To the Editor:

Our defeat at Benghazi becomes more and more difficult to explain as revelations are made public. Those pieces and bits of information are difficult to verify because our elected officials have been unable to crack through the cloak of secrecy surrounding the defeat.

After all, “What difference does it make?“

Relatively believable information has surfaced that a large number of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles (perhaps 9K34 Strela-3, a Soviet era weapon) were captured during the more publicized overrunning of the Benghazi Consulate.

That is very bad news and may account for the reluctance to sent a reaction force which would logically arrive by aircraft at a large airport.

One ground-to-air missile located at the reaction force destination airport in Benghazi could be disastrous.

The real question is why would the Central Intelligence Agency have those alleged missiles stored in Benghazi and not provide adequate security for them?

Dr. Richard D. Lamb

Harker Heights

(9) comments


liberals are natural-born ideologues and liars. liberals are driven by their deeply-seated personality defects to rule the lives of others or die in the attempt. History bears this out.

In Benghazi, our citizens died because the liberals in charge suffer from these personality defects. In addition, their incompetence, lack of intellect, and failures in judgment and leadership resulted in the deaths of our people, who these despicable filth did not even have the decency to try to save. They preferred to save themselves, and to lie about it to boot.

For their roles, hillary clinton belongs in prison; obama should be impeached.


The basis (given very little coverage by the media) for my letter to the KDH regarding our defeat in Benghazi was:

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 13, 2013 1:10 pm

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova shed new light on the circumstances surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack Monday on WMAL.

DiGenova, legal representative for Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson, revealed new information from intelligence officials with knowledge of the incident indicates the assault on the U.S. mission concerned 400 surface-to-air missiles intended for Syrian rebels that were stolen by some “very ugly people.”

The intelligence community fears the stolen missiles could be used to shoot down an airliner or blow up an embassy, DiGenova said:

JOE DIGENOVA: We had troops ready to deploy in Croatia to go [to Benghazi] that night of Sept. 11, 2012 to rescue Americans. We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned — we have been told there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are on or about in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner.


The real problem is: we have a government, president on down including congress, that doesn't know what they are doing.

Mamma Griz

The secrecy is that the House of Representatives (Republicans the majority) had denied funding for more security at the embassy.


Democrats Once Again Smacked Down on Benghazi Funding Cuts Claim
by John Sexton

"Since the Congressional hearings last year, Democrats and their allies have tried to claim that budget cuts were responsible for the lack of security in Benghazi. According to a review of the facts by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post published today, those claims are false.

A memo prepared by Democratic staff last year made the claim about budget cuts at some length, quoting the Center for American Progress as a source. Just this week, Sen. Barbara Boxer revived this claim when she published a piece at the Huffington Post which opened "If my Republican colleagues are serious about conducting real oversight on the tragedy in Benghazi, they should start by looking in the mirror." Boxer then took to the Senate floor Tuesday and claimed "If we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut."

But as Kessler notes, it's simply not true. And it's not true in several notable ways starting with the fact that funding was not actually cut. Kessler writes "while Boxer claims that Republicans “cut” the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years."

Equally significant and ignored by Boxer is the fact that the evidence is clear on this point. The ARB report does suggest an increase in funding for security but does not claim lack of funding was an issue in Benghazi. Also, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb was asked directly about this during her congressional testimony last October:

Asked to explain the contradiction between her claims and reality, aides to Sen. Boxer sent Kessler a link to a NY Times editorial.

Kessler concludes "it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim..."

The administration and its allies keep pushing this claim, not because it was ever true but because they have nothing else. The media needs to be more forceful about rebutting this claim whenever it pops out of the mouths of Democrats seeking to defend the administration."

So this makes you the typical liberal: arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, LIAR. So you can take your "I'm so smart and have been for so long" chant and file it right you-know-where.


Mamma Griz, I know you want everything to be the Republicans’ fault but below are a few pesky FACTS that blow your theory out of the water.

In 2010, during the time Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the State Department was given $142 million less than requested.

According to the Bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report, funding for embassy security has increased significantly:

“The State Department’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year 2007, and base budget appropriations increased by 27 percent during the same time period”

"Baseline funding requests have not been fully funded since fiscal year 2010, but Congress ("Republicans the majority") had been responsive in providing Overseas Contingency Operations funds to the State Department in response to emergent security-driven requests, mainly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. "

The report also noted, “No supplemental or OCO requests were made by the President (Obama) for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011.”

During the hearings on Benghazi, State Department officials were specifically asked if a lack of financial resources played a role in the attack. They answered, “No.”

The Accountability Review Board’s investigation concluded “the lack of security was the fault of the State Department officials.”

...I guess the ARB didn't know they could just blame the Republicans instead of investigating for FACTS!!!


The newest Conspiracy Theory is that Surface-to-Air weapons were being stashed in Libya for deployment to Syria. Interesting, but I wonder if Iraq, immediately adjacent to Syria, and filled with US assets, might be a more realistic depot for imaginary resale arms.


The consulate in Benghazi was attacked as the local Al Qaeda in Africa were well aware that the ambassador was there negotiating the smuggling of arms through Africa to other points in the area and to Syria. The entire matter was kept secret as the obama regime had already declared victory against terrorists. The attack was a symptom of failure of the obama regime's foreign policy, including arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, and failures of judgment and failures of intellect at the very top of the obama regime.


The real question is: Where is "Relatively Believable Information" found about the subject matter?

Frankly, it is difficult to conceive a rational for having Russian made, surface-to-air weapons stocked at any site in Libya, much less the diplomatic mission where they were theoretically captured. Were they being stock-piled for safe-keeping? How was ANYWHERE in or near Libya determined to be "safe?" With only allied planes flying over Libya, one would expect the allies' immediate destruction of any surface-to-air weapons.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.