“That still doesnt explain or excuse the fact that from day one Obama and Clinton knew this was a coordinated terrorist attack and not a spontaneous uprising in response to a video”
It kind of does explain it.
The excuse being - we couldn’t tell you that they targeted a CIA operation so we are going to make up some BS as cover.
After watching the full hearing yesterday, I believe Chaffetz knows quite a bit of what happened since he went to Benghazi. He probably talked to CIA there.
He is clearly upset.
Notice that Lamb said that it wasn’t money that kept them from providing more security.
In the murky world of intelligence- it is possible that the CIA told them not to bring in more of a presence because it would thwart some plan.
I don’t know if that happened...but it is possible.
Your version has merit, but I believe the reason they didn’t provide more security was ideological and not logistical. Bolton was pointing to this on Greta last night. They wanted to entrust the security to Libyans.
Your take on blaming the video is very plausible.
I’m sure there are many ways to beef up security without it being obvious. It would be pretty crappy if the Ambassador and three other men ended up being collateral damage to cover up a CIA operation. If so, we really need to take some lessons from Mossad.