There is increasing evidence that the Obama administration has been less than forthcoming about what they knew about the security situation in Libya. According to several reports, not only did the Obama administration ignore concerns that were brought to their attention about increased terrorist activity in Libya, they reacted completely opposite of how we might expect our government to react, given the information they were given. Instead of increasing security, they decreased the number of security personnel. This, according to what Lt. Col. Andy Wood is expected to tell the House Oversight Committee.
(Breitbart) Lt. Col Andy Wood will go before the House Oversight committee this week to tell them there were 13 “threats or attacks” on U.S. officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the Benghazi consulate. He will also tell them he worried about the safety of U.S officials in Libya from the time of his arrival there in February, but every time he expressed his concerns to the State Dept. they brushed his words aside.
The State Dept. has already responded to what Wood will say by claiming there was a “constant conversation” between the Site Security Team and the State Dept. Yet this is countered by Wood’s supporters, who say the State Dept. not only pulled Wood’s 16 member security team out, but 18 other U.S. security team members (from other teams) as well.
As I have already alluded to in this post, I realize there are some things our government does that we probably have no need to know. However, I become concerned when our government actively ignores recommendations it has been given about the security of our citizens, overseas or here at home. That seems to be what has happened with President Obama and his administration. Some may say that is unfair criticism, that Obama and his team of advisers were trying to see the big picture of the entire region. To that, I would respond with a question. How is it unfair to question a President who has so little concern about these events that he would skip the majority of his national security briefings, preferring to read them on his iPod? I think it is a perfectly legitimate line of questioning and one that should be pursued. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why has his administration continued to deny what the facts have told us about what happened in Libya to result in the deaths of four Americans?
Mitt Romney will be giving a major foreign policy speech this morning and according to Fox News, he will be challenging President Obama’s current course of action in the Middle East. He is right to do so and should continue that challenge on October 16, when he will face Obama in another debate, focusing on foreign policy.
“The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East — a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century,” Romney will say, according to speech experts provided by the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign.
“I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope,” Romney continues. “But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds.”
I am sure the media will be questioning why Mitt Romney is challenging President Obama on his policies in the Middle East. I say he needs to continue that challenge and possibly become even more aggressive in his questions of Obama on Thursday night. Sooner or later, one would think Obama would run out of lies to spout and places to hide from his record. Sooner or later, the truth will be known and it likely will not favor the current resident of the White House.