U.S. embassy security in Libya was geared to safer time

  • Updated: October 30, 2012 - 6:20 AM

Plan was for small U.S. security force, reliance on local personnel.

  • 25
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
Truckman182Oct. 30, 12 6:18 AM

Lies, lies and more lies from this administration. The media needs to do its job and find out what the president knew and when. Of course like the last four years, they will give him a free pass and sweep this mess under the rug for him.

usa2012Oct. 30, 12 6:34 AM

I'm sure the full investigation will come out long after the President has been voted out of office. Too Bad !! You got Bin Laden but lost an Ambassador. Not much to brag about.

ranger78Oct. 30, 12 6:38 AM

The writers claim there is no smoking gun as the Republicans claim. Yet, they spell out multiple failures, terrible choices and a complete lack of understanding on the ground. When Libya puts out a maximum alert and all you do is some wire and baracades, you haven't done your job. And this doesn't even cover the utter failure to support the Americans once the attack started. The Obama administration blew it before, during and after.

borm0034Oct. 30, 12 7:11 AM

funny how this sounds eerily similar to 9/11/01 before it happened (prior knowledge of an imminent attach), and NO ONE is blaming George Bush for the events that occurred that day?...3,000 people died on AMERICAN SOIL (not 3 - in a foreign nation). Listen to yourselves people, such hypocrisy. Do something about it yourself besides complain...it's not the media's job to tell you everything - can't believe you'd trust their report anyway!

dwzctrlsOct. 30, 12 7:24 AM

borm0034: Another blame Bush commenter. At least Bush didn't lie about 9/11/01 and blame the attach on a video for 2 weeks. Also, 9/11/01 was much more similar to the 93 attach on the WTC than Lybia (when Clinton was in charge). And in the first case, Obama helped create the mess in Lybia by helping over through the government.

stevensp0Oct. 30, 12 7:40 AM

The only place that Benghazi is an election "controversy" and issue is on Foxnews, in the mind of Gerald Issa, and on right wing talk radio. Anyone else with any brains or common sense would see the truth. The President who risked an unannounced attack on "friendly" soil to kill Ossama, and who has angered many Arab Nations using drones to kill our enemy on their soil wouldn't chose to allow our Ambassador to get killed by terrorists had he known the situation that evening, and the danger. It makes no sense. All of the controversy and broohaha is just hot air and weird speculation rising out of the right.

theruntOct. 30, 12 7:57 AM

A dictator falls; the country is fluid, changing, hopeful, scary. Will putting soldiers around the embassy upset Libyans? Do we trust locals to protect our people? In a roiling, chaotic landscape riots protesting a video erupt in countries around the world, including Libya. Diplomatic communications work their way up through channels of the State Department. Where best to apply resources in such turbulent places? And then, horror of horrors, Islamic militants attack our compound and kill Americans. It’s much easier, looking back, to say this or that could have/should have been done differently. But variables included not only guarding the embassy, but assessing to what degree Americans could maintain presence without being seen as interlopers. Hopefully, those in the diplomatic chain who may have made mistakes will be held accountable. On the other hand, much of the furor and fervor over this sounds like “Bring me the head of John the Baptist.”

cabramsOct. 30, 12 8:05 AM

There may be no smoking gun, but there sure are a lot of empty chambers. Not sure if one is worse than another. While this article points out that the situation was fluid, surely having a first level of guards armed with whistles and batons was not a good idea considering the rising level of violence in the area. With AQ in the area, this just seems absurd. Concertina wire? Yeah, that'll stop a determined girl scout troop. We still don't have an answer as to why the US did not respond to the attack which we knew about in real time. And why did the admin hide the fact that we knew it was not a protest over a video as they initially, and repeatedly, reported.

daviedooOct. 30, 12 8:32 AM

Where are the security tapes and why have they been made secret?!?!?

drposterOct. 30, 12 8:40 AM

Mistakes happen, we all understand that. But why did he lie for 2 weeks on the issue? Why were repeated live requests for support denied? Is it true he watched the attack happen live via drone feed? These are the questions we want answered.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters