Originally Posted by Rochard

You do understand that Syria and Libya are different countries, right?

We are discussing a diplomatic mission in Libya that may or may not have been a CIA front, and this diplomatic mission was attacked by terrorists.

The Republican party keeps harping on this, implying that the Obama administration did something wrong. And I'm not seeing angle other than trying to make the President look bad. The US set up a diplomatic mission in Libya, ok. The diplomatic mission was most likely a CIA front, very common, ok. The diplomatic mission / cia front was most likely signed off by members of Congress of the Republican party, ok. The diplomatic mission was not properly protected, ok (that's most likely the fault of Congress, who decides such funding issues). The diplomatic mission was attacked by a terrorist force, ok.

Where is the problem here? A diplomatic mission (very common) that was a CIA front (very common) was unfunded (very common) and not properly protected (very common) and was attacked by a terrorist group (very common).

The are trying to place blame at the foot of Obama or Clinton (ick!) for a terrorist attack on an embassy in another country... Short of turning every diplomatic mission into a US military base, I'm not sure what else could have been done.