Seems that the Information Management Officer, Sean Smith, had wondered about some activity outside the diplomatic compound where he was assigned.
There is some information posted about that on this site:
I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised that a U.S. foreign service officer would be authorized to send messages of that nature to unofficial destinations, but that he did highlights that there were some indications by at least one person in that compound that something was odd. Of course, how often "odd" things were noticed may have a bearing on whether proper information was sent in a timely manner (Before the attack?) to appropriate State Department officials.
I have been asking myself how much authority Ambassador Stevens would have had in compound security decisions?
I wonder if we will be informed by the State Department who made the decision that no Marine detachment was necessary for security at that compound.
Obviously, I am just not understanding the security arrangements before the attack.
Found this from CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49014013
And I found this from the Wall Street Journal:
http://stream.wsj.com/story/mideast-vio ... S-2-55801/
The article seems to indicate we can add two hours to the timeline. I hadn't seen that 8pm reference before this site.
The gang first arrived in the neighborhood around 8 p.m. local time carrying weapons including rocket-propelled grenade launchers and automatic rifles, said Ali Ben Saud, owner of the villa leased to the U.S. for the consulate.
A Libyan doctor said he and several neighbors tried to get the gang, which he estimated at 200, to leave as they marched toward the U.S. compound. “We told them to leave our homes alone and one [of the militants] replied, ‘The Americans are infidels and we are going to finish them,’ ” the doctor said. “Many of us then fled because the shooting started.”
Said Mr. al-Arghoubi, the neighborhood resident: “They didn’t come to talk. They came to fight.” The first shots were fired at around 10 p.m. local time, or 4 p.m. Eastern time, according to a preliminary U.S. account.
The attackers quickly gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it afire. A senior administration official said three people were inside the compound at the time: Mr. Stevens; Sean Smith, a foreign service information-management officer; and a U.S. regional security officer.
And here I have found a reference to something I thought I saw about 10 or so hours ago on BBC, but I couldn't find it again. That's why I started to archive full text from some sites.
This is referring to the ambassador going to the compound because of some sort of threat he was aware of. This is not BBC and not where I thought I first read about Ambassador Stevens seeming to have some idea something was going to happen and why he went to the compound.
Found here: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=23322
Libyan officials, cited by AP, said that Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff. The protesters were firing gunshots and rocket propelled grenades.
And I see the Department of Defense is claiming they had a "robust American security presence" within that compound.
She said security in Benghazi included a local guard force outside the compound, “which is similar to the way we are postured all over the world. We had a physical perimeter barrier and … a robust American security presence inside the compound, including a strong component of regional security officers.”
I think I need a dictionary. I would have thought a robust American security presence would have been able to hold back that attacking force for longer than 15 minutes.
Let's put it this way, I do not view sidearms as a "robust" weapons system. And if you have an M16 and a "robust" quantity of ammunition you then have some firepower, but I wonder if I'd even call that "robust". "Robust" eh?