Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to me in the rush to politize the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the subsequent death of Ambassador Stevens there is a fundamental question that I would like to know the answer to. If the issue was indeed security then why was the Ambassador even allowed to travel to an unstaffed and interim consulate office in Benghazi instead of staying at the guarded Embassy in Tripoli?
The consulate security, like most of that for the embassy, was largely relying on local, Libyan forces. The "60 man quick response team" was Libyan. Just like Cairo relied on Egyptian security and was overrun. The quick response team showed up in Libya, but as a friend of mine who sales guns often states "when seconds count and help is minutes away..."
We should never leave our embassy officials or any of our people in a country where the local forces are unable to do the job we require be done at every embassy we have in the world. China provides security in china, Germany provides the security there......
But, as I've said many times, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't know this was going to happen, a large insurgent group of terrorists in Libya in a corrdinated attack and a failure of the Libyan forces to show up. But we know now. And it will change security protocols going forward.
No one wanted an attack in Libya. To suggest this was done on purpose is stupid. In my opinion, going forward, we shouldn't open a embassy in a security compromised country.
My fundamental question, who in the **** designed that safe room? The room held up with enough food and water for three days for all the men. Why in the hell didn't they have a secondary oxygen supply? Ambassador Stevens and his security detail didn't die from fire, they suffocated from the smoke.
That doesn't sound like it was designed for every contingency. I bet all embassy and consulate safe rooms are being upgraded now, don't you?
I find it funny that they use the term "diplomatic office".......it was a CIA compound!!
The reason why there is so much finger pointing and haze around details is because the WH can never admit that espionage and covert meddling blew up in their faces.
But, as I've said many times, hindsight is 20/20. We didn't know this was going to happen, a large insurgent group of terrorists in Libya in a corrdinated attack and a failure of the Libyan forces to show up. But we know now. And it will change security protocols going forward.
Hindsight is 20/20. But you can't say "well, we were warned and we should have listened to the experts, to the people that were there", especially under these circumstances. Charlene Lamb is proud that she went to other countries where there was unrest, why didn't she go to Libya to assess the situation first hand, rather than make assessments from her armchair?
The investigation is to learn how security protocols need to be changed, especially what the government needs to do when they have information that puts them on alert where the risk factor is growing and when security is being requested - especially knowing that the country is a hotbed. The investigation is about "where did it go wrong"? Why were the warnings ignored and requests denied? Who made those decisions? Who knew about the decisions that were made? Who knew about the warnings and requests? All of those questions relate to the death of 4 people, not just the Ambassador. If the US decides to to stay in these countries that are nothing but hotbeds then the US should decide if we need to protect our own posts and not rely or comply with other countries to do it.
In spite of being told we are winning the war on terrorism because we killed one well-known terrorist is contrary to what really is happening. We are not winning the war, terrorism is beating us. They are now targeting high profile politicians. The hatred has grown for the US and with that hatred comes a generation that will grow up to harbor that hatred. In Afghanistan terrorists are infiltrating the units that Americans are training - blue on green attacks - and if the US has to stay in Libya eventually you will read about blue on green attacks.
IMO, this is about what can the WH/agencies do to prevent this from happening again in another embassy/consulate somewhere else in the world. What needs to be done to avoid another instance where people may die? It may sound harsh, but the deaths are secondary to the investigation.
It seems to me in the rush to politize the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the subsequent death of Ambassador Stevens there is a fundamental question that I would like to know the answer to. If the issue was indeed security then why was the Ambassador even allowed to travel to an unstaffed and interim consulate office in Benghazi instead of staying at the guarded Embassy in Tripoli?
Allowed? Who's going to stop him? He was the local Commander in Chief, and he traveled because he, like everyone else, knew nothing about the upcoming attack. They only knew there were "security issues", which was pretty much a status quo in a country which just went through a civil war.
It's too bad that instead of coming together to resolve issues, the Republicans use this to score cheap political points and to divide people even further. It's sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
