Over the top on Benghazi

Without doubt, the attack on our mission in Benghazi was a bad thing last year.   Of course, we didn't have adequate security.   As I understand it, there were two reasons for that:  (1)  Republicans had cut the budget and they didn't have enough security troops in the region;  and (2) the State Department didn't want to make our military presence so obvious there in Libya.

So when the attack came, the closest special ops troops were 1600 miles away, and they could not have gotten there before it was all over.

Hindsight is always so wonderful, especially when you're in the opposition and when you're trying to paint the Obama/Clinton foreign service team as weak and insufficiently militant (I'm talking about McCain, Graham, et al).

And, yes, they were a bit muddled in getting the talking points decided on.  Why wasn't it legitimate to put a spin on it to try to keep Republicans from distorting it for their hawkish purposes?   But talking about impeaching President Obama because of who said what on a Sunday morning talk show??   Claiming that this is his "Watergate"???    Come on.

It's tragic that some of our valuable foreign service people died.   But it's a hazardous profession, and Libya was a powder keg.   I'm not taking these deaths lightly, but you can't be in this war zone and not run risks.   If we had had a fortified bunker type mission there, what effects would that have had in inflaming the opposition?

Let's face it.   This is maybe 15% legitimate concerns that are being investigated -- and about 85% politics.   They're forever trying to diminish Obama.   And they're trying to smear Hillary Clinton to discourage her from running in 2016 -- or else to damage her politically.  They must really be frightened that she will run.

Ralph