Add a Comment
- Now we know the name of the man who doesn't want Obama to be reelected and is to testify before congress that he knows first hand that Ambassador Stephens wanted more security in his Consulate.Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, "...in charge of security for U.S. diplomats", "In addition, the State Dept. said Wood was stationed in Tripoli and was not a part of the assessment of security in Benghazi. So Wood says he met with Ambassador Stephens and talked with him about concerns of security but doesn't mention that Stephens also said that he'd like to be ambassador to Iran someday.
Somethings not quite right in Woods story. Seems like he's trying to start an "Iran contra scandal" against Obama so Romney can win in November.
No one blamed Bush for the 9-11 attacks. People blamed Bush for invading two countries when Osama Bin Laden and his co-conspirators could have been eliminated early on with a few special ops teams.
Obama has stated that an investigation into the attack is underway. Does Wood want Obama to invade Libya and other countries where Al Qaeda are located? Didn't we learn that lesson from Bush? It's very costly and the founding father Madison advised against invading another country. Shall Republicans turn a deaf hear to Madison's warning again? - Reply to this comment
- Drip, drip, drip. Blood of our patriots continues to pool on the floor as it drops from the fingers of Obozo and Hillarious.
- Reply to this comment
- Can you just imagine the Media Furor over this incident if Bush were President ?? That is, if the press could take time away from the Fast & Furious Hearings day 457....
- Reply to this comment
- Obama will file "Executive Privilege" like he did with "Fast and Furious" and the investigating committee will not be able to get the records requesting additional security. This is the Chicago Mafia so they know all the tricks and will use them.
- Reply to this comment
- What ever happened to that guy who ran under the promises of transparency and bipartisanship in the last presidential election? I thought he won, but I haven't seen him since the swearing in ceremony.
- Reply to this comment
- It appears our state department was aware of the impending attack and removed some of the security to prevent more of them from being killed. The ambassador and remaining security were sacrificed to appease radical Islam. Obama has really helped the U.S. image abroad. Now they think we are fiscal idiots rather than under Bush - a bunch of cowboys.
- Reply to this comment
- I'm sure MSNBC is all over this story. Trying to blame Bush for it. They are the Freak show at the Carnival of Networks.
- Reply to this comment
- by BishopRobme October 9, 2012 6:11 AM EDT
Stevens wasn't chained to the floor.
He, and his staff, could have evacuated any time they wished.
His fortune would be made by working for the military industrial complex who want to rule the world.
__________________________________
Now the left wants you to believe it was Steven's own fault for being killed.....Priceless.....simply priceless. - Reply to this comment
- YOU, FIRST
walkthetalk said, "... What Mentally Diminished Maroon, would want to open a Branch Bank Embassy,in an Unfriendly Islamic Country, where the Fires of their own Hell! are Still Burning,,,"
--------
The "Hell" you refer to is no hell at all, but the chaotic (and jubilant) aftermath of the Arab Spring political revolution that rid Libya of the hated Quaddafi. Note that no massive American military intervention was involved because the movement had the support of the Libyan people. In fact, legitimate American involvement was deeply appreciated-- for example, Ambassador Stevens was even a local hero for marshaling aid to defend Benghazi against the dictator.
Despite the Benghazi attack, Libya remains a triumphant contrast to Bush's five-year, $3 trillion intervention in Iraq, which cost us 4,400 plus Americans dead and up to 100,000 wounded and crippled for life. Without question, several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians died in a "pre-emptive" war where no threat to American security was ever found.
The United States maintains the Benghazi consulate because we need operations in that area, as Stevens, himself, understood. But Stevens also knew that activity carried risk, and now the task is determining how the security failed, and what can be done to prevent recurrence.
In the aftermath of toppling Quaddafi, the newly-formed Libyan government clearly understood the need to bring all areas under its authority. The Libyan government did provide security for the consulate (several Libyan guards were killed while defending the ambassador). But providing al Qaeda-proof protection is easier said than done. Al Qaeda had all the time it wanted to reconnoiter the consulate and determine its vulnerabilities.
As for never opening a "branch bank", only a diminished-capacity bozo would conclude we must sever relations with all risky countries. But to argue the government or people of Libya is unfriendly is clearly incorrect-- the attack was principally an al Qaeda operation and al Qaeda is no local hero. Recently, the people of Benghazi, outraged by the assassination of Stevens, went by the thousands into the streets successfully to force out the militias, whom they suspect of aiding al Qaeda.
Benghazi and the attack in Egypt mark a new phase in battling al Qaeda. Distinguishing future al Qaeda attacks from local extremists will become difficult, because blending with local politics is al Qaeda's new operational model. Even as al Qaeda's attack on New York City on 911 was staged from a cell in Hamburg, Germany, al Qaeda has global reach and any American business, military base or diplomatic post is a potential target.
But Monday-morning quarterbacking the Benghazi operations involving Stevens and staff is another matter, and an easy target for opportunists who want to score political points. Of course, posting a heavier guard at the consulate is an easy call, but what many overlook is many guards were already present. We cannot open a fortress in an Arab community and call it a diplomatic presence. - Reply to this comment
- Funny how the word "Obama" never appears in this story. If it were Romney, it would be very easy to twist the first few sentences into something like this:
"With just weeks to go to the election, Romney's foreign policy judgment is being denounced by a rising chorus of critics as evidence emerges of a lack of security following the deadly Libyan Embassy attack. Four Americans were killed as a result. Romney has already been taken to task for initially claiming the attacks were due to an anti-Muslim film, only to backtrack weeks later and quietly acknowledge they were acts of terror."
I've seen the same reporting techniques used so many times against Republicans that it's utterly predictable - as much so as sheltering Obama from the same techniques. - Reply to this comment
