A few points for clarity:
1. The right clings to the dishonest claim this was an embassy. It was not. It was not even an official consulate. It was a "mission", i.e., a small U.S. office facility (and apparently a CIA station).
2. According to sworn Congressional testimony, the State Department had already spent over a million dollars (several million, not clear?) to improve security at that facility.
3. Lacking a crystal ball, what constitutes "proper protection" from an attack "unprecedented" in its intensity and duration?
It's easy to armchair quarterback with the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. But, what's the objective, factual basis for insisting the measures already taken were inadequate for the known risk? Do we turn every small facility in a "dangerous" country into a fortress? Where do we draw the line -- and how much are we willing to spend?
Mind you I think it's valid to ask the questions and it's certainly something the Obama administration needs to investigate thoroughly. One would hope the result will be better threat assessments and more effective security world-wide ... balanced by real-world financial constraints. The problem I have with the O'bashers is they aren't just seeking answers. They've already leaped straight to their partisan conclusions. They are screeching assertions they cannot support, e.g., that Obama failed to "provide proper protection".
