"If the host country will not or cannot protect foreign diplomats, then the physical security measures mandated by security standards can do little more than provide slight delay -- which is what they are designed to do. No physical security measures can stand up to a prolonged assault. If a militant group armed with heavy weaponry is permitted to attack a diplomatic facility for hours with no host government response -- as was the case in Benghazi -- the attack will cause considerable damage and likely cause fatalities despite the security measures in place." —
The Benghazi Report and the Diplomatic Security Funding
"Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi 'consulate' was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.
So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.
This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA. In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan [sic —
wanting?] because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing. From a bureaucratic perspective, it may have seemed like the best possible solution at the time. From a political perspective, it turned out to be a disaster" — "
An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight,"
Washington Post, May 10, 2013
