• 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

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
101,179
Reaction score
45,138
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And America was warned.

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.
More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments - CNN.com

So. Americans knew beforehand and did nothing.

And...afterward, the State Department actually DID something:

OSAC report from 5 days before the attacks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...g-deadly-9-11-consulate-attacks/osac-threats/

OSAC report after the attacks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...wing-deadly-9-11-consulate-attacks/osac-gone/

Obama is using every trick he can come up with...and rightly so...to save his re-election bid. I don't think it's going to work.
 
And America was warned.



So. Americans knew beforehand and did nothing.

And...afterward, the State Department actually DID something:

OSAC report from 5 days before the attacks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...g-deadly-9-11-consulate-attacks/osac-threats/

OSAC report after the attacks: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...wing-deadly-9-11-consulate-attacks/osac-gone/

Obama is using every trick he can come up with...and rightly so...to save his re-election bid. I don't think it's going to work.

While Barrack O'Carter will point his finger at Mitt Romney from the stage in Las Vegas or on The Pimp With A Limp radio show.

This is the importance this incompetent attaches to the problems in the Middle East. He's not even leading from behind anymore. He's become his own sideshow.

The only thing he's learned in the last four years is how to lower his voice and put on a scowl when pretending to be serious.
 
It is very sad to politicize the murder of an ambassador. To say that a vague warning about security concerns somehow constitutes "knowing" that a mob would attack the consulate and launch a rocket propelled grenade into the compound is ludicrous. If fingers have to be pointed then start pointing them in the right direction; the Libyan security forces for failing in their obligation under international law to protect foreign embassies and consulates.
 
It is very sad to politicize the murder of an ambassador. To say that a vague warning about security concerns somehow constitutes "knowing" that a mob would attack the consulate and launch a rocket propelled grenade into the compound is ludicrous. If fingers have to be pointed then start pointing them in the right direction; the Libyan security forces for failing in their obligation under international law to protect foreign embassies and consulates.

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.
 
It is very sad to politicize the murder of an ambassador. To say that a vague warning about security concerns somehow constitutes "knowing" that a mob would attack the consulate and launch a rocket propelled grenade into the compound is ludicrous. If fingers have to be pointed then start pointing them in the right direction; the Libyan security forces for failing in their obligation under international law to protect foreign embassies and consulates.

Anything but lay the blame where it belongs...with Obama and the State Department. They both failed.

Look, if one of your allies warns you that something is going to happen, what do you do? Sit on it? Think about it? Or do you relay the warning? If the Ambassador got the warning, what was he doing in a very lightly defended location? And why did the State Department feel the need to alter their own intelligence reports?

This whole thing stinks. And Obama and Hillary are doing everything they can to get out from under it.
 
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.

That is nonsense. The last time the GAO was actually able to perform an audit of DOD expenditures they found that the military can't even account for 25% of what it spends. If they don't know what they're spending it on then they don't need it and military spending should not be considered a sacred cow while the DOD tosses hundreds of billions of dollars into a black hole. There is no patriotic duty to question the motives of a sitting President in this matter; only a deeply partisan one it would seem.


Look, if one of your allies warns you that something is going to happen, what do you do? Sit on it? Think about it? Or do you relay the warning? If the Ambassador got the warning, what was he doing in a very lightly defended location?

Vague statements from local security officials like 'I have security concerns' is hardly actionable intelligence and it was told directly to the ambassador who obviously chose to remain at the consulate in Benghazi. It is the responsibility of the host country to provide adequate security for embassies and consulates within their territory. It is not the responsibility of the President to violate international law by throwing a bunch of marines around without the permission of the host country and without any idea of what or who that local security official is talking about. We don't even know if the ambassador relayed that message to Washington so it would probably be more fitting to stop using his corpse as a political billy-club and mourn the loss of a man who dedicated his life to serving this country instead.
 
Last edited:
That is nonsense. The last time the GAO was actually able to perform an audit of DOD expenditures they found that the military can't even account for 25% of what it spends. If they don't know what they're spending it on then they don't need it and military spending should not be considered a sacred cow while the DOD tosses hundreds of billions of dollars into a black hole. There is no patriotic duty to question the motives of a sitting President in this matter; only a deeply partisan one it would seem.



Vague statements from local security officials like 'I have security concerns' is hardly actionable intelligence and it was told directly to the ambassador who obviously chose to remain at the consulate in Benghazi. It it the responsibility of the host country to provide adequate security for embassies and consulates within their territory. It is not the responsibility of the President to violate international law by throwing a bunch of marines around without the permission of the host country and without any idea of what or who that local security official is talking about. We don't even know if the ambassador relayed that message to Washington.

See highlighted text.

Do you have some information that is not in the article I posted? My article didn't say the Ambassador had been warned...in fact it said "American diplomats".

Anyway, we've seen the quality of the "adequate security" provided by the Libyans. They cut and run.

Look. We've had a lot of dealings in the Middle East for a long time. Our Ambassador, our State Department...and our President...should be aware of the dangers and aware of proper responses when warnings are given. Responses like: The Ambassador not hanging himself and a few Americans with him out to dry.

It's pretty obvious that at least Obama and the State Department lack that awareness. We'll never know about the Ambassador.
 
How many warnings do you think are issued, between various agencies and organizations a day? Do you have an estimate?
 
How many warnings do you think are issued, between various agencies and organizations a day? Do you have an estimate?

Irrelevant.

We are talking about a direct warning three days before a direct situation...that the Ambassador just happened to find himself in.
 
See highlighted text. Do you have some information that is not in the article I posted? My article didn't say the Ambassador had been warned...in fact it said "American diplomats".

The information is in the article you posted. "He told the diplomats." Who do you think he was referring to? The answer is obviously the only diplomats we had in Libya; the ambassador and his staff.
 
That is nonsense. The last time the GAO was actually able to perform an audit of DOD expenditures they found that the military can't even account for 25% of what it spends. If they don't know what they're spending it on then they don't need it and military spending should not be considered a sacred cow while the DOD tosses hundreds of billions of dollars into a black hole. There is no patriotic duty to question the motives of a sitting President in this matter; only a deeply partisan one it would seem.

The DOD can't cut what it can't account for. It can only cut what it can account for. Which means, there are going to be fewer security assets across the board.
 
Irrelevant.

We are talking about a direct warning three days before a direct situation...that the Ambassador just happened to find himself in.

Ummm...very relevant. Do you think a lot of warnings occur, or not?
 
The information is in the article you posted. "He told the diplomats." Who do you think he was referring to? The answer is obviously the only diplomats we had in Libya; the ambassador and his staff.

Ahhh...

I see. You equate the staff with the Ambassador. I consider the Ambassador to be one person and each one on his staff to be another person. All of them are diplomats. If the warning was made to an underling, I'm not so sure the Ambassador was ever informed. If he was, then he was an idiot for being in that location.

Or maybe he DID, in fact, relay the info on up the chain and was told by...Hillary, maybe?...not to worry about it.

That would really suck, don't you think?
 
Ummm...very relevant. Do you think a lot of warnings occur, or not?

sigh...

I've explained why I believe your question to be irrelevant. Now it's your turn to explain why it IS relevant.
 
For anyone to suggest that the Obama Administration knew about the increasing threats and did nothing ... YOU are badly mistaken ... Did you not SEE that the Ambassador died with TWO retired Seals ... ??? ...

We are everywhere in the world and we can only offer so much protection ...

For Governor Romney to NOT show solidarity in the face of such violence is sickening ... and NOT worthy of someone who aspires to the White House ...

The Obama Administration is LEADING "behind the scenes" ... Some of you appear soooo naive ... IF we continue to "lead from the front" ... we will be as DESPISED as we were under the Bush Administration ... Those of us who BELIEVE in Peace ... do not try to make WAR ... IF it can be avoided ...

If it were up to the "fear-mongerers," we would be at war on multiple fronts ... SAD! ...

Actually, President Obama has DECIMATED al Qaeda leadership using UNmanned drones to GREAT effect ... I SEE that as the more INTELLIGENT way to wage war against those we can not reason with ... It keeps our BRAVE men and women in uniform SAFE ... I think I prefer the way President Obama operates in the world ... THAT is TRUE leadership ...

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES!
 
For anyone to suggest that the Obama Administration knew about the increasing threats and did nothing ... YOU are badly mistaken ... Did you not SEE that the Ambassador died with TWO retired Seals ... ??? ...

We are everywhere in the world and we can only offer so much protection ...

For Governor Romney to NOT show solidarity in the face of such violence is sickening ... and NOT worthy of someone who aspires to the White House ...

The Obama Administration is LEADING "behind the scenes" ... Some of you appear soooo naive ... IF we continue to "lead from the front" ... we will be as DESPISED as we were under the Bush Administration ... Those of us who BELIEVE in Peace ... do not try to make WAR ... IF it can be avoided ...

If it were up to the "fear-mongerers," we would be at war on multiple fronts ... SAD! ...

Actually, President Obama has DECIMATED al Qaeda leadership using UNmanned drones to GREAT effect ... I SEE that as the more INTELLIGENT way to wage war against those we can not reason with ... It keeps our BRAVE men and women in uniform SAFE ... I think I prefer the way President Obama operates in the world ... THAT is TRUE leadership ...

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES!

Leading from behind the scenes means beefing up security in areas where violence and unrest are prevalent, especially during the anniversary of the most successful and devastating terrorist attack every committed on American soil. Security was not a priority in Libya or Egypt leading up the anniversary of 9/11, and American citizens died as a result.

In addition to that, several source are reporting that that the Libya attacks were planned, and that intelligence existed prior to the deaths.

Assuming the attacks WERE planned, it shows a clear and disturbing failure in US intelligence and security planning.
Assuming intelligence DID exist, is shows a clear and disturbing failure in US security planning.

Either way, the administration failed the ambassador and his staff, and they died as a result.
 
For anyone to suggest that the Obama Administration knew about the increasing threats and did nothing ... YOU are badly mistaken ... Did you not SEE that the Ambassador died with TWO retired Seals ... ??? ...

We are everywhere in the world and we can only offer so much protection ...

For Governor Romney to NOT show solidarity in the face of such violence is sickening ... and NOT worthy of someone who aspires to the White House ...

The Obama Administration is LEADING "behind the scenes" ... Some of you appear soooo naive ... IF we continue to "lead from the front" ... we will be as DESPISED as we were under the Bush Administration ... Those of us who BELIEVE in Peace ... do not try to make WAR ... IF it can be avoided ...

If it were up to the "fear-mongerers," we would be at war on multiple fronts ... SAD! ...

Actually, President Obama has DECIMATED al Qaeda leadership using UNmanned drones to GREAT effect ... I SEE that as the more INTELLIGENT way to wage war against those we can not reason with ... It keeps our BRAVE men and women in uniform SAFE ... I think I prefer the way President Obama operates in the world ... THAT is TRUE leadership ...

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES!

Do you consider two retired SEALs to be adequate protection? I don't. I do respect them and their abilities, but they are not gods of war. They are men. No, I consider a platoon of Marines to be adequate protection for an Ambassador in a volatile area. Better protection would have been the Ambassador not being at that location in the first place. Especially with a direct warning.

Now, the issue isn't Romney here...regardless your attempt to deflect. It's not even about Obama "leading from behind" or his actions in regard to Al Qaeda. It's about the failure to deal with a specific situation. A situation that got Americans killed.

As President, the buck stops at Obama.
 
sigh...

I've explained why I believe your question to be irrelevant. Now it's your turn to explain why it IS relevant.

No, you didn't explain it. Lots of warnings come out of lots of offices every day. Why should this one have been more pressing? Because someone had a bad feeling?

That's interesting.
 
No, you didn't explain it. Lots of warnings come out of lots of offices every day. Why should this one have been more pressing? Because someone had a bad feeling?

That's interesting.

This wasn't just some run-of-the-mill warning. Did you read the quote from the Libyan?

As I said, "We are talking about a direct warning three days before a direct situation...that the Ambassador just happened to find himself in."

Now. Tell me why your question is relevant, again?
 
This wasn't just some run-of-the-mill warning. Did you read the quote from the Libyan?

As I said, "We are talking about a direct warning three days before a direct situation...that the Ambassador just happened to find himself in."

Now. Tell me why your question is relevant, again?

Was it? What was the warning, again? Please repeat it.
 
For anyone to suggest that the Obama Administration knew about the increasing threats and did nothing ... YOU are badly mistaken ... Did you not SEE that the Ambassador died with TWO retired Seals ... ??? ...

We are everywhere in the world and we can only offer so much protection ...

For Governor Romney to NOT show solidarity in the face of such violence is sickening ... and NOT worthy of someone who aspires to the White House ...

The Obama Administration is LEADING "behind the scenes" ... Some of you appear soooo naive ... IF we continue to "lead from the front" ... we will be as DESPISED as we were under the Bush Administration ... Those of us who BELIEVE in Peace ... do not try to make WAR ... IF it can be avoided ...

If it were up to the "fear-mongerers," we would be at war on multiple fronts ... SAD! ...

Actually, President Obama has DECIMATED al Qaeda leadership using UNmanned drones to GREAT effect ... I SEE that as the more INTELLIGENT way to wage war against those we can not reason with ... It keeps our BRAVE men and women in uniform SAFE ... I think I prefer the way President Obama operates in the world ... THAT is TRUE leadership ...

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES!

What is sickening is the hypocracy of drones who wouldnt have had a problem jumping all over president Bush for something that happend during the Iraq war but will cry wolf when the shoe is on the other foot. The truth is right there for all of us to see so Obamas & your attempt to cover up just plane nieve & bad policy is not working. I honestly think you Obamabots would excuse this guy for anything & considering the disaster of his presidency so far & the crying & whining everytime someone points out his screwups it makes it even more obvious to the rational thinker.
 
It is very sad to politicize the murder of an ambassador. To say that a vague warning about security concerns somehow constitutes "knowing" that a mob would attack the consulate and launch a rocket propelled grenade into the compound is ludicrous. If fingers have to be pointed then start pointing them in the right direction; the Libyan security forces for failing in their obligation under international law to protect foreign embassies and consulates.

The evidence is overwhelming at this point that there was plenty of advanced warning and nothing was done.
 
No, you didn't explain it. Lots of warnings come out of lots of offices every day. Why should this one have been more pressing? Because someone had a bad feeling?

That's interesting.
Lets see ......Anniversery of 9-11, North African radical muslim country that just had a civil war & left with lots of radicals still running around with guns. Then you have Libyan security guards (who betray the ambassador) guarding them farmed out by the state dept instead of US marines. Then you somehow think you can marginalize any type of terror warning under these conditions? Your trying to make excuses for your demi-god Obama, its not working & you sound foolish.
 
Lets see ......Anniversery of 9-11, North African radical muslim country that just had a civil war & left with lots of radicals still running around with guns. Then you have Libyan security guards (who betray the ambassador) guarding them farmed out by the state dept instead of US marines. Then you somehow think you can marginalize any type of terror warning under these conditions? Your trying to make excuses for your demi-god Obama, its not working & you sound foolish.

These warnings were warnings about security for international business not about specific warnings about the actual compound
 
Lets see ......Anniversery of 9-11, North African radical muslim country that just had a civil war & left with lots of radicals still running around with guns. Then you have Libyan security guards (who betray the ambassador) guarding them farmed out by the state dept instead of US marines. Then you somehow think you can marginalize any type of terror warning under these conditions? Your trying to make excuses for your demi-god Obama, its not working & you sound foolish.

I don't even care for Obama. I'm trying to explain that there's lots of warnings that go out every day. I'd make the same "excuse" for GWB and 9/11. But you'd probably somehow defend that while attacking this, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom