The murder of four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, appears to have been the result of failed security.

Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit.

The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs." --San Antonio Express-News

Focused like a laser: The murder of four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, appears to have been the result of failed security.

Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”. Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

This is a disaster, and suggests incompetence at all levels of the State Department and the White House.


My July fund-raiser for Behind the Black is now over. The support from my readers was unprecedented, making this July campaign the best ever, twice over. What a marvelous way to celebrate the website's tenth anniversary!

Thank you! The number of donations in July, and continuing now at the beginning of August, is too many for me to thank you all personally. Please forgive me by accepting my thank you here, in public, on the website.

If you did not donate or subscribe in July and still wish to, note that the tip jar remains available year round.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


  • greg smith

    looks that way!

  • JGL

    I was listening to the John Batchelor show earlier, he was interviewing a Congressman or Senator who sits on a commity that deals with

    security (Im sorry I don’t have / remember exact details) he said that the State Department refused to inform them as to what was going on

    related to the attacks.

    He said it is unprecidented.

    As this grows the president will display why he must be replaced.

  • jwing

    If this gets any worse….there will be demands for Hillary and Obama to resign for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty/office.

  • Jim

    If that was gross incompetence and dereliction of duty, what did you call 9/11, when 3000 Americans were murdered on US soil? Just curious.

  • The same. As Americans, we have gotten bad leadership now from both parties for about three decades.

    George Bush Jr.’s response to 9/11/01 was initially strong, but he eventually wimped out. I like to say that if he had been in charge during World War II, he would declared victory after Normandy and stopped fighting at the German border. Obama has been no better.

    We are at war with radical Islam. They are out to kill us. That our government and intellectual elite refuse to admit this fact to themselves makes no difference. We are at war.

    More important, eventually we are going to have to fight them for real, and we have the choice to do it here, in the U.S. or we can do it there, on their turf. I prefer the second, as that will not only do us less harm, but it will sooner liberate the majority of the Middle Eastern population now oppressed by these thugs.

    Sadly, I suspect we will end up having to fight this war here, as our leadership continues to wimp out about this battle.

    In my humble opinion.

    One more thought: I’m not partisan in my fury at the failures of our leaders. When one side screws up I do not use the failures and mistakes of one to excuse the mistakes of the other. Do you?

  • Jim

    No I don’t…there are quite a few things that Obama has done that I have not agreed with.
    But kudos to you for consistency…that is all one can ask for.
    But I wonder…what if roles were reversed, and the Libya incident had happened under Bush, and 9/11 under Obama?
    I do believe impeachment proceedings would have been under way for Obama within one month. Just my opinion. But in reality, when it happened under Bush the nation rallied around him. His approval ratings went through the roof.
    That would not have been the case for Obama.
    All meaningless at this point, anyway.
    Let’s hope neither happens again.

  • JGL

    I don’t agree with your comparison, if we are attacked we rally around the president, Bush or Obama there would be no difference and no


    You can certainly make a substantial argument that Obama is pro Islamic and anti American.

    You can make an argument that because Obama is more pro Muslim that 9-11 would have been less likely to happen and therefore the

    conclusion would be that it makes no difference, the attack would have happened anyway.

    Why would a group intent on striking America do so when they could reasonably assume that they had an advantage with a pro Muslim

    American president?

    IMO your logic is faulty.

  • jwing

    You can’t be serious in making the comparison between culpability of Bush for 9/11’s 3000 dead and Obama’s promoting of the Muslem Brotherhood’s control in Egypt and Libya which has given us this great democratic Arab Spring and attacks on our embassies. While Bush became a huge dissappointment, the one thing you can not say is that Bush apologized, bowed, funded and hosted the Muslem brotherhood. Remember…Obama was raised in the predominently Muslem Indonesian, attended a madrassa and ate dog as a formative young boy. He has more in common with that culture than the average hot dog eating, baseball-loving American. His true allegience should be questioned?

  • Jim

    Here is my point, jwing. There have been lots of international events against Americans every year. In fact, here is a list of embassy attacks
    Wikipedia is not my favorite source, but its a comprehensive list.
    Notice there were 8 during the Bush administration, so not that long ago.
    When you say that this past event in Libya is an indication of “gross incompetence and dereliction of duty,” where do you go from there?
    You are laying blame at the feet of the President, so surely you would have to have had even harsher words for Bush after 9/11 because the destruction was much, much greater, and it changed the way we live here forever. I am not sure harsher words are available.
    What about in 1983 when the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon, killing 241 US Marines? Here is what Reagan did after…he pulled all Marines offshore and within a year all were gone from Lebanon. Today, Obama would not have that option because he would have been labeled as a President who retreated, and of course he would have been blamed for the whole event because he is Commander in Chief.
    Not only is the Libyan event not the first embassy attack, its not the first time an Ambassador was killed.
    You are right, there is absolutely no comparison between 9/11 and this past week. One was much, much worse if incompetence and dereliction of duty is the criteria.

  • Jim

    OK, JGL, I’ll bite.
    Tell me where Obama is pro-Islamic and anti-American. That is as condemning a statement as one could make, so let me know how you figure that.

  • JGL

    Jim, are you paying attention?

    Where should I begin?

    1. The smoke surrounding his pedigree is more than I am comfortable with as it relates to a U.S. president, thats one.

    2. His father was a communist / socialist choose one.

    3. His mother was a socialist.

    4. A good part of his formative years were spent in a Muslim country.

    5. His grandfather was a prisoner of the Brits and was brutally tortured, this informs us as to what his attitude might be towards Anglo oriented country’s.

    6. His primary mentors by his own admission were Frank Marshal Davis, Marist / socialist and Saul Alinski, Marxist / socialist and the “first” community organizer (anti capitalist and anarcist).

    7. Bill Ayers ( anarcist, anti capitalist leader of the weather underground), held the first fund raiser for him in his living room.

    I could go on and on, this is just the tip of an iceberg as it relates to forming a solid profile of any person, let me ask you Jim: How would you

    define a person with a similar life profile?

    Would you consider them more likely to be pro Western philosophy or pro Eastern philosophy?

    Would you consider them to have a pro American orientation or a pro Muslim orientation?

    And let me state that I have no problem with a person of such pedigree or philosophy, even though I do not agree with them, what I have a

    problem with is someone who denies their pedigree and philosophy and endevors to obfiscate it and allow the public to define him in a way

    that they need to define him.

    I ask you again Jim: Are you paying attention?

    Selective ignorance of fact and interpretation of fact is not a choice in your answer.

  • jwing

    It is grossly negligent and incompetent for this administration to have allowed the US embassy to be underprotected when clear and present threats weree known on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 in two countries recently experiencing political upheaval and violent protests. The media is now reporting that our State Dept. had a heads-up on just such threats and apparently made no plans. That is a case book definition of incompetence and malfeasance. Resignation is S.O.P. especcially if this were done on a Rebublican President’s watch.

  • Jim

    Trust me- I pay attention. You may not agree with me, but lack of attention is not one of my faults. You seem to have broadened this discussion now to include socialism, when I only asked you to state exactly how he was pro-Islamic, as you said. You provide much tangential information, such as he as born in a Muslim country, but surely you do not believe that would mean he is a Muslim, or even pro-Islamic. Many people flee their homeland because they realize it is not the place to be. The pilgrims did that here…surely they were not “pro” European. What policies, or actions has he taken that are pro-Islamic? Killing Bin-Ladin, finishing the war in Iraq rather than ending it right away, expanding the war in Afghanistan, using drones to decimate Al-Queda? How on earth do you think that is pro-Islamic? How about in the US, is health care pro-Islamic or anti-American, is saving the auto industry anti-American?

    I don’t consider anyone pro or anti anything based on where they come from. If that was the case, we all would have problems.

    If you accept the fact that we are at war with factions in Islam, you do understand that you are accusing this President of treason, right? Which carries with it the most extreme of punishments. You have every right to disagree with his policies, but quite honestly, you all lose me when you accuse this elected President of purposely trying to harm this country, and siding with anyone we are at “war” with. Its conspiratorial, and that is getting old. I guess the next step is to accuse anyone who supports him as aiding in treason, and last time I looked, that was half the country.

  • Jim

    I wonder if you saw the recent book out by Kurt Eichenwald, “500 Days.” We all know that 5 weeks before 9/11, President Bush was read a memo in a morning briefing entitled “Bin Ladin determined to Attack in the US.”
    Now Eichenwald has shown that the warnings started coming from intelligence officials to the White House on May 1, a full 20 weeks before the event, and he says there were 70 such memos.
    Here is the thing- they were ignored. Nothing changed from those memos and briefings…the government was not put on alert, airports were not notified, and we never made sure that all intelligence agencies started to pool their information…FBI, CIA, etc. And when you couple that with both Bush and Rice saying that no one could have foreseen this coming, you really have to wonder about negligence.

    But understand this, I never said Bush should have been impeached, or accused of anything. Nor did I think Reagan should have after Lebanon.

  • jwing

    Jim: Your arguement is not germane when implying that Bush was malfeasant due to having known about increased “noise” and threats weeks before 9/11. First, remember that the World Trade Center was already attacked back in 1993 under Clinton with a truck bomb in the basement parking garage. The fact is that measures were taken as a result of that under Clinton and continued under Bush. What you fail to consider is that no one expected box cutters as carry-on luggage would result in two airliners slamming through each tower. No one. It was a blind sided contingency and the world will never be the same bacouse of it. Now…not having the common sense to strengthen the perimeter of US Embassies is countries with known riots and anti-American threats is negligence.

  • JGL


    I did not say he was born in a Muslim country I said he spent a portion of his formative years in a Muslim country.

    “I don’t consider anyone pro or anti anything based on where they come from. If that was the case, we all would have problems. ”

    Its funny you don’t see it that way BECAUSE THE FOUNDERS DID! (I always default to their judgement in such matters )

    A reasonable conclusion can be reached in regards to the president, and I do not think I am out of line in any way, when a basic profile is

    developed it is reasonable to conclude that he has a less than American senseablity.

    That is what my common sense tells me.

    Whether the president is a bonified, sleeper infiltrator or is just a “well” meaning politician ( there’s a paradoxical term) with a sensabilty and

    political philosophy which happens to destroy our country’s social, financial and military organization then what would the difference be?

    Wouldn’t the end results be the same?

    You may call it what ever you want.

    At what point does your common sense kick in?

    Remember this, I have written it here before, ask yourself :

    Q: What is the nature of man? (this is THE foundation question)

    A: The nature of man is to abuse power as it relates to one mans power over another man.

    The Constituion happens to be the antidote or counter balance to the nature of man.

    PS: I have a friend, he reads all the time but he lacks the ability to interpret what he reads as it applies to reality, history and philosophy.

    He thinks he is aware.

  • JGL


    “Then-Senator Barack Obama makes the case for an Obama Presidency on November 21, 2007 by saying he is uniquely qualified to bring stability to America’s relationships in the Muslim world because he lived in an Islamic country during his youth and his half-sister is Muslim. ”

    In addition, his father was a Muslim, which in that religion makes the son a Muslim.

    The son can choose to reject his religious lineage but he is seen as a Muslim from a familial point of view.

    In his publishers one page promotional description pamphlet promoting his first book (I don’t remeber the name) HE identifies himself as

    being from KENYA and in his direct quote indicates that he has an Islamic sensability and would be better suited to deal with them.

    This IMO in particular indicates dishonesty.

    So you tell me, what is a reasonable conclusion you could come to related to the president?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *