• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments

Grant said:
Inside or outside, where was the security??? Where were the Marines? This is just another distraction to COA.
Click to expand...

The Marines were inside the compound; where they were supposed to be. No embassy anywhere has ever been staffed to fend off a mob of 400 people which, aside from international law, is why we rely on host countries to provide security for the perimeter of our embassy and consulate compounds. Its not a distraction; its a fact. The Libyan security forces were responsible for protecting the perimeter of the consulate compound and they failed miserably.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
The Marines were inside the compound; where they were supposed to be. No embassy anywhere has ever been staffed to fend off an attack force of 400 people which, aside from international law, is why we rely on host countries to provide security for the perimeter of our embassy and consulate compounds. Its not a distraction; its a fact. The Libyan security forces were responsible for protecting the perimeter of the consulate compound and they failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Despite warnings they were not adequately prepared, and that is a fact.
 
Grant said:
Despite warnings they were not adequately prepared, and that is a fact.
Click to expand...

Adequately prepared for what? There was nothing actionable about the intelligence received by the Obama Administration; only vague whispers that something might happen somewhere in the Middle East. There were no specific warnings concerning the consulate in Benghazi. No embassy is ever prepared to deal with a mob of 400 people and a host nation with security forces that cut and run at the first sign of trouble. If the Libyan security forces had done their duty then the Ambassador would be alive and there wouldn't be a dozen threads packed with cheap shots at the President for an event no one could foresee.
 
apdst said:
Security assets will be degraded if thrre are deep defense cuts.
Click to expand...


Exactly. We should just close all our embassies if there are cuts to the defense budget.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I'm warning everyone that something might happen in the world tomorrow. If Obama doesn't step up (somehow) and stop it, whatever happens, wherever, will be on him.

DON'T DROP THE BALL, MR. PRESIDENT!!
Click to expand...

If anyone had any notion that you had any credibility, then someone might take some notice of your warning.
 
Grant said:
Your relying on Libyans to protect American lives?

Why can't Americans protect their own?
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, the MSGs are NOT there to protect the American employees, but to protect the classified information. Don’t get me wrong, the MSGs will certainly help you if they can but that is not their primary mission and they are not manned for it. And not all embassies have MSGs. Per the Geneva Convnetion, the security of an embassy or consulate is largely in the hands of the host government. Evacuations or draw downs usually occur when the embassy no longer has confidence in the host country’s ability to provide adequate security.

Second, the number of personnel an embassy or consulate can have is capped by the host country. For every additional MSG you add you would have to eliminate the position of a Foreign Service Officer or other attache, you know, the people who are actually doing the intended work of an embassy or consulate.

This has very little, if anything at all, to do with the DoD budget.
 
It's silly to blame the president. There are scores of people down the line who are directly responsible for security. Furthermore the country concered should have stepped up security ages ago. The government here provides the highest security for american intestests here. We are are prime terrorist target here.
 
RDS said:
It's silly to blame the president. There are scores of people down the line who are directly responsible for security. Furthermore the country concered should have stepped up security ages ago. The government here provides the highest security for american intestests here. We are are prime terrorist target here.
Click to expand...

The buck stops at the President...not at one of the scores of underlings. Plus, don't you think you are asking a bit too much of Libya? Heck, they can't provide for their OWN security...how can you expect them to provide for ours? And, obviously, the Ambassador's "highest security for American interests" wasn't quite good enough, don't you think?
 
With all due respect to the Obamites in this thread, you're right, there probably wasn't a warning that said "Be prepared! At xxxx time we think you will be attacked by individuals with guns and RPG's who intend to kill you." Those kind of messages generally don't show up outside of Hollywood.

However, it should have been pretty doggone clear to anyone with half a brain that after taking out al-Libi there was going to be some payback and that the payback was going to include death and mayhem. Under those circumstances our diplomatic corps folk can do any number of things. They can leave for safer territory. They can ask for more security from the US or they can ask for more security from the host nation. Our FSO's chose #3.

There are a lot of reasons to choose #3. Among those reasons is to show confidence in the host nation....to make them feel good about themselves and let them know that you feel good about them. Unfortunately, one of the problems with #3 is that quite often the security forces of the host nation are filled with people who don't necessarily have our best interests in mind. Intel services LOVE to go after embassy security because of the potential for tactical "insights".

Terrorists also have intel services and those operators function pretty much like the state sponsored ones except that in the case of bloodthirsty jihadi's they also usually have designs on blowing stuff up and killing lots of people. Those folks also generally don't give a rats rectum about how good we feel about them and as far as feeling better about themselves.......these are the people that feel better about themselves when they strap a vest full of Semtex and 16 penny nails to themselves and blow themselves up in a "glorious" explosion which takes out dozens of innocent bystanders.


The whole problem happened because the administration was pushing an agenda in the middle east based on visions of rainbows and dancing teddy bears instead of recognition of a growing movement to unify the entire area into the next caliphate.
 
Mycroft said:
Ummm...

What's your point? What does McCain's thoughts have to do with mine?
Click to expand...

Planning dont take days or weeks. May take months. You can have the tightest security at Afgan bases or elsewhere but can u totally prevent a terrorist strike?
 
RDS said:
Planning dont take days or weeks. May take months. You can have the tightest security at Afgan bases or elsewhere but can u totally prevent a terrorist strike?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying one can totally prevent a terrorist strike, but if you have credible warning, would you put an Ambassador in the line of fire? Without adequate security?

Sounds like a dumb move to me.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh, I'm not saying one can totally prevent a terrorist strike, but if you have credible warning, would you put an Ambassador in the line of fire? Without adequate security?

Sounds like a dumb move to me.
Click to expand...

Not that there was lack of security. Investigations revealed that there was a security breach.
 
RDS said:
Not that there was lack of security. Investigations revealed that there was a security breach.
Click to expand...

Could you provide a link to these investigations?

Not that I'm doubting you...I just haven't heard of any such reports.
 
RDS said:
Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent
Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting article...considering it was written on Friday and cites "American officials", " senior diplomatic sources", " senior officials" and " security sources" without any further identification. In spite of all of those "official" sources, the Obama administration still contends this was not a coordinated attack and was only the result of that video.

The only problem I have with this article is the contention of a " serious and continuing security breach". There is no real information in the article to support that contention. I guess we'll have to wait for more information about that.

Now, me personally? I think this article is correct. It supports what I've stated all along.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, that's an interesting article...considering it was written on Friday and cites "American officials", " senior diplomatic sources", " senior officials" and " security sources" without any further identification. In spite of all of those "official" sources, the Obama administration still contends this was not a coordinated attack and was only the result of that video.
Click to expand...

This coming from a guy who believes a random blog that could have been written by anyone that marines had no bullets even after the Pentagon said the story was false...

You truly are becoming the worst hypocrite in this sites history.

You're so transparent... but please keep going.

It amuses me.
 
Mycroft said:
If anyone had any notion that you had any credibility, then someone might take some notice of your warning.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't, because there's a cacophony of warnings every day, and specifics are needed.
 
apdst said:
Security assets will be degraded if thrre are deep defense cuts. That and current evemts make it our patriotic duty to question the motives of the guy in charge.
Click to expand...

Wait...aren't the defense cuts the result of a Congressional "compromise" because....well they couldn't really compromise on the debt ceiling deal? Now it's Obama's cuts?

So Republicans take the US to the brink on the debt ceiling for a silly sequestration deal and now they throw up their hands and bemoan the sequestration? You guys have really gone bonkers.
 
Obama is directly responsible for there not being enough security based on a vague and unrelated warning to other people?
 
iliveonramen said:
Wait...aren't the defense cuts the result of a Congressional "compromise" because....well they couldn't really compromise on the debt ceiling deal? Now it's Obama's cuts?

So Republicans take the US to the brink on the debt ceiling for a silly sequestration deal and now they throw up their hands and bemoan the sequestration? You guys have really gone bonkers.
Click to expand...

He's in charge. He wants the cuts. He owns it. Deal with it.
 
MadLib said:
Obama is directly responsible for there not being enough security based on a vague and unrelated warning to other people?
Click to expand...

Actually, he's directly responsible for deciding that the warnings were vague and unrelated. He is directly responsible for the decision that these warnings were "unactionable" and for the decision to take no action.

You must understand...even if you don't want to accept it...that the buck stops with him.
 
apdst said:
He's in charge. He wants the cuts. He owns it. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Congress controlls the purse strings....budgets are origionated in the House. It's one thing to criticize the President for what he does but to criticize the President for a sequestration hatched by Congress and due to a silly debt ceiling debate pushed by Congress is overboard.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, he's directly responsible for deciding that the warnings were vague and unrelated. He is directly responsible for the decision that these warnings were "unactionable" and for the decision to take no action.

You must understand...even if you don't want to accept it...that the buck stops with him.
Click to expand...

He was the person who received the warning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom