In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect. Whether it was because the attempted attacks were unsuccessful or because the media simply lost interest, the administration largely escaped serious criticism for making claims that turned out to be wrong. So - embassy guards being unarmed under Reagan means our embassies are "woefully undefended", but under Obama it's avoiding "making the embassies into armed fortresses that might provoke attacks"? You're doing nothing more than absolving Obama of the same negligence you're accusing Reagan of.