THE BENGHAZI MISSION ATTACK & POLITICIANS.
Shouldn't they loosen up a little bit for the sake of the nation?
For more than 200 embassies and consulates around the world, more security requests for some of them were made almost each day, and it would be magical for the United States government to approve all of them, due to limited resources.
Therefore, it was no surprise of a classified cable warning that the consulate could not withstand "coordinated attack" as Benghazi has become a hornet of armed insurgent gangs after the uprising that deposed Libya's dictator, Muammar Gadhafi.
The presence of al Qaeda was also noted in Benghazi, Libya; but so was Yemen and even Tunisia, as the Arab Spring left many countries in the Muslim world with so many remnant groups, the scope of which was impossible to control, even by their own governments, in terms of the number, for example, of training camps.
Budget cuts in the U.S. Congress to reduce government spending have a part to play with beefing up security, not just in Libya, but for all those embassies and missions in places that were considered as dangerous for diplomats and their personnel.
Security has been an undaunted task for the U.S. State Department, and it could only do so much to accommodate demands with what it had, as per all the Ambassadors being given the help they wanted to keep them safe. Nevertheless, much was being done by the U.S. government to prevent what happened in Benghazi from taking place anywhere else.
However, for politicians, who were aware of all the difficulties facing the Obama administration to make charges of inadequate or lack of protection for the mission there was preposterous.
Also, the accusation that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were hiding any vital information on the Benghazi attack from the American people was insane, as there was no proof of that.
They had spoken of the anti-Mohammad film or movie as the cause of the demonstration in Cairo, Egypt, and though the Benghazi attack was different in nature, as a purely terrorist assault, there could never be any rational to say that the two incidents were separately happening.
The intelligence community had first hand information to the White House, and it (WH) reflected that to the public by what the president said in the Rose Garden of what was going on, both in Benghazi and about the demonstrations against the despicable anti-Mohammad film or movie around the world.
Again, politicizing the Benghazi attack in the midst of a political campaign was outrageous, as Newt Gingrich was claiming that the president "was playing games" with the American public, and concealing information about the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three embassy officials, was deliberate.
How could anyone say that, as Obama was making every effort to get to the bottom of the Benghazi issue, and vowing that he would do all he could to bring those responsible for the attack to justice.
The Libyan authorities were helping out with the numerous investigations that were in progress, and their (investigations) outcome would determine what steps to take to bring the matter to a close.
So, the anxiety of some Republican politicians that the president was not handling the case properly was dubious, as their aim was that, if they stayed on the Benghazi attack repeatedly in the media, they could cause Obama's second term bid to fail.
With politics aside, voters were concerned with the arrest and eventual result of the perpetrators getting what was coming to them, in order to atone for the deaths of those four patriotic Americans, so that they might not have died needlessly.