While the mainstream media was occupying itself Wednesday decrying Mitt Romney’s forthright reaction to the carnage in Cairo and Benghazi, their putative bellwether, the New York Times, ironically was busy exposing the real story. It’s clear now that if there is a disgrace in what happened at the Benghazi consulate, it has nothing at all to do with Romney and everything to do with our State Department, its chief Hilary Clinton, and her boss Barack Obama.
Here’s the NYT:
The wave of unrest set off by the video, posted online in the United States two months ago and dubbed into Arabic for the first time eight days ago, has further underscored the instability of the countries that cast off their longtime dictators in the Arab Spring revolts. It also cast doubt on the adequacy of security preparations at American diplomatic outposts in the volatile region.
Benghazi, awash in guns, has recently witnessed a string of assassinations as well as attacks on international missions, including a bomb said to be planted by another Islamist group that exploded near the United States Consulate there as recently as June. But a Libyan politician who had breakfast with Mr. Stevens at the mission the morning before he was killed described security as sorely inadequate for an American ambassador in such a tumultuous environment, consisting primarily of four video cameras and as few as four Libyan guards.
“This country is still in transition, and everybody knows the extremists are out there,” said Fathi Baja, the Libyan politician.
I’ll say. Everybody but our State Department, evidently.
A “string of assassinations”… “awash in guns” …planted bomb… something’s wrong here. It borders on criminal negligence, indeed it crosses that border, that Ambassador Stevens would be left with such paltry security in a country so unsettled and riddled with violence as Libya. The fact these events may now be tied to al-Qaeda makes this negligence all the more unconscionable.