Las Vegas Sun

July 7, 2015

Currently: 81° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Lack of security in Benghazi was House’s call

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

If congressional Republicans had any shame, they wouldn’t ask why there wasn’t more security at our facility in Benghazi.

For the record, back in 2011, House Republicans cut the requested amount for security in our outposts overseas by $128 million. Then they doubled down in 2012, cutting the funding by $331 million. Then, just to show their indifference to embassy and consulate security, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget for 2014, approved by almost every congressional Republican, cut the security funding $400 million.

Not enough security at Benghazi? We know why.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 55 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Richard Mundy,

    Thank you for sharing your opinion however I have yet to see your name called to testify in congressional hearings on the subject. Although liberals are squirming, history will prove that the correct course of action was to investigate and report back to the American people what happened. Any reader should see right through to the goal of liberal posters and letter deny the American people the truth. Posting enough comments and writing enough letters will cause reader confusion. I would suggest to readers to watch or record C-Span's coverage of the hearings and draw their own conclusions. Anyone reading comments for a while now would know you write biased letters based on your political affiliation.

  2. Mundy's assesment is a favorite talking point by liberals in the quest to avoid blame for the Benghazi murders which were the product of irresponsible and incompetent acts and omissions by the Obama administration as was the political agenda at the time which was designed to play down the existence of terrorist threats during the Obama election campaign. Obama officials have already testified before a House committee that lack of funding in no way impeded the administration from implementing the required security measures in Benghazi. Negligence, incompetence and politics were the reasons for neglecting to implement these measures.Liberals like Munday are tiresome to listen to because their rhetoric on this matter is stale and untruthful.

  3. "According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs [embassy security and protection]has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008. (continues below chart)"

    The chart referenced above is available on line for viewing.

    Carmine D

  4. I don't know why the security in Benghazi was at the level it was on September 11th. Specific information regarding this subject has not been made public. The latest statement I heard said Ambassador Stevens was offered increased security but refused it. That sounds strange since it's also been reported that he asked for increased security several times.

    Both the state department budget and defense budget are huge, so I find Mr. Mundy's claim that a lack of funds was why security was at the level it was to be pretty hard to believe. This government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends on everything.... and it couldn't come up with extra security money for Benghazi? I doubt that.

    I don't know what, if anything, those in the Obama administration had to do with the security situation in Benghazi on September 11th, and that is because information that should be released hasn't been released.

    Without all the information, Mundy blames Republicans, not because there is really any evidence connecting a reduction in allocated money for security to what happened in Benghazi but because he hates Republicans and wants to blame them. Others want to place the blame on the Obama administration, again, not because a connection has been established, but because they hate the Obama administration.

    What everyone should do is not draw conclusions that are not supportable by the facts at hand and be angry that more information hasn't been released so we could all 'know' what happened and why.


  5. Here's the link for the excerpt I posted above on the security $ increasing year after year from 2008-2013 [even with sequestration]. This is the typical budget and politics drill every year. Agency heads petition for budget money, always seeking more than they need, knowing full well that the Office of Management and Budget/Congress and/or both will reduce the budget requests. As soon as the agency experiences problems, the first excuse that is pushed is that its budget was reduced. This is the same canard about sequestration. It never ends.

    Carmine D

  6. PS:

    Note that Ms. Lamb of the Dept. of State testified under oath in October 2012 before the House investigating committee when specifically asked that budget issues did not impact Benghazi, Libya.

    Carmine D

  7. Same conservative cranks in the comment section,different day

  8. The whole idea of the Republicans is to keep Benghazi in the news.They have nothing to work with in regards to the upcoming midterm elections.So Benghazi is their baby scandal.

    What a way to try and keep themselves in office.The loss that the Republicans will experience in the midterm elections, should be enough for them to wake up and say this has not worked. We Republicans need to get real and have a platform come next election time.

    What has happened to the party that once produced great Presidents?

  9. "Transparency and Open Government

    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

    President Barack H. Obama

    Carmine D

  10. Sam,

    There is no question that the Republicans are trying to keep Benghazi in the news as a political ploy to help them and more importantly hurt President Obama and the Democrats. However, as it almost always is, it is not that simple.

    It would not be that hard for a fair minded person to conclude that whatever little success the Republicans are having in keeping Benghazi in the news is partially a result of the Obama Administrations missteps regarding Benghazi.

    They put out a reason for the attack that turned out to be not true. They delayed in releasing information. They told conflicting stories as to why no rescue attempt was mounted. Their own director of the CIA did not want to have anything to do with the released talking points. The Secretary of state said the reasons for the attack did not matter, etc. etc.

    Many people and the administration may not like or approve of what the Republicans are doing, but the Obama administration had many opportunities to remove ammunition from Republicans by: not talking until they had the facts and a coherent story to tell, starting an investigation more quickly, interviewing and releasing the comments of everyone on the ground in Benghazi during the attacks, not contradicting what the Libyan leader said was the cause of the attacks, and making a better effort to get to the truth and go after the perpetrators.

    All of that and more just gave Republicans more ammunition to go after them with. Does it mean everyone in the Obama administration screwed up, as the Republicans would like to claim? No. Does it raise legitimate questions? Yes.


  11. There will be hell to pay!

    Carmine D

  12. Future wrote, "We would like to have a President we could trust, who would actual take time to run the country with honor and intergity instead of campaigning, golfing, fund raising, and directing his personal 501(c)(4) PAC "Organizing for Action" street group OWS, and George Soros's MediaMatters and MoveOn.Org."

    CarmineD and BoliBlingBling both posted links to material done by the Heritage Foundation. Communicating with "the bubble" shouldn't carry much weight, but yet it does. That's why we get crazy rants like the one above by Future and misinformation like those posted by CarmineD and BoliBlingBling (nice edit job at YouTube). It was "the bubble" that convinced those on the far right Romney would win in a landslide. Of course when that didn't happen Obama must have cheated because he used a defunct group such as ACORN to sway voters.

    If I remember correctly the Heritage Foundation recently had their own racist scandal about latinos having low IQ's.

  13. Michael,

    It can and has been said that mistakes have been made in regards to Benghazi.It will never measure up to anything close to what the Republicans are trying for.

    It also can and has been said that mistakes have been made in the !3 different terrorists attacks on American Embassies around the world. This was pointed out by fellow and trusted commenter Vernos Branco on another post.These attacks began with the first one on Jan. 22,2002 and the last one on Sept.17,2008. Many people have died as a result of these attacks. All during the G.W.Bush Presidency.No call from the Republicans to investigate any of these Embassy attacks.And why not?

  14. Sorry 13 is what I was supposed to have typed in my post addressed to Michael.

  15. Vernos: You're correct BUT the chart displayed, if you notice, comes from page 11 of the Budget Justification submission by the U.S. State Department for FY 2013 to the Office of Management and Budget. The origin of the data is the State Dept. not Heritage Foundation. ;-)

    Carmine D

  16. Vernos,

    Explain to the readers what you mean by "Communicating with "the bubble" shouldn't carry much weight, but yet it does".

    What is "the bubble"?

  17. Vernos:

    Here is a case across the page where I took exception to a Heritage report.

    Truth and facts don't have a partisan party affiliation.

    Carmine D

  18. You must understand where the Mundy's of this country are coming from. They have no qualms about the deaths of the 4 in Benghazi because they condone death when it meets their grisly agenda or furthers their Commie-lite causes. The execution of some 40-to-50 million unborn and, in cases such as Tiller the Baby Killer and Gruesome Gosnell, live human beings, is championed, abetted and carried out without feeling or conscience by many on the left. On the other hand, murderers of Police Officers are routinely glorified, applauded and and their executions delayed for years by those same leftists. I am comvinced that history will not treat those on the left with the blood of innocents on their hands kindly. They will surely be added to a list that includes Nazis, Communists and other totalitarian regimes that committed unspeakable atrocities against the weak and vulnerable.

  19. "It also can and has been said that mistakes have been made in the 13 different terrorists attacks on American Embassies around the world. This was pointed out by fellow and trusted commenter Vernos Branco on another post."

    Would you, Vernos, Robert and/or anyone else who quoted this in reciprocation to Benghazi, Libya, please tell us the number of Americans killed in these attacks and the number of U.S. Ambassadors. Thank you in advance for the response.

    Carmine D

  20. Sam,

    Did I not say the Republicans are pushing this for political gain? Is it not true that such mistakes as happened in Benghazi have been used by both parties to hammer the opposite party for political purposes?

    All administrations screw up. Not always, but often, the other party tries to make political hay out of the screwup. Neither party makes a habit of going after a President of their own party, whether doing so is deserved or not. In most cases, a party will go after a President over a screwup made by a President of the opposite party.

    I'm ok with the indignation supporters of President Obama are showing over the Republicans investigations, but I also know two things are true:

    One is what I said in the previous paragragh and two is that administrations screwup and then they coverup to try to contain any damage. I think both of those things happened in Benghazi.


  21. Michael:

    When all is said and done on both sides of the aisle for Benghazi, Libya [and IRS and DOJ], the ultimate question is who is accountable? The answer is simple. The President. As Harry S. Truman said, the buck stops here.

    Carmine D

  22. Michael,

    I will agree both parties are guilty of using the same sort of tactics when it's in their favor.But this is not a Watergate type scandal,not even close as they the Republicans hope to try and make it to be.

    When this is all over I'm afraid the Republicans will have egg on their faces.

  23. Sam,

    Time will tell but it will not surprise me if, either this turns out to be an honest but costly mistake by the Obama Administration and nothing more or there is more to it than they have admitted so far. Is it Watergate? No.

    It really does concern me though that so many people in this country, in and outside government look at people and groups that have views opposite of their views and consider them 'enemies' that actively want to destroy the country. When that mentality is pervasive, then people in government can easily start to think it is acceptable to utilize the power of government in an abusive way to investigate people and groups with whom they disagree.

    That is VERY DANGEROUS, no matter who does it.


  24. There may be something to the idea that a lack of security funding was, in part, responsible for the success of the Benghazi raid. But it appears that the wrong agency is being attacked. This compound is looking more and more like a CIA compound under State Department cover.

    The security issues are appearing more and more attributable to CIA. One of the most significant issues appears to be just why CIA, with primary responsible for developing intelligence on activities in foreign countries that may be detrimental to US interests, failed to identify such an activity developing under their very noses in Benghazi. But then we'll never know whether CIA spending on intelligence gathering and physical security at the CIA compound was adequate and the CIA people were remiss, or if the local CIA wasn't sufficiently funded or staffed - unless Fox News again airs a classified leak.

  25. What is "the bubble"?

    "The bubble" is seeking information from people who hold the same bias as you, such as researching websites like the Heritage Foundation. That was a major reason why those inside "the bubble" were completely clueless when Obama won reelection and now claim he cheated, because they only seeked information from those who agreed with them. "The bubble" is why some people believe climate change doesn't exist, evolution is a false science, the planet is only 10,000 years old, Obama is the antichrist, FEMA re-education camps are real, etc., etc., etc.

    Let's get something perfectly clear. No way in hell can anyone in their right mind compare Benghazi to Watergate or Iran-Contra. In Watergate we had a president's team break into and bugged a Democratic headquarters. Not only that, they broke into doctor's offices stealing medical records of their opposition. When they were discovered, taped conversations and paper trails were destroyed to hide the conspiracy. Iran-Contra was treason, plain and simple. The CIA under instructions from above, sold weapons to an enemy, Iran. Iran was engaged in a war with an American ally, Iraq. The weapons sold were to fund quasi-death squads in Nicaragua in the name of defeating "communism."

  26. Warrior - "Neither President Obama or Hillary could take a 3am call"

    Barney Frank would ask, "what planet have you been living on for the last six years?"

  27. Vernos,

    As usual, you have 1/2 the story. Yes, many Conservatives watch Fox News and listen to talk radio, which echo and re-confirm many beliefs of the right, some outrageous, some not. They either do not listen to alternate views or simply reject anything that doesn't conform to their views and they do not question anything from their own echo chamber.

    I submit to you that many people on the left listen to and watch only information providers which echo and re-confirm many beliefs of the left, some outrageous, some not. They either do not listen to alternate views or simply reject anything that doesn't conform to their views and they do not question anything from their own echo chamber.

    THAT FACT, on both sides goes a long way to explaining why, at this point, we may as well remove 'compromise' and 'conciliation' from our dictionaries.

    Both sides always pick out the most outrageous people, outrageous statements, outrageous acts, etc of the other side; they never give any credit to the other side for anything, and they accept on blind faith whatever their echo chamber provides for them, as long as it is critical of the 'enemy'.

    One of the letter writers last night ask me to name some positive accomplishment of Republicans (aka former President Bush), so I sent a link with a very long list of Bush's failures (and there are many) and his accomplishments. Other than to ask me for my specific picks of Bush accomplishments (for the sole purpose of attacking me and whatever I selected, the writer made no comment to the list. So in 8 whole years, our former President did nothing good, nothing worthwhile. Come on! That's as sorry as those that will claim exactly the same about President Obama after he serves 8 years. My reaction to those people.... Come on!

    Do you see what I'm saying?


  28. Lastthrows,

    I suspect I won't agree with your answer, but please give me what you think was former President Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq? I'll give you some choices or you can write your own reason:

    1) Because he, like most intelligence agencies around the world and most other world leaders thought Saddam had WMD's and would give them to terrorists.

    2) To avenge the assassination attempt on his dad.

    3) Because Halliburton and big oil would benefit from Iraq's oil.

    4) Because he is a stupid cowboy and thought a war would be macho.

    5) Just because he is stupid.

    6) Because his brain, Dick Cheney, told him to do it.


  29. Michael,

    Again, it's the far right making the most noise. The "squeaky wheel" has been been misinforming people since Obama became a candidate. You aren't aware of the conspiracy arguments I have with "truthers" and extremists on the left claiming Cheney and Bush blew up the Trade Center. When the left makes as much insane noise as those on the far right I'll point out they are just as nutz.

    Can you actually defend some of the far right bat-crap-crazy-sh*t these people believe and say? Do you remember how completely off the wall they went with the 34 battleship flotilla, an escort of 2,000 people costing $200 million a day trip to India? It was elected officials and regularly watched television pundits beating the subject to death for weeks. They went nutz with death panels over the health care debate and stated we practice Sharia Law. In all my life I've never heard a public figure, left or right, call a president a racist on a morning show until Glenn Beck.

    You can't equate the noise from the left with the insanity from the right.

  30. Add these to the list:

    he wanted to upstage his daddy as a war time president

    he believed Al Qaeda in Iraq was behind Trade Center horror

  31. Vernos,

    You should know better than to ask me if I defend what you mentioned. I don't and you know very well I don't. I don't equate one with the other. I note that the craziness exists on both sides and it is very bad for the country.

    By the way... do you really believe that former President Bush sent young men and women to their deaths because he wanted to upstage his daddy as a war time president. My goodness, Vernos.... really?


  32. wtplv - "By the way... do you really believe that former President Bush sent young men and women to their deaths because he wanted to upstage his daddy as a war time president. My goodness, Vernos.... really?"

    Actually I do. He had no trouble making WMDs a reason, and when none were found he used Al Qaeda as an issue. Then came the comments about spreading democracy and freedom. Then using the banner "Mission Accomplished" long before civil war broke out in Iraq. I don't think he is capable of forthought and projecting the outcome of war. In his fathers day we decimated the Iraqi army with little loss of life. As a matter of fact Dick Cheney gave an interview as to why not invade Baghdad. How costly it would be.

    "And if you took down Saddam Hussein's government then what would you put in its place, its a very volatile part of the world." "If you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily see pieces of Iraq fly off."

  33. Vernos,

    Former President Bush 'made' WMD's a reason? Vernos, most of the intelligence community and most world leaders believed Saddam had WMD's. I doubt if he just made up the reason to invade.

    9/11 had not happened when the 1st Bush went into Iraq. The situations were completely different.

    I cannot know but I would guess that former President Bush did not make the decision to invade lightly. 9/11 happened on his watch and 3000 people died... and we were lucky it wasn't many more. If he did not invade and Saddam did have WMD's and did provide them to terrorists, who used them against Americans, how would he have felt? Talk about criticism.... if two attacks killed 6000 Americans on his watch, any criticism he gets now would pale in comparison.

    No Vernos, I can't know and neither can you, but I think it unlikely that our former President knew Saddam had no WMD's and invaded due to some other flimsy reason. That's just my opinion and it may be incorrect, but only Bush knows for sure.


  34. Jeff,

    Why is it that you want 'my' list of former President Bush's accomplishments? For what purpose?

    And guess what? I already know that your opinion of me will not be very high as long as I don't agree with you.

    I'm OK with that.


  35. Lastthrows,

    You said 'He would have had to be suicidal to do anything that might provoke a superpower led by an insecure mama's boy.'

    Saddam had no WMD's but he did everything possible to make everyone think he did, including the US, that could smash him like a bug. All he had to do was allow inspectors to look where he refused to let them go to prove he had no WMD's. Was he suicidal or stupid or both? Sounds like he probably was. Would a suicidal or stupid person give WMD's, if he had them to terrorists. He quite possibly would.


  36. Vidi,

    The Iraq war was badly run; of that there is no doubt. If we however, draw the conclusion that the military and civilian contractors told a sitting President he needed to go to war so they could profit .... and he took us to war for that reason.... is a bridge that is too far for me to cross.

    Everyone has their opinion and you are entitled to yours, but I see little evidence to back your claim, other than to work backward and say that because no WMD's were found, that means that Bush knew there were none and invaded because the military needed something to do and contractors needed to line their pockets. Pretty twisted logic if you ask me.

    I know our government is corrupt in many ways but that corrupt.... I think not. If I am wrong, we all should be heading for the exits ASAP.


  37. While I might disagree with security funding as authorized by the House if the fact of the funding and how it was scheduled to be applied were known to the writer but it wasn't and as it turns out the matter of funding is and was irrelevant.

    This completely partisan hit piece completely ignores the fact that the US State Department official who testified under oath on this exact question stated unequivocally that funding had nothing to do with security at Benghazi, that the now dead ambassador himself sent military personnel assigned to security at Benghazi home not long before the attack and that other security forces were available to be sent to Benghazi in the weeks leading up the attack after additional security was requested (before the attack) and denied for as yet unexplained reasons.

    This is nothing more than the usual tactic of blaming Bush, no.. the House Budget architect, no.. the Republicans now that we can't blame Bush anymore, yeah... that's the ticket... Blame Republicans. Unfortunately for Democrats and their hacks in the media, this is so overused and abused and the effort so transparent it isn't taken seriously by anyone who can tie their shoes without adult supervision, and is seriously lacking in credibility or the slightest semblance of intellectual application.

  38. "Michael Casler enters the DiFazio zone:" Jeff

    You mean someone else besides me lives rent free in your mind! Must be an awful lot of empty space in your head!

    Carmine D

  39. "Your cynical, American lives are the only ones that count question is tasteless."

    This President and Administration is not concerned about the Americans murdered during the consulate sacking and bringing the culprits to justice. Is that tasteless to you?

    Carmine D

  40. Comment removed by moderator. - -

  41. "This was reported 2 days ago:

    "Administration officials have indicated recently that the FBI is zeroing in."

    I opine your source is wrong. FBI has not been in Benghazi, Libya in months. CIA is. We know 18 of the 60 thugs who are responsible for the consulate sacking and American murders. They are sipping lattes and frappes in clear view of all. Literally. We have tailed them so closely that we know exactly what, where and who they are. Why we [read President and Administration] have not apprehended these murderers by now and brought them to justice is part of the ongoing scandal of Benghazi, Libya.

    Carmine D

  42. The source, and how you used, is wrong. FBI is not on the ground in Benghazi, the CIA is. The latter in limited numbers. You can't apprehend the terrorists in Benghazi from a secure building in Quantico, Virginia. You need boots on the ground in Benghazi. Where are they and where have they been for the last 8 months?

    Carmine D

  43. Boots on the ground=military assets. You know what military assets are, or should. These are what never got to Benghazi in the 7 hours from the time of the Benghazi attack at 9 PM on 9-11-12 until 4 AM 9-12-12 [Benghazi time]. And still are not there. President gave the order to deploy all military resources to Benghazi to save the Americans. Someone gave an order to stand own. The "who" that gave the latter is part of the ongoing scandal of Benghazi, Libya.

    Carmine D

  44. Carmine: I agree with you: Where are the CIA and where have they been for the last 8 months?

    The CIA alleged they had close ties to the locals in Benghazi - but apparently had no idea any raid was being planned. CIA should have KNOWN that there were plans afoot for coordinated raids in the Muslim world scheduled for 9/11 and told Ambassador Stephens his presence in Benghazi on that day might exacerbate the situation. CIA staff represented the largest contingent in Benghazi, yet look at the security they provided for their compounds. It was the CIA that deleted references to "terrorists" in the talking points provided Rice. It was the CIA that insisted on the viewpoint that this raid was a "spontaneous" event. When was the CIA transferred to the State Department, responsible directly to the Secretary of State?

    Maybe you're right. Maybe we DO need a thorough and public investigation of Benghazi, with an emphasis on the questions of where was the CIA, just what did they know, and are they really worth ANY of the money we provide them?

  45. Jeff,

    It's the Republicans who are not concerned about the deaths of the 4 Americans in Benghazi.

    Their only concern is how much mileage they can get out of it, as we get closer to the midterm elections and nothing more than that.

    They will loose the midterm elections just as bad as they lost the past Presidential election last year. People are waking up to the techniques being used by them, in order to win.This one has Republican Sen.Mitchell hand writing all over it.

  46. The Righties on this site provide the best Comedy act on the Planet. We certainly don't need the Comedy Channel, We have outraged Replubicans posing as informed. What Clowns!!!!!

  47. CarmineD (Carmine DiFazio): At 6:11 a.m. you wrote:

    "This President and Administration is not concerned about the Americans murdered during the consulate sacking and bringing the culprits to justice. Is that tasteless to you?"

    What "consulate" in Benghazi? Do you mean one of the two locally-owned compounds, rented by the US government and occupied primarily by the CIA? Those weren't "consulates." They were simply that - compounds - occupied primarily by the CIA. The ONLY official U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya is the Embassy - and that's in Tripoli, although it probably has staff handling some of the duties of a normal consulate - things like issuing visas, aiding in trade relationships, and taking care of migrants, tourists, and expatriates. NONE of these things was handled at the Benghazi compounds.

  48. Robert:

    Are you arguing words and meanings? If so, don't lose sight of the big picture. 4 Americans dead and after 8 months elapsed, nothing new is known except it wasn't a consulate, it was a diplomatic outpost.

    In Libya, it was obvious at least to me, that the U.S. was balancing covert operations to stabilize the government with diplomatic actions. We failed as evidenced by the sacking of the consul, CIA annex, and 4 murdered Americans.

    Carmine D

  49. To qualify to enter the DiFazio Zone, and likely Casler's too, one would have to ask the question and get the answer to where and what happened to the millions upon millions of dollars in taxes that went for maintenance of this bridge?

    Of course, those like us for whom the Zone is known, have the answers already. Hence, the reason for the anger and distrust for government and taxes.

    Carmine D

  50. Carmine: Big picture? Like all the embassies attacked under W? And all the Americans killed? With nary an "investigation."

    And Benghazi was a "diplomatic outpost" in name only. In practice it was a "safe house" for a nearby CIA outpost, staffed by people doing things like searching for "...over 20,000 deadly shoulder-fired missiles previously owned by Muammar Qaddafi's Libyan forces."

    Am I word-splitting on objecting to calling Benghazi a consulate? From the same source: "In general, U.S. officials also say the consulate is better described as a diplomatic mission. It didn't carry out all the traditional roles of a consulate, such as issuing visas." Actually, it appears to have carried out NONE of those traditional roles.

    Note that two of the four dead were not in the State Department cover-complex at all. They were in an actual CIA complex nearby. (Ibid.)

    To continue: "...the heavy presence of intelligence operatives on the ground in Benghazi would suggest that facts about the attack would have been readily available. But the intelligence community has been criticized for failing to provide accurate information." (Ibid.) So much for "expertise" of the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency.

    Finally: the attack on Benghazi was NOT a terrorist attack on civilians. It was an attack on CIA personnel - front-line combatants in the fighting engulfing the Muslim world. Ambassador Stephens death seems to have been "collateral damage."

  51. "Carmine: Big picture? Like all the embassies attacked under W? And all the Americans killed?"

    How many Americans killed? How many U.S. Ambassadors killed?

    Carmine D

  52. Carmine: See VernosB (vernos branco) post of May 19, 2013, 8:05 a.m. for attacks on US diplomatic missions under W, as well as the number of deaths in each,.

    As I've argued elsewhere, Stephens's death seems to have been collateral damage resulting from a fight between two sets of combatants: the CIA's para-military forces Islamic insurgent para-military.

    In the same vein as your question: Just how many commercial air-liners were flown into sky-scrapers under Obamba??

  53. Robert:

    I saw his post and asked of him the same question. The post lists number of "deaths" not Americans killed. Would you/he like to try again? I've got time.

    Explain to me how "collateral damage" makes a murder of a U.S. Ambassador and 3 Americans not murders. Dead is still dead no matter how you spin it.

    Carmine D

  54. On your last question Robert, President Obama answered that question in his recent speech to the Defense War College in Washington D.C. I distinctly heard him. Didn't you?

    Carmine D