Disagree. They knew Libya was a shit hole full of terrorists, they KNEW it was active but wanted to put it in the "win" column so they had our guys in a poorly defensible area, understaffed.MediumTex wrote: I voted I don't care.
Violence against Americans happens all over the world every day.
The U.S. government bungled the way it reported this event, but the event itself was unremarkable--what were people expecting to happen in Libya shortly after its government had been toppled? When the Iraqi government was toppled attacks on Americans occurred almost every day for years (ditto for Afghanistan). In the Benghazi attack, it was literally one attack on one day. I'm surprised that something like that would even make the news in the U.S.
I agree that in retrospect more security could have been provided in Benghazi and a more straightforward account of the event could have been given, but you could say exactly the same thing about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a scale about 1,000 times greater than the Benghazi attack, and yet the media has seemingly completely lost interest in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Looks to me like a tempest in a teapot.
I don't care if it sends the wrong message, as jacked as that country is we should have had more guys and our "Embassy" should have been a fortress, not the local BnB we converted to house our diplomat and a handful of bodyguards.
If it's important to find out all the nitty-gritty details of why and how lax embassy security contributed to the deaths of four Americans in an overseas terrorist attack in an unstable country, surely it's at least as important to figure out what our mission is in a country we invaded more than a decade ago and have been occupying since then, with varying degrees of success but without a clear victory condition or exit strategy.
