• 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!

Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

This doesn't tell us much. Stevens very well could have wanted the added security, but was compelled to decline because it wasn't his call to make (i.e. he was not expressing his opinion on the need for security, but conveying a response from the State Department).
 
This doesn't tell us much. Stevens very well could have wanted the added security, but was compelled to decline because it wasn't his call to make (i.e. he was not expressing his opinion on the need for security, but conveying a response from the State Department).

It tells us a lot. The security concerns expressed by Ambassador Stevens were very clearly in reference to external security, ie the obligation of the Libyan government as required by international law. It was being discussed with local and national Libyan leaders by Ambassador Stevens himself as these letters attest. It has been made clear that he did not want any additional American security forces and that it was Ambassador Stevens who declined the presence of additional American security forces in Benghazi. The pieces are finally falling into place and the sad truth is that it appears Stevens had a hand in his own demise.
 
It tells us a lot. The security concerns expressed by Ambassador Stevens were very clearly in reference to external security, ie the obligation of the Libyan government as required by international law. It was being discussed with local and national Libyan leaders by Ambassador Stevens himself as these letters attest. It has been made clear that he did not want any additional American security forces and that it was Ambassador Stevens who declined the presence of additional American security forces in Benghazi. The pieces are finally falling into place and the sad truth is that it appears Stevens had a hand in his own demise.

All of what you say could very well be true. However, if it is, it begs the question why the administration hasn't made this point in the previous eight months as well as in the congressional hearings and in White House press conferences. Why has the State Department and Hillary Clinton and others suggested that it was a Republican congress that cut State Department security funding that was the cause for lax security in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular.

Additionally, it does not excuse the continued need to mislead the public about the known details of what happened that night.
 
All of what you say could very well be true. However, if it is, it begs the question why the administration hasn't made this point in the previous eight months as well as in the congressional hearings and in White House press conferences.

Some lawmakers supposedly already knew about this and one usually doesn't honor an Ambassador by pointing out his failures in judgement.

Why has the State Department and Hillary Clinton and others suggested that it was a Republican congress that cut State Department security funding that was the cause for lax security in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular.

I don't remember them ever saying that.

Additionally, it does not excuse the continued need to mislead the public about the known details of what happened that night.

I don't really think that the general public has a right to know the details.
 
Today on Hardball Jonathan Landay from Mcclatchy newspapers said they would have needed to get approval approval from the Libyan government and thought that was why he turned it down.

This in a way confirms what I have already said. The State Department does not like having a bunch of military around to provide security. It detracts from their stated mission of diplomacy. With the popularity of Stevens with the Libyan government, I don't think he would have had a problem getting their approval. If you ever worked in an Embassy or for State, diplomats can be the most hard headed individuals. They will take huge risks to accomplish what is their mission. Some would call this dedication, other foolhardiness. I have stated before it would have taken a direct order from either Secretary Clinton or President Obama for Stevens to accept the addition U.S. military security.

Also much like the military chain of command where high ranking commanders will usually defer to the commander on the ground as is there and knows what is going on, has a feel for the situation that those above do not. I assume this is much the same.
 
some lawmakers supposedly already knew about this and one usually doesn't honor an ambassador by pointing out his failures in judgement.



I don't remember them ever saying that.



I don't really think that the general public has a right to know the details.

wow.....
 

Heya CJ....that's what I said since they have a taped excerpt of Stevens Requesting Security on Sept. 1 2012. Then I found this.

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape.....

In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya.

Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

Ambassador warned Libya was "volatile and violent"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes "responsibility" for Benghazi attack

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September."

On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard postions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.

Piecing together White House response to Benghazi

On August 8, as the special security teams left Libya, another cable from Stevens says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."

Colonel Andrew Wood led the U.S. military team that left Libya in August. He testified before Congress last week.

He told CBS News that Stevens fought losing another security team.....snip~

Watch: Ex-security team leader says Amb. Stevens was concerned over threats
Security dwindled before deadly Libyan consulate attack
CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP

Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape - CBS News

I would note all the other links.....CBS News has up as well about it as well.
 
And that stopped Obama from sending help on the day of the attack, how?
 
It has been made clear that he did not want any additional American security forces and that it was Ambassador Stevens who declined the presence of additional American security forces in Benghazi.
That hasn't been made clear at all, which is the point of my original post.
 
I didn't know that Stevens had the authority to give orders for the military to stand down. Last I heard, only the president had that authority.

Refusing assistance is not a stand down order. please stop lying.
 
Marine 24th MEU Rapid Deployment Force, with the capability of deploying over 100 troops from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in 18 hours was tooling around in the Mediterranean at the ready. It would take a few hours at most to deploy them.

you cannot deploy forces into foreign countries without permission from their government, and there is no way the libyan leader would have allowed american military to play shoot em up with locals. Like always you distort the reality of the situation.
 
you cannot deploy forces into foreign countries without permission from their government, and there is no way the libyan leader would have allowed american military to play shoot em up with locals. Like always you distort the reality of the situation.

So we had permission on 5/2/11 in Pakistan? Please, try to understand normal thinking.
 

Maybe if this was a Canadian Ambassador relying on the Canadian military for assistance, this might be credible because we do not have resources throughout the world but to suggest that the US military is incapable of any military action in North Africa within 8 hours of being informed. I'm not suggesting that such action would have been successful but to suggest the US couldn't even try is a sad commentary and perhaps an indictment of a country that spends around $700 billion a year on defense.
 
Maybe if this was a Canadian Ambassador relying on the Canadian military for assistance, this might be credible because we do not have resources throughout the world but to suggest that the US military is incapable of any military action in North Africa within 8 hours of being informed. I'm not suggesting that such action would have been successful but to suggest the US couldn't even try is a sad commentary and perhaps an indictment of a country that spends around $700 billion a year on defense.

It's the "couldn't even try" that's heartbreaking.
 
you cannot deploy forces into foreign countries without permission from their government, and there is no way the libyan leader would have allowed american military to play shoot em up with locals. Like always you distort the reality of the situation.

So, in your view, if President Obama was in Egypt, for example, and he and his party came under attack you would advise waiting for the Egyptian government to give you the okay before a rescue mission was launched within Egypt? Hope you've got your "pretty please" speech all prepared.

Besides, it's also true that the host country has responsibility to protect foreign diplomats within their borders - if they can't, or refuse to, that's too bad.

Finally, I hope you'll be on the phone to Obama and the CIA to remind them that they can't send drones into Pakistan any more because Pakistan didn't give you the okay yet.
 
Refusing assistance is not a stand down order. please stop lying.

Again, Stevens doesn't have the authority to give those orders.

You're living in a dream world if you think that has something to do with anything.
 
you cannot deploy forces into foreign countries without permission from their government, and there is no way the libyan leader would have allowed american military to play shoot em up with locals. Like always you distort the reality of the situation.

And you know this how?
 
And you know this how?

we are not israel
we do not (normally) conduct military operation in countries with which we are not at war
at least not without their permission

(pakistan and our pursuit of osama bin laden is a notable exception)
 
Back
Top Bottom