# Why is Bengazi such a big deal according to Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 13, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628 "2012-10-13T17:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/1 "2012-10-13T17:09:49Z")
Bush managed to get the US attacked on its own soil, after ignoring reports such as “Bin Laden determined to attack the US”, resulting in thousands of civilians dead and a huge blow to the US. And yet I don’t recall anyone from the Right saying that we shouldn’t vote for him in 2004 based on this disastrous failure. But now, after one attack on an embassy with around four dead, and this according to Republicans is an indication that Obama is useless at protecting America, and we should kick him out of office. WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/2 "2012-10-13T17:38:59Z")
The line I am reading from my conservative FB friends is that Obama cut funding to guard embassies and so therefore must be pilloried for the attacks. I have even read one person claiming that “hussein Obama” (sic) should be impeached for “murder”. Of course, if one were to believe any of this, one must ignore an awful lot of facts about embassy security in general and the Benhazi attack in particular. One must also ignore Paul Ryan’s role in funding for embassy security as well. As for Bush, the right seems to go into histrionics when his name is brought up. Liberals keep living in the past and blaming Bush. We apparently are not allowed to refer to the most recent Republican president and look for clues as to how a hypothetical future Republican president might behave. Pubbies, on the other hand, are allowed to invoke Reagan at every turn. Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/3 "2012-10-13T17:58:28Z")
[Good article](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/private-security-hovers-as-issue-after-embassy-attack-in-benghazi-libya.html?hp&_r=0) on diplomatic security in the NYT today. Many diplomats don’t want a big security presence because of their dealings with local dignitaries who are put off by large armed motorcades arriving at their doorstep and announcing to any prying eyes: “Hey, come kill me!” As a result, ambassadors, political officers, etc. sometimes go out of their way to circumvent the protective measures put into place for them (not likely the case in this event). Libya specifically objected to armed boots on the ground, and that was largely respected. The President doesn’t involve himself in the day-to-day decisions of the DOS any more than the CEO of a company checks to see if the bathrooms have been swept. That’s what he has cabinet staff for, and what they have their very large staffs for. Consulates, as a rule, do not have Marine Security Guard (MSG) detachments. That program is normally restricted to embassies. A notable exception was (maybe still is) the American Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany. A traveling ambassador does not have Marines with him. He may or may not have the Regional Security Officer (RSO) with him or his local security people, or in this case CIA operatives. In any case, it is never enough to protect him from a serious assault. Those who have escaped assassination over the years have been able to do so by dumb luck and escape planning. The Republicans are only making a huge deal out of this for political gain. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/4 "2012-10-13T18:25:40Z")
Because they will say or do anything in their lust for power. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/5 "2012-10-13T18:37:57Z")
Political gain and power by [saying](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/us/politics/libya-attack-gains-steam-as-issue-in-race-for-president.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0) anything to change the narrative. > [@](#): > > "First they blame a YouTube video and a nonexistent riot, Mr. Ryan told supporters in Lancaster, Ohio. “Then when the country’s getting upset about it, they blame Romney and Ryan for getting people upset about it.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/6 "2012-10-13T20:19:04Z")
It’s a big deal to me for three reasons. One, we need to be able to protect our people more. There was a request for more security, _and_ it was friggin 9-11. Nothing happened “out of the blue”. Two, it demonstrates that the idea that Obama is curing Islamic relations is fantasy. And if he is going to attempt to take any credit for anything good that transpires, he has to accept responsibility for the bad. Here, he tries to blame it on spontaneous unrest due to a video—ignoring the fact that it came out two month earlier. Oh, did I mention that it was 9/11? Three, it highlights Obama’s inability to point to terrorism and call it for what it is. And every opportunity he and the administration are quick to ascribe motives that have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. His speech at the U.N. was disgusting, bringing up the video again. Even after the facts were out. Tis is one of his greatest failings as a leader. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/7 "2012-10-13T20:21:34Z")
I did enjoy the way Wednesday’s hearing on the subject led to a bunch of Republicans outing a CIA operation on the cite: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html) > [@](#): > > That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request. > > But on Wednesday, the withholding was on hold. > > The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors. > > Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd. > > The chairman, [Darrel Issa] attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi. And by “enjoy”, of course I mean, “projectile vomited over”. ETA: I added Issa’s name to that quote, because he’s the chairman in question. I think he hopes that Raymond Burr will play him in the movie about all this. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/8 "2012-10-13T20:23:54Z")
Because it’s all they’ve got. I mean, really- every single complaint that the right has about Obama is either: that he hasn’t done enough to fix the damage the conservatives did the last time they were in power, or attempts to make the slightest governmental misstep into a personal indictment on Obama and his ability to lead. There’s no middle ground. There’s no, “Well, maybe he should done it \*this \*way.” No, every tiny detail has to be blown out of proportion in an attempt to get themselves back in power. I mean, at this point, they \*have \*to know they’re doing it, right? When the longest-legged issue is over the exact detail of the president’s birth certificate, I’d say that he’s been a pretty good politician and public servant. Otherwise they’d have \*actual \*issues to complain about, instead of making crap up. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/9 "2012-10-13T20:29:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s a big deal to me for three reasons. One, we need to be able to protect our people more. There was a request for more security, _and_ it was friggin 9-11. Nothing happened “out of the blue”. > > Two, it demonstrates that the idea that Obama is curing Islamic relations is fantasy. And if he is going to attempt to take any credit for anything good that transpires, he has to accept responsibility for the bad. Here, he tries to blame it on spontaneous unrest due to a video—ignoring the fact that it came out two month earlier. Oh, did I mention that it was 9/11? > > Three, it highlights Obama’s inability to point to terrorism and call it for what it is. And every opportunity he and the administration are quick to ascribe motives that have anything to do with Islamic terrorism. His speech at the U.N. was disgusting, bringing up the video again. Even after the facts were out. Tis is one of his greatest failings as a leader. Again, most people are clueless about how an embassy operates. If the ambassador says no security on this trip (he was visiting the so-called “consulate”), that’s the way it’s going to be, regardless of how much is available. You can’t protect people who don’t want it. And how much is enough? What would it have taken to stop this group? A squad? A platoon? There was zero warning, and the ambo was hustled to the safe-haven immediately. He was overcome by the smoke, not shot. Your points two and three are not worth addressing, unless we want to just assume that everything the pundits and the Romney campaign claim are god’s truths. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/10 "2012-10-13T20:39:26Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Again, most people are clueless about how an embassy operates. If the ambassador says no security on this trip (he was visiting the so-called “consulate”), that’s the way it’s going to be, regardless of how much is available. You can’t protect people who don’t want it. And how much is enough? What would it have taken to stop this group? A squad? A platoon? There was zero warning, and the ambo was hustled to the safe-haven immediately. He was overcome by the smoke, not shot. > > Your points two and three are not worth addressing, unless we want to just assume that everything the pundits and the Romney campaign claim are god’s truths. Or one could just look at [Obama’s own words](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&page=3#.UHnQlULlPVM), continuing the lie that the video was to blame: > [@](#): > > That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/11 "2012-10-13T20:48:08Z")
No, seriously, every 9/11, we have to send a contingent of Marines to each of our embassies in countries with a significant population of Muslims. First off, our demonstration of trust will endear us to the people. And it will only involve maybe a couple hundred thousand Marines, tops! If you can’t have an embassy without making it a fortress, there isn’t any real point to having an embassy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/12 "2012-10-13T20:56:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, seriously, every 9/11, we have to send a contingent of Marines to each of our embassies in countries with a significant population of Muslims. First off, our demonstration of trust will endear us to the people. And it will only involve maybe a couple hundred thousand Marines, tops! > > If you can’t have an embassy without making it a fortress, there isn’t any real point to having an embassy. Each embassy should be a fully staffed Aircraft Carrier. Even in landlocked areas. Just sitting there on the ground. Then Magellan could cry about how we don’t have \*two \*aircraft carriers side by side for each embassy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/13 "2012-10-13T21:23:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Or one could just look at [Obama’s own words](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&page=3#.UHnQlULlPVM), continuing the lie that the video was to blame: Knew this right away, did you, **Mags**? Rest of us were all confused, seeing all the protests over the video all over the world, we leapt to a false conclusion, but not you, right, **Mags**? Saw right through it, did you? We are fortunate to have someone with your keen perception and prescience to instruct us. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/14 "2012-10-13T23:05:53Z")
Let’s get straight exactly what the issue is: Before the anniversary of 9/11 this year, there was credible intelligence that the Benghazi consulate would be attacked. Al-Qaida had issued a call for revenge against Americans for the drone killing of one of its leaders. The security officials in the region urgently requested that additional security be provided. The state department turned them down. Ambassador Stevens’ personal journal also said he was very worried about the security situation. The requests for additional security were not honored. In testimony last week, one official said that he asked for 12 additional security officers, and was told by the state department that he might as well as for the sun, the moon, and the stars. On Sept 11, the consulate was approached by a group of heavily armed men and attacked. The attack lasted about 5 hours, and at the end Ambassador Stevens and several other Americans were dead, and the al-Qaida flag was raised over the consulate. Those are the basic facts as to what happened. Now, the scandal, as usual, is more about the attempted cover-up than anything. This is what the administration did about this: First, they came out with a story that said that there was a riot in front of the consulate due to an anti-American video published on Youtube. No one knows how they came to this conclusion, but it was flatly untrue. Bear in mind that there were Americans on the ground shortly after the attack in Benghazi, and they’ve testified that it was immediately obvious that there was no riot, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. The Libyan government also contradicted this story. The administration claims that they didn’t know this, and that when they found out, they changed their story to match new evidence. But the facts show that the administration knew exactly what had happened within 24 hours, and they continued to peddle the video/mob storyline for at least 5 days. The administration also claims that it received no requests for additional security, and seems to have blamed the State Department for not passing the requests up the chain. The State Department apparently disagrees, but this is still under dispute. In any event, it’s clear that the administration kept on telling the media that this video was to blame long after they knew it was a terrorist attack. And the maker of the video was arrested in the middle of the night in front of cameras and hauled away surrounded by guards. The purported reason was a probation violation (not even a parole violation as some have reported), but in fact it’s pretty clear to everyone that this was an attempt to show the Muslim world that the U.S. was ‘doing something’, and also to help deflect blame for this attack on the filmmaker. Pretty sleazy stuff. As for motive, the obvious one is that it’s much better for the administration in an election season to portray this as random violence, because otherwise it damages the narrative that Obama has successfully hunted down al-Qaida’s leadership and destroyed it, that peace is blossoming and al-Qaida is on the run, and that the administration’s foreign policy is a resounding success. But if it’s a terrorist attack, then suddenly al-Qaida doesn’t look so weak, and it opens up all kinds of questions regarding the administration’s policies and whether it had done enough to protect its people in the middle east. That’s the essence of the scandal - the administration attempted to portray a terror attack as random mob violence in order to avoid difficult questions about its policies during an election season. Republicans are also trying to make hay out of a few other things. One is that there is a report that Obama was informed of the attack at 12:30 AM, and responded by going to bed while the attack raged on for 5 hours. This is the Republican version of the ‘my pet goat’ attacks against Bush for continuing to read to some children for a few minutes after he was notified of the attacks on 9/11. Another issue is whether the U.S. government actually helped to inflame Muslims by referring to a video that was relatively obscure up to that point, but which was now known around the world. After the attack (and the administration’s blaming of this video), there were riots at a number of other embassies in the Muslim world. There are 1st Amendment issues here as well. Apparently, the government requested that Google review its policies to verify that the video was in compliance, which could be interpreted as subtle pressure to pull the video. Google refused, citing the 1st amendment rights of the filmmaker. Then the filmmaker himself was arrested on specious grounds in a very public manner. That is also very troubling - the notion that if you say or write or produce something the government doesn’t like, agents will look for any justification they can find to arrest you and haul you in. Then there’s the issue of Obama skipping his intelligence briefings, and in particular the intelligence briefing on 9/11. Obama claims that he’s just so brilliant that he doesn’t have to be there, because he gets the transcript and studies it and learns more that way. Frankly, I find this laughable. As someone who has to attend a lot of meetings, I understand the value of being there in person to be able to ask questions, see facial expressions, pick up nuances, etc. If reading transcripts of a meeting was as good as actually being there, we could get rid of a lot of meetings and just send notes to everyone. In any event, it would be interesting to know if the risks in Benghazi were raised in that meeting or any earlier ones Obama didn’t attend. ---
**Author:** ![Scholar\_Beardpig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Scholar\_Beardpig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scholar_Beardpig)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/15 "2012-10-13T23:08:06Z")
Hey, man, look at the alternative - if it **hadn’t** been terrorism, and it really was just people howling over the video, the administration would look pretty stupid if they’d called it al-Qaeda, eh? … If a proper noun in Arabic starts with an ‘al-’ then you don’t capitalize it, right? It’s al-Qaeda, not Al-Qaeda or Al-qaeda, right? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/16 "2012-10-13T23:25:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, seriously, every 9/11, we have to send a contingent of Marines to each of our embassies in countries with a significant population of Muslims. First off, our demonstration of trust will endear us to the people. And it will only involve maybe a couple hundred thousand Marines, tops! > > If you can’t have an embassy without making it a fortress, there isn’t any real point to having an embassy. They had requested TWELVE people. This was considered unreasonable, but the freaking embassy in Vienna has a marine detachment. You think perhaps American assets in a country that is unstable, filled with terrorists, and which had just come through a violent revolution might warrant a handful of soldiers? Bear in mind that the State Department has had its funding increased dramatically under the Obama administration, and was using that funding for frivolities like buying Chevy Volts and installing high-speed charging stations at $100,000 a pop at its embassies. Funding for Consular operations in the State Department has increased from 778 million in 2007 to 1.5 billion by 2011. Almost _doubled_. Here’s a good description of the whole debate from that known right-wing rag [The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/10/benghazi-attack-testimony-state-department). > [@](#): > > Hours before the hearing, the state department was forced into an embarrassing retreat on its claim that the attackers used the cover of a popular protest outside the consulate as cover for the assault. Officials acknowledged on Tuesday that there was no protest and that as it occurred on September 11 it was likely timed to mark the anniversary of al-Qaida’s assault on the US 11 years ago. > > The former head of embassy security in Libya, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, said that he recognised the situation in Libya was volatile and that he and other officials pressed for additional agents to protect the consulate in Benghazi. > > "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there … Diplomatic security remained weak,‘’ he said. “The RSO (regional security officer) struggled to obtain additional personnel there, but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.” > … > Another official, Eric Nordstrom, who was responsible for protecting US diplomats in Libya, said that he too sought additional resources. But he said he was told over the phone by a senior state department official responsible for handling the request, Charlene Lamb, not to make any more because “there would be too much political cost”. Nope, no one could possibly guess that there might be problems in Benghazi. Nope, the State Department would never play politics with security concerns. But actually, the State Department DID recognize the additional threat. They just didn’t want to put soldiers there because of political reasons. So instead, they just increased the hazard pay for the Benghazi contingent: > [@](#): > > Congressman Jason Chaffetz noted that after the state department declined to increase the number of security personnel it did raise the danger pay of Wood and his colleagues. If this had been the Bush administration, this board would be aflame with thread after thread calling for the heads of everyone involved. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/17 "2012-10-13T23:33:18Z")
If it were the Bush Administration, they would already have bombed the Danish Embassy in Tripoli in retaliation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/18 "2012-10-13T23:36:32Z")
As long as we’re about it, your post #14 is simply chock-a-block with authoritative statements, might we trouble you for some citation? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/19 "2012-10-13T23:39:57Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > **Before the anniversary of 9/11 this year, there was credible intelligence that the Benghazi consulate would be attacked**. Al-Qaida had issued a call for revenge against Americans for the drone killing of one of its leaders. > > The security officials in the region urgently requested that additional security be provided. The state department turned them down. \*\*Ambassador Stevens’ personal journal also said he was very worried about the security situation. \*\* (Bolding mine) Why was Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11 if there was credible evidence of an attack there and he was worried about the situation? > [@](#): > > First, they came out with a story that said that there was a riot in front of the consulate due to an anti-American video published on Youtube. No one knows how they came to this conclusion If you know, was this the first time a connection between the video and Muslim anger/outrage was made? > [@](#): > > One is that there is a report that Obama was informed of the attack at 12:30 AM, and responded by going to bed while the attack raged on for 5 hours Cite? How credible is this report? > [@](#): > > Obama claims that he’s just so brilliant that he doesn’t have to be there Cite? Your phrasing here is so obviously biased that it is weakening the rest of your post. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628/20 "2012-10-13T23:50:08Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > …Why was Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11 if there was credible evidence of an attack there and he was worried about the situation?.. Now, this part bears some scrutiny. From what I’ve been able to gather, Mr Stevens was one of our best and ablest, if he were skilled in combat rather than diplomacy, he would likely have a chestful of medals. He spoke the language and was comfortable amongst the people. What I recall hearing was that he heard of trouble brewing? present? in Bengazi and rushed there out of concern for his subordinates. Now, that might be just post-disaster heroism fluff, I have no way of knowing. I might have thought that ill-advised, adding a high-value target. So for the sake of nagging curiosity if nothing else, I would like to know why he went there, and what he knew when he made his decision. And who else knew such a valuable target was en route. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-bengazi-such-a-big-deal-according-to-republicans/637628.md?page=2)