Ned Flanders wrote:No, unfortunately, it's very clear: Obama and his gang tried, for weeks, to pin this attack on a non-existent "protest" and bogus video even when they clearly knew it was a planned terrorist attack that they had been warned about--9/11 duh.
Ah, Ned is pointing out that Bush was to blame for 9/11 due to their previous warnings about bin Laden's intention to attack US targets. Oh wait, I think actually Clinton was to blame for that. But not Hillary, she's a hero for throwing Obama "under the bus". I'm still trying to get all of the talking points lined up, Ned.
So your assertion is that the State Department's normalization policy in Libya led directly to the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador? And, logically, that policy came directly from Obama (which I actually consider completely plausible).
Question: do you blame the President for each and every death that occurs in the military? Might some decisions about security detail be decided by people further along the chain of command? Perhaps even non-appointed career State Department employees?
I get "the buck stops here". In fact, I tend to agree with it. But aren't there times when "the buck stops here" means simply that you intend to hold people accountable for their mistakes? And hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to say there was a mistake now that there are four people dead, including an ambassador, but does that necessarily mean that the normalization policy was incorrect at the time? Well-intentioned, bad results?
Surely you don't consider the ability to see the future as a job prerequisite for the President or State Department employees.