Little-Acorn
05-04-2014, 02:50 PM
It's a subject most people don't seem to be talking about much. Even most news shows are talking about whether to blame a video afterward. But in fact, the question of deteriorating defense at the consulate even while attacks were increasing, is by far the most important question about the situation leading up to the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, where four Americans were killed including a U.S. Ambassador.
All that spring and summer leading up to September, terrorists were shooting into the compound, throwing bombs over the wall, ambushing convoys going to and from that and other diplomatic facilities in Libya, etc. Ambassador Stevens and other officials on the spot, kept begging Washington for more security forces to protect the diplomatic personnel. But the only response from the Obama administration, was to continually reduce security, sending American forces home, and often replacing them with Libyan personnel who were not even armed.
It seemed to be the outlook of the Obama administration that if American forces looked genteel and non-threatening, Americans would be treated more nicely. How this viewpoint persisted through the escalating attacks on the weakest of the U.S. diplomatic posts, remains unexplained. Obama was also stressing his "victories" over Al Qaeda as the November presidential election loomed - an agenda that would have suffered if he had acknowledged that we needed more guards at diplomatic posts instead of fewer. So he simply didn't provide any, despite increasing hostility.
At one point, terrorists blew a hole in the consulate wall, large enough to drive a truck through. Shortly afterward, the Obama administration removed almost the last of the American security forces, leaving a grand total of three American security guards to protect the dozens of personnel at the site.
Even while other embassies and consulates got lavish upgrades to their facilities, security, bigger diplomatic budgets etc., security at the Benghazi compound became pitiful. When Ambassador Stevens arrived in early September he brought two personal bodyguards... which nearly doubled the number of American security forces there, briefly.
When a well-organized attack finally destroyed the compound and killed four Americans inside, they didn't stand much chance.
Questions today about who lied afterward, who blamed whom for talking points after the fact etc., seems ludicrously irrelevant, next to the real question:
Who decided that security at the compound would be reduced week after week, month after month even as terrorist attacks mounted and increased? And why did he decide to reduce the forces protecting our personnel? Was it just to pretend the President was doing a better job against middle Eastern terrorists, than he was?
Were four American lives sacrificed, including a U.S. Ambassador, just so Barack Obama could look better during an election season, to an American public who wasn't paying much attention?
All that spring and summer leading up to September, terrorists were shooting into the compound, throwing bombs over the wall, ambushing convoys going to and from that and other diplomatic facilities in Libya, etc. Ambassador Stevens and other officials on the spot, kept begging Washington for more security forces to protect the diplomatic personnel. But the only response from the Obama administration, was to continually reduce security, sending American forces home, and often replacing them with Libyan personnel who were not even armed.
It seemed to be the outlook of the Obama administration that if American forces looked genteel and non-threatening, Americans would be treated more nicely. How this viewpoint persisted through the escalating attacks on the weakest of the U.S. diplomatic posts, remains unexplained. Obama was also stressing his "victories" over Al Qaeda as the November presidential election loomed - an agenda that would have suffered if he had acknowledged that we needed more guards at diplomatic posts instead of fewer. So he simply didn't provide any, despite increasing hostility.
At one point, terrorists blew a hole in the consulate wall, large enough to drive a truck through. Shortly afterward, the Obama administration removed almost the last of the American security forces, leaving a grand total of three American security guards to protect the dozens of personnel at the site.
Even while other embassies and consulates got lavish upgrades to their facilities, security, bigger diplomatic budgets etc., security at the Benghazi compound became pitiful. When Ambassador Stevens arrived in early September he brought two personal bodyguards... which nearly doubled the number of American security forces there, briefly.
When a well-organized attack finally destroyed the compound and killed four Americans inside, they didn't stand much chance.
Questions today about who lied afterward, who blamed whom for talking points after the fact etc., seems ludicrously irrelevant, next to the real question:
Who decided that security at the compound would be reduced week after week, month after month even as terrorist attacks mounted and increased? And why did he decide to reduce the forces protecting our personnel? Was it just to pretend the President was doing a better job against middle Eastern terrorists, than he was?
Were four American lives sacrificed, including a U.S. Ambassador, just so Barack Obama could look better during an election season, to an American public who wasn't paying much attention?