The Obama regime pulled security forces out of Libya even as Chris Stevens was asking for increased security before the September 11th attack
Last week Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz sent a letter to Hillary Clinton asking her why repeated requests for increased security in the region prior to September 11th were ignored.
That letter included a list of 13 incidents or attacks which should have provided the Obama regime with enough of a notice that the warnings they received–coupled with the increased security requests from Chris Stevens–before the fatal attacks on September 11th were a legitimate concern.
Yet the Obama regime did nothing in light of all the intelligence to do anything to protect Chris Stevens and now he is dead. Beaten to death after being sodomized. Perhaps if Barack Obama had attended any of his security briefings in the days leading up to September 11th instead of spending all his time campaigning Chris Stevens would be alive, we don’t know. But we do know that for whatever reason the intelligence reports and Chris Stevens’ requests for more security were ignored.
As the Obama regime appears ready to hold an American citizen accountable for the attack on the consulate in Libya for producing a You Tube video they have falsely claimed is responsible for the attack the news gets worse for the Obama regime.
Next week Lt. Col Andy Wood is set to testify in front of the Oversight Committee and it is being reported that he will testify that not only did the Obama regime ignore the requests for increased security in Libya they actually pulled security forces out of the region in the months leading up to the deadly attack.
At this point it would seem that Barack Obama was more concerned with public relations in the Middle East than he was with the safety of American officials in the region and he was unwilling to take the measures necessary to protect American diplomats because he was worried about how this would be perceived in the Middle East. When his policies went bad he did what he does best–deflect the blame–by claiming this attack was the result of a You Tube video when in reality his policies of appeasement led to the death of four Americans.
America's Watchtower 
we can be sure the blame will not fall on Obama. If need be, he will through Hillary or some General under the bus.
LikeLike
Exactly, and she isn’t coming back if Obama is reelected anyway so she seems like the likely candidate to take the fall.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter where the blame falls if this story doesn’t make it to the main stream media, and since the White House owns them I don’t see this happening. Why aren’t the Republicans hammering this story? When are they going to attack this incredibly weak President?
LikeLike
The Republicans seem to be giving him a pass on this as well, although an investigation will be opened this week it is not enough. They should be all over the television with this story to the point where the media will have to cover it.
LikeLike
The foreign policy debate should be quite interesting.
LikeLike
Hopefully Romney can take it to him in this debate also, Obama will fall back on bin Laden every chance he gets.
LikeLike
I know the media is in Obama’s back pocket, but one would think a story like this would get its media legs, in spite of that. Like Fast and Furious, there is more than ample evidence of lies from the Obama administration about how they were handling the situation in Libya. They deliberately ignored warnings that something was about to happen. As a result, Ambassador Stevens and others were killed. Someone should be held accountable and as Obama is so fond of saying, the buck stops with him. How he can still be close to Romney in the polls is beyond my comprehension.
LikeLike
Some of the blame for the lack of coverage has to fall on the Republicans as well, they should be out there every chance they get demanding answers and making it impossible for the media to ignore.
LikeLike
The more I read about this, the more sick I get. To pull over 30-36 security individuals out within the month, before and then to say “they would not have been able to handle what happened”, is pure crap. From what I see, they were pleading for better protection. What I do NOT understand is if the protection was not there, why would the Ambassador have gone there? Was he told something that we are not aware of? Was he told that he was protected and had a false sense of security? We know they are doing damage control on this, probably working overtime on this one.
LikeLike
That is a question I have been asking myself as well Lou, why was Stevens there in the first place if he knew how dangerous it was? ALmost sounds like he was set up.
LikeLike
Apparently he was asking for more security, as well. So, the question remains, why he went back there, unless he was assured it was safe for him to be there. If this is the case, there is alot of explaining to do. Set up, indeed!
LikeLike
I have read that he was practically begging for more security and it was denied yet he was still there, it does make you wonder…..
LikeLike
Another point that Romney can use to eviscerate the Moron in Chief…
LikeLike
And I hope he does it at the next debate!
LikeLike
TFred, we will see if he has it in him to bring it out during the debate.
LikeLike
I think he will, but then again he came out strong at first and then backed down when the media attacked him so we just won’t know for sure until the debate.
LikeLike
The GOP can be out there but if the media doesn’t cover their statements it means nothing. We are hearing nothing about the House investigation.
LikeLike
True, but the GOP needs to get out there and make it impossible for the media to ignore, although they will do their best to ignore it anyway.
LikeLike
Agree. The next debates should clear the path.
LikeLike
I hope so.
LikeLike