badgenome said:
theprof00 said:

ACtually there was

"You have to remember," Mr. Lorenzi elaborates, "that in 2001, hijacking an airplane didn't mean the same thing as it did after September 11. At the time, it implied forcing a plane to land at an airport to conduct negotiations. We were used to dealing with that."

Besides that, is it really reasonable to compare protecting one singular consulate that was known to have security concerns with keeping every single flight from being hijacked?

Interesting, I don't rememebr any outrage against Bush or State Department when US embassies and consulates in danger zones were attacked under Bush several times. Attacks in Karachi, Pakistan (2002, 12 dead), Islamabad, Pakistan (2003, 2 dead), Saudi Arabia (2004, 9 dead), Karachi again (2006, 2 dead), Damascus, Syria (2006, 4 dead), Yemen (2008, 2 dead), Yemen again (2008, 16 dead). 

XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb