Originally Posted by Rochard

So let me see if I understand you correctly.... You mean to tell me that the CIA was using the Embassy as a cover? Wow, surprise. I mean, I didn't see that coming a mile away.

I'm just gonna guess... Just throwing this out there..... The US and various allies used the CIA and other resources to move weapons into the country to help over throw Gaddafi. I'm guessing the State Department knew about it, The CIA, US Military forces in the area, The White House, AND CONGRESS all knew about it. The White House told us we didn't have "boots on the ground" in Libya - which means US military forces - but of course the CIA was knee deep there.

I going to go out on a limb here - I'm guessing the CIA is knee deep in Syria as well.

So then why are certain members of Congress going after the State Department asking them why we didn't have better security there? We all know the answer - Short of stationing a company of heavily armed US Marines, you will never be able to protect an embassy in a foreign country against an attack with hundreds of men in trucks armed with mounted machine guns.

If the CIA was operating in the area - and obviously they were because one of the buildings attacked was a CIA building - Then Congress already knew about it and authorized it.

I don't care about Clinton - I honestly don't. She's out of here and I pray she doesn't run for President in four years. But this is nothing more than Congress trying to bitch smack people around for no reason.