The Benghazi attack killed four people, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and injured ten others. Although at the time, the motive of the attack seemed to be unclear, a U. S. State Department investigation found the attack to be premeditated and carried out by Islamist militants.
There has been much controversy around how the United States, specifically the Department of State of President Obama responded to the attacks. A Congressional investigation found more than twelve violent events during six months prior to the attack, and stated in their report that, “these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security at the compound.” Yet, the Department of State ignored or denied requests from Benghazi for more guards at the compound and a security upgrade. In addition, President Obama received much criticism regarding how he categorized the attack, with some news stations reporting he said the attack was a spontaneous protest that got out of hand, rather than a premeditated terror attack, while others said he was not forceful enough in denouncing terror.
The investigation as to who knew what and when did they know it, is currently underway. Some say that foreign diplomats know and understand the risks they are taking when they are posted to embassies in dangerous locations. In other words, it comes with the job, much like the military. Others say this is a massive government cover-up that may derail President Obama’s second term. So my question to you this week involves a little research. First, spend a little time getting to know more about the attack and the foregoing investigation. Then tell me, “What do you think about how the U.S. handled it? Is it a massive cover-up, or is the media making too much of the story? What should the United States have done differently?” Answers are due no later than Wednesday, June 5th, 2013.