Stevens was not in an Embassy. He was in a CIA house.Stevens was the kind of man who wanted to be with people. He knew how dangerous it was. It was a 3 house compound.
It was in 1968. How about you?
1971 11B with the scars to show for it. You 11B? You got tossed into a react for an ambushed unit you had no contact with and only a very sketchy outline of what was happening with how many badguys? Do tell...
Now if you have been paying attention to more than right wing talking points it isn't the civilian in charge of the Pentagon who with holds troops from 'dangerous' situations even with soldiers wounded and under fire. If you studied the Hot Mess of the Mogadishu raid in '93 you will see where the senior man in Somalia, a general, refused to send the medivacs in for badly wounded troops and those men died overnight. You'd also know of Gordon and Shughart and their insertion to protect CW Durant in his downed Black Hawk. While it was bravery beyond measure, it didn't save Durant and the deaths didn't alter the subsequent events.
As I look at this I'd say there is a lot more to this than a 'simple' terrorist attack. The American security forces complained there would be an attack, there was tips there would be an attack, the compound was known to be a security risk, there are now rumors of the CIA using this compound to conduct missions, the night was the anniversary of 9-11, the bulk of the security team (possible operatives rather than true guards) was a klick away at the annex and not the consulate. And why does the Ambassador go to the far less secure Consulate on 9-11?
It was a failure of security across the board, from the poorly constructed buildings to the 'security' team itself.
If it turns out the terrorists were hitting the Consulate not for the Ambassador but for the 'information' officer and his operation hunting shoulder launched missiles then the worm turns in a whole new direction. It might explain the reluctance to call the attack an organized assault if the CIA was the primary target.
Right wing talking points? I'm just stating an opinion. It is unconscionable that the government did nothing. My words. Not someone else's.
Other than the obvious quote from a movie, what other part of my statement makes you think it was derived from movies? The only time I remember anyone actually referring to MacArthur as being a self-aggrandizing idiot has been some veterans that served under him. Possible it might have been said during an episode of MASH, but don't remember such. Also, I don't know of any place, other than my post above that ever compared the leadership of Custer to MacArthur. Neither is a subject during leadership schools other than historical references, and since I was AF, Custer doesn't come up at all. Patton on leadership, absolutely, MacArthur, not for enlisted, maybe the officers talk about him /shrug.
Not to mention that Custer was a self-aggrandizing MacArthur type who idiotically underestimated his enemy even though he did have intelligence and advice that should have let him know more than he did.
This,
is how Custer is routinely portrayed in the picture shows, and it's a long way from the truth.
I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't really watched much about Custer or that even peripherally dealt with Custer.
"Indians contemplating a battle, either offensive or defensive, are always anxious to have their women and children removed from all danger…For this reason I decided to locate our [military] camp as close as convenient to [Chief Black Kettle's Cheyenne] village, knowing that the close proximity of their women and children, and their necessary exposure in case of conflict, would operate as a powerful argument in favor of peace, when the question of peace or war came to be discussed."
Custer, George Armstrong, My Life on the Plains : Or, Personal Experiences with Indians. New York: Sheldon and Company (1874). p. 220
yes you are just stating an opinion, one the facts don't support. One that ignores what it wants to to try and muddy Hillary for 2016.
And funny how your opinion mimics the right wing talking points. :roll:
How do facts support an opinion? You are reading a lot into the few words of a non partisan.
So you are admitting you have NOTHING to base your opinion on.... just pitching a right wing rant that seems to be a carbon copy of the 'conservative' politicians and talk radio comments. Gates has a leadership/service record that is head and shoulders above 99% of his critics.
A non partisan who is in lock step with the right wing rants....
Well seeing how you are a Libertarian I guess that makes sense.
My opinion is based on the fact that a U.S. facility was under attack and the government did nothing. You have a lot of anger. You really should get that under control.
It's a bit ironic to hear a libertarian call for government action. Maybe the embassy should have used the market.
Right wing talking points? I'm just stating an opinion. It is unconscionable that the government did nothing. My words. Not someone else's.
They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.
I politically despise Hillary Clinton.
But.... ****.
Bolded statement: If what I recall is true, that the attack transpired over four or five hours, I find his statement not only unbelievable, but a lie.
If we don't have a "ready force" standing by in the Middle East? Where they hell do we have a ready force?
There's no but. Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq.
They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.
Moderator's Warning: |
Please do not necro dead threads. Closing. |
They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.