Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Benghazi Guards Betrayed U.S. Diplomats in 2012 Attack

Report: Benghazi Guards Betrayed U.S. Diplomats in 2012 Attack

Unvetted guards belonged to terror groups.

Multiple sources have told Fox News that the guards hired to protect the Americans in Benghazi betrayed them in the end. These sources claim the firm “hastily recruited locals with terror ties who helped carry out the attack” that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The sources also said the State Department hired these guards from the Wales-based Blue Mountain Group despite internal objections:

The explosive charge against Wales-based Blue Mountain Group comes from several sources, including an independent security specialist who has implemented training programs at U.S. Consulates around the world, including in Benghazi, where he trained a local militia that preceded Blue Mountain. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Blue Mountain used local newspaper ads to assemble a team of 20 guards, many of whom had terror ties, after securing a $9.2 million annual contract.

The source told Fox News that these locals belonged to the Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The department allowed this firm to hire locals without vetting them:

“We kept asking for additional support, including a 50-caliber mounted machine gun, but the State Department would not give it to us, because they said it would upset the locals,” the source told Fox News. “Instead, the State Department hired a company that doesn’t have employees, which then hired terrorists.”

According to Charles Tiefer, a commissioner at the Commission on wartime Contracting, one of the guards “was the younger brother of the leader of Al Qaeda of Benghazi.”

Jairo Saravia of the Regional Security office for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli told the State Department that Blue Mountain “is not licensed by the GOL (Government of Libya) to provide security services in Libya.” The group lost its security contracts with the Corinthian Hotel and Palm City complex in Tripoli. He wrote:

“I would advise not to use their services to provide security for any of our annexes and/or offices due to the sensitivity this issue has with the current GOL.”

CIA contractor John “Tig” Tiegen responded to the Benghazi attack and confirmed the sources story:

“Many of the local Libyans who attacked the consulate on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, were the actual guards that the State Department under Hillary Clinton hired to protect the Consulate in Benghazi,” Tiegen told Fox News. “The guards were unvetted and were locals with basically no background at all in providing security. Most of them never had held a job in security in the past.

“Blue Mountain Libya, at the time of being awarded the contract by our State Department, had no employees so they quickly had to find people to work, regardless of their backgrounds,” he said.

Former guard Weeam Mohamed told the Citizens Commission on Benghazi “that at least four guards hired by Blue Mountain took part in the attack after opening doors to allow their confederates in.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


2nd Ammendment Mother | November 7, 2016 at 4:20 pm

I’ve always wondered why the selection of Blue Mountain and their hiring practices weren’t a bigger part of the hearings. From the cheap seats, Blue Mountain and ignoring Stephens and others requests to tighten security were the primary issues in Benghazi…. and those decisions were all made and signed off on by Madame Secretary.

Donning Tin Hat: I’ve always thought there was a Wag the Dog scenario involved. Mubarik was demanding the return of the Blink Sheikh and State was floating trial balloons on doing so. If the Muslim Brotherhood happened to rescue a US Ambassador, then we’d be obligated to return the Sheikh in gratitude. Also remember, Obama was struggling in the polls right then on Nat’l Security issues – he needed a big foreign policy coup to tamp down criticism.

Betrayal would be a byword in a Clinton presidency. Maybe the media would use another word for it…maybe a word like love or compassion. Megyn Kelly might report, “Hillary loved today.” “Oh yes” Brit Hume would chime in, “with great compassion.”

I say we use those same guidelines to hire security for Hillary.

One of the first things that was learned almost immediately after the attack was that the Libyan security detail hired by the State department abandoned their posts prior to the commencement of hostilities by the terrorists.

So color me as totally not surprised…

How much did Blue Mountain “donate” to CGI or the dem party?

Just another detail (according to my viewing) that the wonderful movie “13 Hours” got right.

But, really, that was never in doubt.

great unknown | November 7, 2016 at 5:23 pm

They did exactly what was expected of them, since the State Department wanted Ambassador Stevens killed.

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | November 7, 2016 at 5:42 pm

This is not news. It was in the reports. But is the Secretary of State responsible for security? The State Department has a permanent professional staff.

Where was Hillary? Why, do you think she should donned a vest and grabbed a M-16?

Another thing you all seem to be determined to ignore is that Ambassador Stevens was the person most able to assess the situation. That was his job. He made the decision. He knew it was dangerous.

I am also at a loss to understand why this particular tragedy has occupied Hillary haters when more diplomatic personnel were killed under George W. Bush. Not everyone in the world loves us. We are dependent on locals for security – unless you want to negotiate the right to put a standing army in every consulate; and pay for it; and allow the other party to do the same. Do you want a bunch of armed Libyans allowed into the country with absolutely no vetting and diplomatic immunity?

    So, I guess the Ambassador committed suicide just like Vince Foster? It was all his fault! You are so full of it.

      Stevens and the other Americans were aborted/sacrificed for political progress, immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises), mineral rights… and for the Libya-ISIS Affair. Ironically, the survivors of Obama and Clinton’s social justice adventure were helped by members of the regime that survived the Choice.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Old0311. | November 7, 2016 at 7:16 pm

      No, he died bravely in the line of duty. I assume you are familiar with the phrase.

    Is the SecState responsible for security at diplomatic missions? Yes, particularly for missions in the middle of civil war zones, double for those who are directly threatened, double again for those in which the military forces which protected the ambassador were *removed* and replaced by militia units who are involved in the ongoing multi-side civil war.

    Blue Mountain (as I recall) was simply responsible for overseeing the *unarmed* foreign citizens (read: locals) hired to stand on the walls, check under vehicles with mirrors, and check people in and out. The second unit of almost-untrained militia members were hired by State and replaced the military units withdrawn earlier (by State), and were for all intents and purposes, useless for their claimed purpose, i.e. defending the compound if attacked. The withdrawal of the US security personnel left (if I remember right) two Close Protection (for driving the ambassador and providing ‘body’ protection) and two backup CP (because the CP have to sleep sometime).

    Four guys with guns. That’s it.

    “This is not news. It was in the reports. But is the Secretary of State responsible for security? The State Department has a permanent professional staff.”

    Yes, the DoS does have a permanent security staff. But the Secretary of State and only the Secretary of State can over rule their professional judgement. The Secretary of State must take personal responsibility for this. It’s the law. Only the SecState can authorize deviations from certain vital security requirements when, among other things, establishing a new Consulate, which is why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi in 9/11/2012. The SecState can not delegate this responsibility to others.

    From Hillary Clinton’s own “fact checking” website.

    “FACT – In 2013, Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya, publicly testified that Clinton had wanted the Benghazi post made permanent and had planned to visit Tripoli.

    House Oversight Committee Hearing, 5/8/2013: REP. THOMAS MASSIE [R-KY]: Did you tell the Accountability Review Board about Secretary Clinton’s interest in establishing a permanent presence in Benghazi? […]

    GREGORY HICKS: Yes, I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent. Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways on the — to the members of the board, saying, “Does the 7th floor know about this?” And another factor was our understanding that Secretary Clinton intended to visit Tripoli in December.”

    Made permanent as what? A consulate.

    Consequently no matter what kind of staff she had she was legally obligated to be personally involved in security decisions. As in, only the Secretary of State can personally take responsibility for accepting the risks.


    12 FAM 315.1 SECCA – Waiver Authority

    (CT:DS-223; 11-25-2014)

    a. The Secretary may waive the statutory collocation requirement only if the Secretary, together with the head of each agency employing personnel that would not be located at the site, determine that security considerations permit separate locations and it is in the national interest of the United States.

    b. The Secretary may waive the setback requirement if the Secretary determines that security considerations permit and it is in the national interest of the United States.

    c. The Secretary MAY NOT DELEGATE THE WAIVER AUTHORITY for the collocation and setback requirements with respect to a chancery or consulate building. For this purpose, a chancery or consulate building is a building solely or substantially occupied by the U.S. Government that is newly constructed or otherwise acquired where the main business of the U.S. Government is performed in that city.

    d. The Secretary has delegated the waiver authority of the collocation and setback requirements with respect to U.S. diplomatic facilities other than chancery or consulate buildings (as those terms are defined under the statute) to the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security (A/S DS), in consultation with the OBO Director.

    e. Direct applications for waivers of collocation and setback requirements to DS/PSP/PSD for processing and evaluation, prior to being forwarded to the Assistant Secretary for approval or recommendation to the Secretary. Waiver requests must contain all of the information stipulated in 12 FAH-5 H-300.”

    At the very least the diplomatic facility that Hillary Clinton wanted to Chris Stevens to make a permanent Consulate was not set back 100′ from the road. I’m not sure about the collocation requirement although I strongly suspect it failed by that standard as well and Clinton would have needed to issue a seperate personally authorized waiver as well. But it definitely didn’t meet the setback requirement that those vaunted security professionals say is necessary. It was right on the goddam street. Only Hillary Clinton could have personally waived that requirement and personally have taken responsibility for certifying that all other security requirements were adequate AND it was in the best interest of the United States. The Red Queen somehow managed to over rule the security professionals’ determination of what was minimally required AND avoid putting anything in writing. And predictably here you are once again applauding the illegal buck passing.

    This is why there is such a thing as a Secretary of State. I’m fine with it if you want to eliminate the useless position that apparently exists only for grifters, thieves and rent-seekers and instead having the professional staffers decide everything. But for right now the law says the Secretary of State must take personal responsibility for certain decisions. And the grifter and thief and continuing threat to national security illegally (but why should that once again be a surprise) evaded her responsibility.

    Curious; do you imagine yourself to be an intelligent human being?

    “Where was Hillary? Why, do you think she should donned a vest and grabbed a M-16?”

    Oh it wouldn’t be the first time for the Lioness of Tuszla who landed under sniper fire in Bosnia as team leader of Attack Force FlOTUS. Besides the action figure would go so well with your Barack Obama POTUS action figure…

    … commemorating the time when King Putt personally and with utter disregard to his own safety fast-roped into OBL’s compound in Abottabad and offed the leader of AQ just to provide a personal example of leadership to the SEAL slackers from DEVGRU who seemed a bit hesitant.

    “What, do you want to live forever?” our intrepid President said in contempt to the SEALs as he stood to exit the helo and then clenched his K-Bar fighting knife in his teeth.

    The SEALs, thoroughly chastened, glanced at each other in shame, then followed Obama out the door. But it was too late. Barack Obama had indeed all by his lonesome killed bin Laden. And save GM.

    The POTUS/FLOTUS action figure set. Get it now before we’re sold out.

“Where was Hillary? Why, do you think she should donned a vest and grabbed a M-16?”

Thread winner. For the Most Dishonest Comment of the Week.

Because when we say the buck stops with those in leadership poistions, we mean that the Secretary of State is at fault for not grabbing an M16 and flying to Benghazi herself…

And our runner up: “I am also at a loss to understand why this particular tragedy has occupied Hillary haters when more diplomatic personnel were killed under George W. Bush.”

Here is a hint – we are not focused on this because diplomatic personnel were killed. We are focused on this because diplomatic personnel were ABANDONED as they were being killed.

Additionally, she lied about the cause of the attack, and then lied some more by saying there were no units in range to come to their aid.

And even if there weren’t (there were) it comes down to the fact there there are two kinds of people in such scenarios.

1) You see a kid drowning out in the middle of the lake. You do the math and decide that you won’t make it to him in time.

2) You see a kid drowning out in the middle of the lake. You dive and and start swimming to him.

Which one are you?

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Fen. | November 7, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Sarcasm is not my favorite response, but occasionally it is appropriate. Hence – should Hillary …

    They were not abandoned. They were betrayed by the local militia. That is indisputable. But I say again, the Ambassador was the official on the scene. It was his call.

    She did not lie about the cause of the attack. There was no reason to lie. They were mistaken. Ever heard of ‘The Fog of War’? You don’t want to believe that because you don’t want to believe that.

    Your hypothetical is binary. Life is not. Hillary Clinton did not tell anyone to stand down. Any claim to the contrary is a lie. The fact that CIA contractors were initially told to stand down by their immediate superior is a red herring.

    But in the end, the Ambassador was the top official in Libya. He should be honored for his courage. There was a report and 11 hours of hearings. But I don’t get the feeling that anything was learned because the hearing was about discrediting Clinton. It was already clear she would be a candidate for President. People who hate Clinton were publishing BS before anyone could possibly know what happened.

    Fen, drink deeply. Unless the polls are wrong, we have 4 years of this ahead of us. Maybe 8.

      You’re a damn liar. It’s all you do.

      That wicked corrupt witch knew damn well the video had nothing to do with it. There was no “fog of war”. I’d say you had fog on the brain, but no, you know the truth and you choose to lie about it.

      Rag: “They were not abandoned.”

      Yes, they were. There were 3 TRAP teams gearing up to come rescue them. They were each told to stand down, before the outcome of the battle was even known.

      “They were betrayed by the local militia. That is indisputable.”

      One does not preclude the other. We are not talking about the local militia. We are talking about US forces being told to stand down and abort any attempt at rescue.

      “But I say again, the Ambassador was the official on the scene. It was his call.”

      Illogical. The top official at the scene is not responsible for efforts to rescue himself. You are being deliberately dishonest.

      “She did not lie about the cause of the attack. There was no reason to lie.”

      We have her leaked emails to Chelsea the day of the attack – in public she is blaming a video documentary for a spontaneous attack by a mob; in private to her daughter she admits it was a pre-planned terror attack that had nothing to do with the video.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | November 8, 2016 at 6:16 am

        Fen, two things…

        You’re intentionally conflating me with another poster. That’s one of your little crap-weasel lies. Nobody here posts under more than one moniker.

Progressive wars (e.g. social justice adventurism, securing mineral rights, opportunistic regime changes), immigration reform, and betrayal by Obama, Clinton et al. A choice. Hopefully, not Pro-Choice, for people who value their lives and don’t want to be aborted/sacrificed for political progress.

Just remember that the woman who as SecState hired the fox to guard the hen house in Benghazi now wants a promotion to Preezy where, she assures us, she won’t let anyone dangerous into the US among those tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” she wants to let in.

I used to like the Crazy Town 15 or 20 years ago.

“Crazy Town- Butterfly”

I never thought I’d have to live there 24/7/365 though.

“She did not lie about the cause of the attack. There was no reason to lie. They were mistaken. Ever heard of ‘The Fog of War’? You don’t want to believe that because you don’t want to believe that.”

ORDA, I wish I could grow to respect you more over time. But, I just can’t.

Not only did they lie about Benghazi, they lied about Cairo, too. It wasn’t about the video.

Note the freakin’ date.

“Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo

By Raymond Ibrahim September 10, 2012

Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh”], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.””

And from CNN:

“CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik”

Yes there was a reason to lie. If you recall Ben Rhodes’ input to the talking points chain of emails, he said it was important to stress this was all about the video. And not about a broader policy failure. If you haven’t learned anything about the Obama administration let me clue you in. It’s Oppositeville. The truth is 180dg out from what they want you to think. It wasn’t about the video. The broader policy failure concerned, at least in part, the Obama administration’s and if America loses this election the future Clinton administration’s suicidal backing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

They want their goddammed blind sheikh back. And everyone else we have locked up. And, no, GITMO isn’t a freakin’ recruiting tool. I mean, the Blind Sheikh is locked up in a nice Supermax in Colorado. How could they possibly object? At least according to Obama. Where we have them locked up, GITMO is the recruiting tool? Only later will the lying bastard admit that BECAUSE we have them locked up at all is the real recruiting tool. Where just doesn’t freaking matter.

I use to do this for a living, child, so listen up. There is no such thing as Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton would have you believe as a spontaneous riot over an “offensive anti-Muslim video” in the Islamic world. These things are planned, and in general if you’re talking about the 57 member states of the OIC (including “Palestine”) they are planned by the government. They were putting out press releases in Cairo. They would have also been putting it out in sermons in mosques, on social media, and flyers.

It was about the Blind Sheik and about releasing all the jihadis we have in custody. I’m not saying the video played no role in Cairo. But getting that kind of mob together requires weeks of work. It’s sort of like advertising a concert to get a full crowd. The video, in Cairo, was at best the cherry on top. The heart of the matter was Abdul Rahman.

And neither the Blind Sheik or the video had a flipping thing to do with Benghazi. The whole story from Obama, Clinton, et al was a lie from the start. Like I said I used to do this for a living. I knew this for an absolute fact at least by 9/13/2012.

And let’s talk about this fog of war. Ever dealt with it? Admittedly I was “In the rear with the gear.” But I was still intel so I had a hand in. The fog of war is thickest while troops are in contact. Yet, funny. This Obama crowd insists they had absolute clarity. They knew on the night when the attacks were over. They knew on the night of the attacks that they couldn’t get there in time. They were so goddam sure. It was only later, after the smoke of battle cleared, that they would have you believe things got murky. And then murkier and murkier as the days passed.

That’s the opposite of the “fog of war.” That’s the “smokescreen of how can we fool them now.”

“These things are planned, and in general if you’re talking about the 57 member states of the OIC (including “Palestine”) they are planned by the government.”

These things can also be staged by approved NGOs. Which will be admittedly virtually branches of government.

But I thought a bit more illustration was needed. We’re talking about a people whose grievances against the West go back beyond the loss of al Andalus in 1492. How dare the Spaniards fight back against the righteous Muslims and steal what belonged to Islam and Allah for all eternity by right of conquest!

Fighting back isn’t the recruiting tool, though. Knuckling under and dancing to their tune is the recruiting tool. Hillary Clinton et al would have you believe that if an obscure nobody so-called pastor is going to bbq a quran that’s the recruiting tool. No, that’s way off.

How it works is like this. They pick a day to demonstrate their power. There’s no day the Muslims couldn’t find tens of things to take offense at. Throw a dart, pick a day, take offense. So the day might be the Jerusalem wine festival or ANZAC Day in Auckland or bbq a quran day in the US. It offends Muslims. So they organize and express their offense.

The recruiting tool is when USG officials bow and scrape and submit to Muslim sensebilities and lean on idgit Florida pastors not to burn the Quran. That demonstrates their power. That separates the strong horses from the weak horses, as OBL insightfully put it.