Diplomats asked repeatedly for more security before Libya attack

U.S. diplomats in Libya repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate but were "denied these resources," two congressional lawmakers said.


Enough said:BangHead:

On second thought there is more to say....Obama should be impeached.

 

The Obama administration has blood on their hands. They might as well have ordered the death of Ambassador Stevens themselves.

 

Protecting the islamofascists and keeping them happy.

 

Someone propose how the embassy should have been protected.

 

United States Marines

 

The US Marines filling the invaders with lead.

 

I heard a person on the radio today - a former Marine, I believe - that speculated that no troops were present to protect the embassy because it was important to Obama that there be no fatalities of U.S. troops on the anniversary of 9/11.

Obama's failed logic may have been no troops equals no fatalities.

 

State Department stayed out of contractors' dispute over consulate security, letters

Letters obtained exclusively by Fox News appear to show the State Department refused to get involved when the company tasked with protecting the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, raised security concerns, the latest indication that warning signs may have been ignored in the lead-up to last month's terror attack.

The letters pertain to a dispute between Blue Mountain Libya, the security license holder in Libya, and its operations partner Blue Mountain UK, which trained and provided the local guards.

A source with knowledge of two State Department meetings -- one in June and a second in July -- told Fox News that Blue Mountain Libya felt the security provided by the UK partner was "substandard and the situation was unworkable."

But according to the source, when the Libyans tried to bring in a third party -- an American contractor -- to improve security, a State Department contract officer declined to get involved.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ty-concerns-at-libya-consulate/#ixzz28Co0nnKx

 

There are many reasons not to reelect Obama, but this one is on the top of the list. I suppose to a degree, all politicians have very little sense of serving, doing the right thing for America if it conflicts with their chance of reelection. What is so bad here is that American lives and national honor is mixed with his desire to hold onto power.

This situation as far as the Presidency goes is a violation of the oath to "protect and defend the Constitution." The number one job of the President is to protect this nation, and uphold its honor. If one could overlook the abortion, gay rights, liberal governing policies, mounting debt, and a whole array of other issues, this one would stop any consideration of his worthiness to be President. In fact, if one agreed with Obama's policies, this one incident would be enough to not reelect him.

This is not a matter of being inept in leadership as was the case with Carter, it is a matter of the intent of the heart, because Obama does have the ability to lead. This is an example of a heart going way beyond selfish, as is the case with most politicians, but of being willing to use everything that is honorable about this country and sacred about God to further his agenda and power.

 

How many Marines would have it taken to protect the building? Enough to make a car bomb worth the effort?

 

Sometimes I wonder if you even take yourself seriously.