You are merging two separate accusations into one rhetorical question...
First, there is the charge that the State Department was notified of the attack on the embassy and an urgent request for assistance was communicated through proper channels. But the State Department, for various reasons, determined that an escalated military response was not appropriate and sat on the request, thereby sacrificing the Ambassador and his staff.
Second is the charge that the Obama Administration attempted to spin the reason for the attack and blame it on an inflammatory video rather than an organized terrorist action to avoid revealing the level of instability and need for a military presence in a country the Administration was directly responsible for destabilizing.
The result was a weak military response consistent with the Administration's responses in Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Crimea.
|
(
In response to this post by SixerHoo)
Posted: 05/21/2016 at 5:11PM