It's abundantly obvious that the decision to keep a minimal security force in the area was a political one. The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel. Ooops!
It was a political decision in that the US was trying to work with the fledgling Libyan government & public and keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence.
Which is what I just said.
If you think it was so the US public wouldn't think Libya was dangerous, you're retarded.
That's not what I think. So phew!
I guarantee you that neither you nor I nor anyone else had a clue as to whether the consulate in Benghazi was protected by a 10 year old Libyan girl with a slingshot or a ring of Abram tanks prior to the attack.
Yes. Hence, when I said "The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel", it should have been clear that I was speaking about how this appeared to the Libyans, and not to the folks back at home.
Great job telling us all what I wasn't talking about though. So we're agreed that it had nothing to do with funding? Good!
Care to respond to the portion about how the Obama administration continued to portray this as just a random event stemming from a protest over a video? Cause that's the big story here. It's usually the coverup that kills you, and that goes double in this case. There's lots of blame to go around in terms of the security choices made leading up to the attack, but none of that explains or excuses the administrations attempts to make it seem like this wasn't really a planned terrorist attack on us at all. I'll point out again that there is no way in **** the US ambassador to the UN goes on the Sunday talk show circuit to speak about Benghazi without having been sent to those shows by the White House to say exactly what the White House wanted her to say. So one has to wonder who exactly sent her and decided what message she was to say.
It's hard to imagine that Obama wasn't involved with that in any way. How exactly does our "best intelligence" get to Ambassador Rice for her to make those statements, if it didn't come through the White House? I mean, "best intelligence" makes one assume she was briefed by the head of the CIA, State and Defense Departments, and the National Security Adviser, right? Cause that's how one normally gets to make a statement like that, right? Who the **** did she talk to?