Hey Look...The State Department is Lying

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A State Department document shows the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, Libya requested that a 16-member security team remain in the country four months beyond the end of its scheduled deployment.

A department official says the request made in February was granted.

The commander of the security team that made the request told AB

C News that slain U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens wanted the team to stay even longer, past the end of its deployment in August. Stevens and three others Americans were killed in an attack in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11.

A State Department official said, however, that it never received any request for a post-August extension. The official added the team was replaced without any reduction in personnel or loss of skill sets.
 

And now...the truth from the head of the security detail directly as interviewed by one of the few journalists left in the US, Sharyl Attkisson:

ATTKISSON: Do you feel like there was a disconnect between what you saw on the ground and what the State Dept. folks thought was going on in Libya?

WOOD: There was certainly no disconnect in our transfer of information to them. They were getting the information on the situation on the ground. We sent it up through State Dept. cables and I sent it up to the military side on the D.O.D. side. So, there was awareness of what the situation in Libya was about.

ATTKISSON: How did you get the word that your team would not be allowed to stay?

WOOD: We knew that was coming through the cables and the draft cables that were going back and forth. The requests were being modified to say ‘don’t even request for D.O.D. support’.

ATTKISSON: So State Dept. was telling the folks on the ground in Libya ‘don’t continue to ask for this help’?

WOOD: Correct
 

How, exactly, does Hillary Clinton still have a job...huh? 

Interesting observations:

1.  The AP piece uses an unidentified State Department official for its information.  In other words, it could be made up, non-existent, or colluding with the AP to create the desired story. 

2.  Lt. Col. Wood, however, exists and provided comments that directly oppose the AP’s and USA Today's unidentified source.

3.  The DOD doesn’t usually allow their charges to go before the media’s microphone unless something is at stake.  This is unusual.  It could be a turf war.  It could be that the military is tired of the State Department fouling up, and then running for cover.  It could be that the military, in general, is just tired of the incompetence coming out of the State Department (which has been given seniority by the White House).  It could be a lot of things.  My guess is that it is a combination of all of them and more.

4.  Here’s a thought.  What if the military knows that the weapons used to gain access to, and kill the American’s in Benghazi were provided to the Libyan rebels by the Presidential Finding decision that circumvented  Congress back in March 2011.  Therefore, the White House (under the advice of the State Department) armed the rebels, who turned out to be terrorists.  Essentially,  the White House and State Department provided  the means and opportunity for terrorists to attack our Embassy and now they are focusing everyone on the opportunity to turn everyone away from the means (weapons).

There has to be a reason that the Associated Press, USA Today and the State Department would provide a bold faced lie this late in the game.  It’s not to discard blame, because they are caught with their pants down due to Lt. Col. Wood’s very words.  The alternative is they want you looking there so that you aren’t looking elsewhere at something even more egregious.