from Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch today released 54 pages of new State Department documents, including a transcript of a September 12 2012, telephone conference call with congressional staffers in which then-Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the deadly terrorist assault on the Benghazi Consulate was not “under cover of protest,” but was, in fact, “a direct breaching attack.”
The documents were produced in response to a January 29, 2016, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the State Department failed to respond to an August 27, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00153)). The recently settled lawsuit sought:
From: Bulgrin, Julie K.
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:55 PM
To: H_Egypt; Canedo, Denese; Lang, Alan; ‘Rodriguez Miguel’; ‘Arguelles, Adam’; ‘Lundebergy, Greta’; ‘Ortiz, Michael’; ‘Lee Collin’; Pitkin, Douglas A; Maier, Christina A
Subject: Write up of U/S Kennedy Call with Hill re Libya
The call ended up starting around 6:30. Here are the raw notes.
Rob Carter – was this an attack under the cover of a protest?
No, this was a direct breaching attack.
Do we have any ideas of who launched? Leads?
Some claims from someone who has never made threat before, but everyone is looking at this closely.
Do we believe coordinated w/Cairo?
Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.
The call notes also detail that Amb. Stevens got of the compound, but “collapsed” and was taken to the hospital. Kennedy also said that it was his personal opinion that the attack “was semi-complex.”
When asked why no Americans troops were inserted, Kennedy responded that “the entire thing lasted approximately 4.5 hours. No US forces within time to get there.” (This was false, troops were available and could have arrived in time to provide support during the second attack on the CIA annex, which according to Kennedy, was assaulted by 100 attackers.)
The documents also include a September 13, 2012, email in which an unidentified sender reveals that as early as December 2011, the State Department confirmed the necessity for making a wide variety of “physical security upgrades.” Those upgrades included:
Though some of these “physical security upgrades” were apparently made, according to the State Department Accountability Review Board report issued on December 20, 2012, sufficient security remained an issue at the time of the attack:
Board members found a pervasive realization among personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing.
The insufficient Special Mission security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security upgrades.
Despite Kennedy’s admission on September 12 that the deadly terrorist assault on the Benghazi Consulate was not “under cover of protest,” but was, in fact, “a direct breaching attack,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five major interview shows the Sunday, September 16, to claim the attack was due to a “spontaneous protest” and was not premeditated.