garden City should be avoided this afternoon. 

It is identical to the notice issued the same day by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, probably some time in the morning or around noon based on the reference to "beginning in the early afternoon" in the message.  This appears to be the first inkling that anything dangerous was developing.  I can find no other references on the OSAC website or the State Department website or any other government website for that matter warning about possible problems on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks in the U.S.  On the contrary, the OSAC issued this report* on Wednesday, September 6, 2012:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012 

OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

This jives with the information given today at a State Department briefing given by unnamed senior administration officials regarding the attack in Libya:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of how we were postured in terms of security at our mission in Benghazi beyond what I said. So – because we don’t ever talk about the details of those kinds of things.
What I would say, though, is that we did, as we did in missions around the world, review the security there in the context of preparing for the anniversary of September 11th. And at that point, there was no information and there were no threat streams to indicate that we were insufficiently postured.

    Given that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been bombed just three months ago and that terror groups have in the past shown a penchant for commemorating anniversaries of past attacks with fresh ones, it is difficult to understand how the U.S. government was not better prepared for what now appear to be planned events (protest-turned-riot in Egypt, violent assault in Libya.)  No doubt multiple investigations are already underway to uncover the truth and once again make sure that the U.S. is alert and on guard when we are attacked.  After eleven years of repeating "never forget" on 9/11, our collective memory has been painfully refreshed.

*Note:  The report has now gone behind the OSAC's subscriber wall.  Here's a link to Crisis Consulting International who posted the report along with some commentary. [Update here.]