Originally Posted by TonyR
Take it up with the "two government officials" who said this, not me. And, nobody said it was "his fault". The point here is that we don't know all the facts and that you shouldn't run around placing blame until we have them. Which we probably never will. And how interesting that you're so quick to blame Obama but don't like when the possibility that others may be at fault come up.
I don't think anyone's worked overtime blaming Obama directly, other than maybe for his absentminded professor's version of "Smart Power"
But you've essentially propped up one side of the story while completely ignoring the other...
One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.
“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy.
You cite one source who says someone outside Stevens' Chain of Command asked if he could use some help.
Meanwhile the article cites two other sources, one who thinks the State Department was sandbagging security requests in Libya because of political concerns, and another who outright says the Embassy was told not to request more security.
Your argument would be akin to saying "Hey, if any higher-ups ordered some dirty prisoner treatment at Gitmo... it ain't no thang. Don't sweat it. The guys at the prison couldda just refused.
As with all of these scandals, a good indication of how far up things go is who, and how many people get ****canned. If people who clearly did something wrong appear to be getting protected, you know it's because they likely know who else they could take down with them.