You are still purposefully and ignorantly ignoring the fact that the Odumbo administration reduced security in the face of increasing hostility and violence (two bombs).
+1 Odumbo, et al, reduced security in the face of increasing hostility and violence (two bombs), and then afterwards they lied about what happened on 9/11 2012.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I was a young analyst a decade ago and recall seeing information over a 30 day period that led me to believe an attack was imminent against our deployed troops. I recall the commander asking questions like, when is the attack going to happen, what will be the nature of the attack, etc etc. I had no answers. With other competing interests and a dwindling budget there was no way he could justify spending additional funds against a plausible but invisible threat. 3 months later the compound was bombed.
So back to this issue, how much security would have been justified? It would not have prevented the attack. I guarantee you they would have simply brought more weapons and bodies to make the attack just as effective. Hell, the embassy's attack reaction plan was out of date and immediately went to shit. I do acknowledge that additional security personnel may have prevented the death of Ambassador Stevens, but casualties were inevitable.
Amazing how folks are quick to dismiss the words of the CINCs, CIA and Sec of State in order to pursue the "reality" they've created in their heads.
Oh and from someone who was at ground zero of the 2008 financial meltdown, it's pretty fucking sad that many of you forget how bad it really was. Go back and read the headlines.