Benghazi, Libya: Did State Department Flush Embarrassing Memo Down The Memory Hole?

September 15, 2012

Update: As I pointed out on Twitter, if this is true, it’s very damaging. The memo seems designed to put our embassies at ease for 9/11. That would go a long way toward confirming critic’s suspicions – that the Obama administration and Hillary’s State Department do not understand the threat posed by extremists in the Middle-East. It would have been better off to say nothing, than put out what that memo at least appears to represent based upon what we know at this time.

Take a look at this post and the screen caps, Web cache and current link. It at least appears as though the State Department flushed a potentially embarrassing memo down the memory hole. A partial screen-cap below.

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.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Tom says:

    How can you gather any “creditable” information when you’re killing instead of capturing…The Obama administration has took us back to the Clinton days, without the economic growth… We can now clearly state it was the republican controlled congress that gave us that!

  2. Jack Moss says:


    Working as an analyst in 81-83, helped to prepare more than few PDBs for Reagan. I’ve been writing about this on my site and other places saying that there was no way they didn’t know something, I just found it hard to believe that “no credible threat” existed for this anniversary of 9/11. There’s been threats on every other anniversary. First when they say “credible” it doesn’t mean, nothing is out there. The term is archaic. First intel is gathered and then analyzed, (what we did), the product is then prepared for the consumers, – the President, VP, etc. Of course the PDB is a specialized document, a summary. But when intel is “credible” in the day it meant you could source it to a specific person, group, eyes on, etc. Today that woudn’t be the case. Threats are delivered via social media and not always traceable to a hard source. Yet they cannot be simply ignored. Now we learn via Fox that there were indeed relatable incidents leading up to the attack.

    I call tell you that Intel types are pissed right now, they warned and it wasn’t heeded. I fully expect some leaks to come forward in the coming weeks.

    Amb. Stevens was much loved and people are not going to let administration spin sweep his unnecessary death under the rug.

    • Chipperoo says:

      I pray that you’re right about the leaks, and not just from the intel community. I hope both the White House and State start leaking like crazy. Without the leaks will learn absolutely nothing about how this debacle occurred or how our foreign policy came apart.

    • JohnInMA says:

      We can only hope the emotions within the Intelligence community will, yet again, compel them to get the truth out, overtly or otherwise.

  3. […] from its OSAC website. How convenient. They flushed the memo down the internet memory hole. Dan Riehl has more. We heard the reports about the chaos at the State Department. But we had no idea they […]

  4. It seems there’s no loyalty at all in this administration. The only loyalty is in the lapdog press corpse, as our Dear Leader would say.

  5. Steve Anderson says:

    It’s not gone, it’s just not on the front page anymore.

    Try to find something else to freak out about.

    • ChicagoXile says:

      At the link you provide, the link to the “Terrorism and Important Dates” memo is dead. The dead link supports the notion that State tried to make the memo disappear.

  6. Steve Anderson wrote:

    It’s not gone, it’s just not on the front page anymore.
    Try to find something else to freak out about.

    I visited the link you gave, Steve, and did not find it on that page either. Take another look and then tell me I’m wrong?


    • Steve Anderson says:

      It’s the very first link. If you click it, you’ll be redirected to a page asking you to join, but that’s true of everything on that site.

  7. MM says:

    I recently retired from the government, and while I have no info on this specific instance, the OSAC memo cited above actually seems to vindicate the State Dept. to me. It would be much worse if it had said there was some evidence, and it wasn’t acted on. Also, credible info is not an archaic term; it’s still in use. For an example, see this article when there was a credible threat on last year’s 9/11 anniversary (although none materialized).

    This tragic incident needs to be investigated–there might have been security leaks to the Libyan security in Benghazi, as it appears they knew where the safe house was. It is also possible someone didn’t “connect the dots” among various threat streams. But I don’t see this memo as damaging at all.

    • Steve Anderson says:

      Great point, MM. Combine that with the fact that it wasn’t deleted/scrubbed from the site, and this seems very much like manufactured concern.