No. They weren’t. But some people have difficulty making the distinction and do not realize that spies and those who work for spy agencies often do not have anyone to bail them out of sticky situations and that the public rarely hears about such events. We never would have heard about this if an ambassador had not been involved. Since an ambassador was involved, the president should have done everything to rescue all of the Americans in the line of fire that night. But it appears no one was thinking about the fallout of having four dead Americans including an ambassador. Maybe things would have been different if the ambassador had been taken out of the burning/smoke-filled building and taken to the annex/spookhouse.
There are so many questions about that night and the lead up to that night. Little security. Security taken away. No equipment for the ambassador and Sean Smith to be able to deal with fire or smoke within the safe room or whatever it’s called. No adequate escape plan. Etc. Why did our president have our ambassador and state department employees in Benghazi with such inadequate protection? I am sure all four of the men who died knew of the risks involved.
Americans do not like it when their own government gives them the Baghdad Bob treatment. The preposterous video story was laughable. Do we have no one more creative to come up with an adequate explanation for a bunch of radical Muslims attacking a US mission housing a US ambassador with inadequate security and with a bunch of spies living there and even more spies living a mile or so away? But the executive branch is not informing the American people what our objectives are in the Middle East. Are we spreading freedom? What is the end game?
If “The US SEALs” weren’t involved, then we need to quit reporting that they were.
One of the four was an Air Force veteran but we don’t keep reporting that the “US Air Force” was there, because of him.