A security breakdown in Benghazi

Washington Post ^ | November 12, 2012 | The Editorial Board

[Oldeconomybuyer]

... The Pentagon and CIA accounts describe a reaction to the attack that, while inadequate, was the best that could be mustered. Even if so, that leaves the question of why the various agencies were not better prepared for such an emergency, given the clear warnings. Did the Obama administration’s political preoccupation with maintaining a light footprint in Libya lead to an ill-considered reliance on local militias, rather than on U.S. forces? Given the region’s instability, why were no military rapid-reaction assets — such as Special Forces or armed drones — within reach of Northern Africa?

While the agencies separately defend themselves — or not — the White House appears determined to put off any serious discussion of Benghazi until after the election. Sooner or later, however, the administration must answer questions about what increasingly looks like a major security failure — and about the policies that led to it.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

More tripe from Volkischer Beobachter.

[DoughtyOne]

Fox’s aggressive reporting, though undercut by blustery and often scurrilous commentary, nevertheless seems to have prompted the CIA and Pentagon to provide reporters with their accounts of Sept. 11 — even as the State Department and the White House insist that all should await the official investigation results.

The Washington Post is so full of crap it doesn't even have room for itself in there any longer.

And frankly, that's actually an improvement.

[TigersEye]

The Pentagon and CIA accounts describe a reaction to the attack that, while inadequate, was the best that could be mustered.

That is absurd.

[Steely Tom]

More tripe from Volkischer Beobachter.

Funny/True!