Breaking: After June Libyan Consulate Bombing Obama Administration Bragged: “Our Security Worked”
Islamic terrorists attacked the US embassy in Benghazi with rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire on 9-11. The terrorists were reportedly led by Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Gitmo detainee.
Libyans dragged the body of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens out of the compound after his murder. Al- Ahram
After the US Consulate in Benghazi was bombed in June the Obama Administration bragged, “Our security worked!”
Three months later terrorists slaughtered our ambassador.
The Wall Street Journal reported, via Draw and Strike:
State Department officials said security for the consulate was frequently reviewed and was deemed sufficient to counter what U.S. officials considered to be the most likely threat at the time: a limited hit-and-run attack with rocket-propelled grenades or improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.
There was a string of attacks in Benghazi in the months before Sept. 11, including a June 6 IED explosion outside the consulate compound. “These types of incidents were the ones that were our principal concerns,” a senior State Department official said. Based on the outcome of the June 6 attack, in which a perimeter wall was damaged but no Americans hurt, a second State Department official added: “Our security plan worked.”
But, that was before the consulate was torched and the ambassador murdered.
Now the administration says a detachment of US Marines could not have protected the consulate from the terrorist attack.
The Obama administration’s shifting claims on what took place in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11 became more defiant yesterday when unnamed officials suggested that no amount of security would have mattered in Libya, not even a detachment of US Marines. This came on the same day the administration also admitted the assault was a terror attack not a protest gone wrong.
The claim came as part of an investigative report by CNN. Unnamed officials described a pattern of previous attacks in Benghazi as “Stand-off attacks with no follow up.” By contrast, the 9/11 attack was “a whole paradigm shift for which there was no prior intelligence and there was no context to put in related to what was going on.” In other words, we weren’t ready for an attack this big.
Perhaps to emphasize the scale of the attack, an official claimed that even if Marines had been on hand it might not have mattered “More guards, or even a Marine detachment, the officials maintained, could not have curbed the lethal attack.”
Funny how the state-run media has completely ignored this, huh?