Several months before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, the BBC reported that the International Red Cross withdrew from the country. The headline read, “Libya: Red Cross Pulls out of Benghazi Fearing Attack.”

Following an attempt on the British ambassador’s life and an assessment by British Intelligence that there was increasing hostility and anti-American sentiment in Benghazi, Britain made the decision to pull all staff from Benghazi two months before the murder of our four U.S. citizens.

If the British Intelligence was fully aware of the dangers present in the country, and pulled their personnel out, why were our people left there to perish? It’s even more troublesome when we know that British Intelligence and the CIA work closely together, and the CIA must have known what the situation was like there on the ground, too. If our people were not pulled out of Benghazi as others were, it appears to me to be a case of gross negligence, incompetence, or both.

However, perhaps there is another reason. If we had taken our people out, it would have required admission on someone’s part that Libya has not been normalized or that al-Qaida is not on the path to defeat. This would have been hard to explain just before an election.

At the time, both President Obama and Vice President Biden denied knowing of any request for more security in Benghazi. This is hard to believe when CBS found that someone in the chain of command should have known. They interviewed Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret, who headed a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya.

We heard his testimony stating that one month before the attack his team and the last of three SWAT State Department teams were removed from Libya. Col. Wood also reported that he and Ambassador Stevens had requested more security. The Regional Security Officer had also requested enhanced or continued security. All people on the ground knew of the increased danger and recognized the need for more, as he put it, “enhanced and continued security,” but instead, “We were told we’ve got to do with less,” Wood said. Three days after the attack, CNN was able to be on the scene and found proof to substantiate Col. Wood’s allegations. One of CNN’s reporters found one of Ambassador Steven’s journals that confirmed he was concerned about the security situation. Finally, there was also a classified cable from the Benghazi Consulate dated Aug. 15, which warned that the consulate could not defend itself against a “coordinated attack.”

Now, what about the backup called for by the Navy Seals at the time of the attack? Leon Panetta has said, “The basic principle is you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on — without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” With a Predator Drone over the consulate transmitting video in real-time of the entire attack, what’s not to know about what was taking place?

This was an act of war on our sovereign land in Benghazi. A military leader, which includes our commander in chief, should know he or she has to be able to respond by making adjustments as conditions warrant.

Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t have a drone flying over the beaches of Normandy to know exactly what to expect, yet he ordered the attack. There is another great difference and that is he had written two letters, one of which would be released after the attack on D-Day, depending on the outcome of the invasion. If it was a success, one letter gave all the praise to the soldiers for that success. The second letter stated, “If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.” Gen. Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme Commander, exhibited the ultimate in leadership by being ready to take all responsibility for failure, if the mission failed. Where do we find such leadership chronicled in what happened in Benghazi where it seems nobody wants to step up and exhibit the same kind of leadership and accountability? I guess I can understand that Gen. Eisenhower was not facing an election.

President Obama was very willing to receive accolades that were bestowed upon him for the success of eliminating Osama bin Laden but not willing to step forth and accept responsibility for the failures in Benghazi. Instead, he placed the blame on the reaction to a video, which is protected under the First Amendment, and spent weeks repeating such misleading information. This was bad enough but taxpayer money was used to take out advertisements apologizing to the Arab World. Of course, we must be sorry that our Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment — right? However, I must be careful or the president may tell me as he told Mitt Romney in one of the debates, that I have offended him for questioning his actions. The American people should be the ones offended by such inaccurate if not untruthful rhetoric regarding a video.

It is appropriate to call attention to the fact that regardless of everything put forth by President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, the Libyan president, Mohammed el-Megarif, was simultaneously reporting on CBS News with Bob Schieffer’s “Face the Nation” that the attacks were preplanned and predetermined to coincide with the 9/11 date.

What is offensive is that the president’s staff knew through real-time video surveillance what was happening and did nothing but watch as those brave men at the consulate were being murdered. On top of this, Hillary or one of her staff turned down numerous requests for more adequate protection. It’s offensive that, even after the attack began, support that was standing, at the ready, was not utilized to provide assistance. Since the former Seals that rushed to the consulate when they heard the attack taking place were equipped with Ground Laser Designators, then the air support which they had requested could have, with pin-point accuracy, decimated the mortars that killed the two Navy Seals.

It’s offensive when we learn that others were pulling out of Benghazi and we did not find it prudent to do the same. It is also offensive when some may say they did not want to invade sovereign Libyan territory. I don’t remember this prohibiting the president giving the order to cross into Pakistan’s sovereign territory to kill bin Laden. Besides, the Benghazi consulate is United States sovereign territory.

We know this was never about a video. If we can eliminate the video as a possible reason for the attack, how do we describe this disaster? Was it incompetence, negligence, a disregard for the truth, or could it be described as something even more nefarious like another Fast and Furious on steroids or an Iran-Contra Affair cover-up? The truth may lie somewhere in the answer as to why there was a Turkish diplomat having dinner with Ambassador Stevens on the evening of the attack.

The American people, particularly the parents, and loved ones of those who lost their lives deserve to know the truth. It has now been almost four months since this unnecessary, preventable, incident. Is there something to the saying, “Obama called the Seals and they got bin Laden — when the Seals called Obama they were denied?”

Still is a resident of Kalispell.