Government did not react to threats

Cassie Sullivan and Cassie Sullivan

In American government history, there is an understanding that the government knows more than it actually let on.

Did Roosevelt know that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941? The evidence shows that he did, as he had most of the warships besides the ones that they were about to retire leave the harbor.

Did Bush know that 9/11 would happen? While the American government did not take bin Laden seriously, it is believed by some that the president had full knowledge that al-Qaeda was going to attack and he allowed it to happen.

The government knows more than it is letting on and for what reason? Is it to keep American morale strong or is it considered just a need-to-know topic that they only discuss when attacks happen and the government is caught unprepared? But the current question is: did American officials know whether or not there was going to be an attack on the American consulate last month? Mixed news stories have been published about if American officials knew that there would be an attack on the consulate.

Reports were saying that there was no credible intelligence on an impending attack last month. News reports have been addressing it as a terrorist attack, but not exactly accusing any terrorist organizations or groups in particular, even though the attack seemed to be at the hands of al-Qaeda.

The attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi were described as “spontaneous” and weren’t the product of the “Innocence of Muslim” video that sparked the protests throughout the rest of the Middle East. At first, all reports were trying to put the now two separate events together.

The American ambassador to the United Nations said that it was in result of the protesting in the other countries, while other state officials countered the statement, saying “That was not our conclusion.”

Congressional hearings on how the situation was handled by the Department of State started on Oct. 11. The main focus of the hearing was to learn why the Department of State denied or ignored the requests for more security, even though it was becoming more and more dangerous. The reason why the Department of State turned down the requests was that the department wanted to convey a state of normalization throughout Benghazi and limiting the presence of security was one way to achieve such normality, even though it was reported that Benghazi was becoming more and more dangerous.

Obama’s foreign policy during the past four years has been both good and bad, depending on whichever viewpoint is taken.

As scheduled, the war in Iraq has ended along with the troops in Afghanistan coming home. His approach to Libya in 2011 saved time, troops, money and the highlight of the past four years has been that Osama bin Laden was killed during Obama’s administration. But while there are the strong aspects, there are not-so-strong aspects, such as the current affairs in Libya and the standing of nuclear weapons in Iran.

Right now, Obama is under attack by the Republicans about the reaction to the situation in Libya. But now, the focus on if Obama’s administration knew about the attacks on the embassy has been shifted to other matters at hand about the events that left four Americans dead.

Because of the deaths and the fact that America allowed another attack to happen will stop the government from officially declaring that they were aware of the possible threats.

The technology is there to prevent such attacks from happening, but America keeps playing hide and seek with the truth — does the government know when to suspect an attack?

Even with technology, there is always false information that they would be chastised for wasting resources on.

Respond to Cassie at

[email protected]