Open questions in the Obama administration's handling of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo

It seems the U.S. embassy was aware of anti-American demonstrations being organized on September 11 and put out the following pre-remptive capitulation to appease the demonstrators:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. … We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

The embassy was attacked, the walls breached, the American flag taken down, burned, and an al-Qaida flag raised in its place.

Questions

1. Why did the ambassador not put out a statement standing up for American values along the lines of This movie does not represent the views of the government of the U.S. nor does it represent the views of the majority of Americans, instead of legitimizing the excuse for organizing a violent demonstration?
2. Did the ambassador inform D.C. of the impending demonstrations?
3. If she did not, why not? If she did, did the administration contact the Egyptian government which has a functioning military and police force at their disposal to emphasize that they are expected to protect the embassy and there will be consequence if they fail?
4. If the administration did not contact the Egyptian government to make sure the embassy was protected, why not? If they did, why did the Egyptian government allow an attack that went on for hours and resulted in what is tantamount to the invasion of U.S. territory?
5. When was the administration in D.C., including top State Department officials and President Obama, notified of the ongoing attack and the intrusion into the embassy grounds?
6. When did the administration in D.C. contact the government of Egypt to ensure that the attack was stopped and demonstrators were repelled? What was the response?

7. According to the Washington Post's timeline:

   About 7:30 p.m. Eastern time (1:30 a.m. in Cairo): The Cairo embassy's Twitter account posts another message, since deleted. News sites like Buzzfeed have said it read: This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.

   Exactly what types of breach of a U.S. embassy are considered justified or justifiable by the Obama administration?

8. When was the embassy secured? When did the Egyptian security forces take action? When were the attackers repelled?
9. Do the Obama administration and the ambassador understand that when the ambassador speaks, she speaks for the United States of America? Her job is to ensure that Egyptian authorities are very clear on the consequences of an attack on U.S. interests and take all precautions, not to apologize for free speech. If the ambassador is unable to get the Egyptian government to prevent a breach of the embassy, has she consider resigning her post?
10. Does the administration consider an attack on an embassy not serious enough to issue a public statement unless someone dies?

These are some of the questions which I thought would have been asked by so-called journalists. After all, I was raised by a decent journalist, who, despite oppressive censorship under military and subsequent militaristic rule in Turkey, never shied away from speaking the truth.

Instead, those so-called journalists have circled the wagons around their favorite candidate, and decided to attack Mitt Romney for daring to speak up. According to the Washington Post timeline, it took almost 12 hours between the time the attackers showed up at the Cairo embassy and Hillary Clinton issued a statement.

According to the same Washington Post timeline, fully 24 hours after the Cairo embassy issued its pre-emptive capitulation, President Obama made a statement regarding the attack in Libya, but did not mention the breach of the embassy in Cairo and desecration of the embassy's flag.

Why did President Obama not mention Egypt at all?

Romney's supposedly controversial statement reads:

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.

It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

Some time later on September 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement, condemning the attack in Libya … again not mentioning the attack in Egypt at all.

As it stands, the only statement by the administration regarding the attacks in Egypt is the pre-emptive capitulation by Ambassador Patterson. Is there no reason to be outraged?

Today, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was attacked. The CBS reports:

All U.S. embassies and diplomatic posts were ordered to increase security measures Wednesday by President Obama, following the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday.

Did the attack in Cairo not happen? I understand no one died there, but it was still a serious attack that could have resulted in casualties, deaths, or a new hostage crisis. Why are the so-called journalists ignoring the attack on the embassy in Cairo?

Is there no reason to be outraged?