Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 230

Thread: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

  1. #41
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    like i said, the refusal to add more security actually kept the casualties lower than they were in the past. Our last 5 presidents have lost more overall, and have lost more in singular attacks on embassies than 4 dead. With things like budget cuts there is simply a financial reality that you cannot provide more security. It costs money and we have a little cash flow problem here in the us you might want to familarize yourself with. The reality is that putting less people in harms way actually saved lives. You can whine and complain all you want about it, but let us say they doubled the staff there, you would simply have had 8 dead americans and a few more casualties on the other side. These people were not killed by a lone gunman which might have been stopped by a couple of extra security people, they were killed by a mob that was armed pretty damned well, and that was probably familiar with fighting given their location and history. The sort of extra support that would have been effective here would have been prohibitively expensive, but you could always start supporting higher taxes if you want a fully armed military squad protecting startup embassies like this. Normally the reason a foreign embassy is secure against the locals is the foreign police and military would intervene to suppress actions like this.


    The reality is that libya should have had some responsibility in securing a foreign embassy on their soil. Let us say a group of armed americans wanted to storm a russian embassy on us soil we would have law enforcement there to stop what would be a criminal act of violence. The libyan government has most of the responsibility on their heads for this bs. Until they can secure their own country and establish those protections there will be no safety for embassies on their soil.
    lol....

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    lol....
    translation: i am right and you have nothing to say.

  3. #43
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southern USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    52

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Like I said, the refusal to add more security actually kept the casualties lower than they were in the past. Our last 5 presidents have lost more overall, and have lost more in singular attacks on embassies than 4 dead. With things like budget cuts there is simply a financial reality that you cannot provide more security. It costs money and we have a little cash flow problem here in the US you might want to familarize yourself with. The reality is that putting less people in harms way actually saved lives. You can whine and complain all you want about it, but let us say they doubled the staff there, you would simply have had 8 dead americans and a few more casualties on the other side. These people were not killed by a lone gunman which might have been stopped by a couple of extra security people, they were killed by a mob that was armed pretty damned well, and that was probably familiar with fighting given their location and history. The sort of extra support that would have been effective here would have been prohibitively expensive, but you could always start supporting higher taxes if you want a fully armed military squad protecting startup embassies like this. Normally the reason a foreign embassy is secure against the locals is the foreign police and military would intervene to suppress actions like this.


    the reality is that libya should have had some responsibility in securing a foreign embassy on their soil. Let us say a group of armed americans wanted to storm a russian embassy on US soil we would have law enforcement there to stop what would be a criminal act of violence. The libyan government has most of the responsibility on their heads for this BS. Until they can secure their own country and establish those protections there will be no safety for embassies on their soil.
    No, the reality is that the Lybian government was fractured and nonexistent. There were reports and threats of AQ and other radical groups almost daily in and around Benghazi. The Obama administration should have beefed up security or taken our people out long before the attack took place. Negligence and incompetence on the part of Obama and the State Department, and no one held accountable.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Tapper CNN:What's notable about this move is that those decisions to not provide additional security personnel and assets in Libya, that's one of the only parts of the Benghazi scandal that Obama administration officials will acknowledge was a real actual problem. You can you go back and forth on talking points from the White House and whether U.S. military assets were in position to rescue the Americans being attacked, but the continual denials throughout 2011 and 2012 of additional security for Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others there in Libya, that part of the Benghazi controversy no one with any real knowledge or perspective on the tragedy can refute. How bad was it? Recall the testimony of the former regional security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, who left his post less than two months before the attack. He described for Congress just how State Department officials continually shot down his requests for additional security.

    NORDSTROM: You know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added it by saying for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.

    TAPPER: You heard that correctly. That's the regional security officer from Libya, the former one, describing State Department officials as the Taliban. An independent review of what happened in Benghazi noted that security was "grossly inadequate" and faulted systemic failures in leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels, though it was established that no one had been proven to have been breached his or her duty.

    'nuff said. For now.
    When he said "The Taliban is inside the building" perhaps it is more than just conjecture.Why Won't the Media Cover Huma Abedin's Ties to the Global Jihad Movement? - Diana West - Page 1

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Mizmo View Post
    No, the reality is that the Lybian government was fractured and nonexistent. There were reports and threats of AQ and other radical groups almost daily in and around Benghazi. The Obama administration should have beefed up security or taken our people out long before the attack took place. Negligence and incompetence on the part of Obama and the State Department, and no one held accountable.
    Coulter nails it here. Arab Spring: Worst Soap Ever - Ann Coulter - Page 1

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Like I said, the refusal to add more security actually kept the casualties lower than they were in the past. Our last 5 presidents have lost more overall, and have lost more in singular attacks on embassies than 4 dead. With things like budget cuts there is simply a financial reality that you cannot provide more security. It costs money and we have a little cash flow problem here in the US you might want to familarize yourself with. The reality is that putting less people in harms way actually saved lives. You can whine and complain all you want about it, but let us say they doubled the staff there, you would simply have had 8 dead americans and a few more casualties on the other side. These people were not killed by a lone gunman which might have been stopped by a couple of extra security people, they were killed by a mob that was armed pretty damned well, and that was probably familiar with fighting given their location and history. The sort of extra support that would have been effective here would have been prohibitively expensive, but you could always start supporting higher taxes if you want a fully armed military squad protecting startup embassies like this. Normally the reason a foreign embassy is secure against the locals is the foreign police and military would intervene to suppress actions like this.


    the reality is that libya should have had some responsibility in securing a foreign embassy on their soil. Let us say a group of armed americans wanted to storm a russian embassy on US soil we would have law enforcement there to stop what would be a criminal act of violence. The libyan government has most of the responsibility on their heads for this BS. Until they can secure their own country and establish those protections there will be no safety for embassies on their soil.
    Heya TR. Wow you are way off base with this.....let me clue you in. The Libyans told us 3 days Before 911 that Benghazi was to dangerous to do business in. 1 full day ahead of Al Zawahiri released tape calling all to avenge al-Libi. ( Now I know most of the lefties tend to think al-libi means Gadhafi, but nothing could be farther from the truth. He was an AQ Operator)

    Moreover in this region of Libya. Ansar al Shariah is the Local Law Enforcement.....the Same that Clinton and the State Dept hired to protect our people. The same who attacked our people and set up the road blocks. So calling the police would not have helped at all. As they were already there shooting at us.

    So no the Libyans.....told the State and CIA. When the host country says we can't provide Security and you want to go there and set up and arms deal with the Turks to run Weapons to Syria. That it is to dangerous to conduct any business. Then we cannot say......the Libyans are responsible at all.

    Even goes back to transitioning in the TNC......there is no getting around the facts that ALL of Team Obama, knew after the fall of Gadhafi. That there was not any sufficient security forces with the Libyans. No standing Army either. All of the state and CIA knew that Libya was now the Wild Wild West. No Police Forces in the Country.

    That the Berbers still controlled their own areas, and that they will not accept Rule by ANY SUNNI whatsoever. Hence the way things are there today!!!!!

  7. #47
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    translation: i am right and you have nothing to say.
    No, far from it.

    The reality is the Benghazi disaster was just waiting on time for it to happen. The entire Libya misadventure wasn't thought out and this is just part of it. A deadly part, but still just part.

    Sooner or later competence at the bottom can't provide enough cover for incompetence at the top. This was a prime example. You've tried to place the blame on everything but the kitchen sink except for those that could have done a better job in preventing it from happening. Trying to pass the buck off on the Libyan government is really good for a laugh. We destroy an existing government yet turn around and expect a new one to protect our assets? Wishful Christmas thinking.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    Dont start off with an insult and expect someone to take you seriously.
    Speak for yourself. I take him seriously. BTW, some insults are allowed here, others aren't. It seem to depend on which side of political spectrum you belong to.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    4 dead is horrible to you, but you probably thought a second Bush term was a great idea. Please, keep the faux outrage and get another issue. this is a non-issue.
    Perhaps if it were you and three of your ilk it would be a non-issue, but this incident involved real men who died for no other reason than we having a complete moron in the White House.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Mizmo View Post
    No, the reality is that the Lybian government was fractured and nonexistent. There were reports and threats of AQ and other radical groups almost daily in and around Benghazi. The Obama administration should have beefed up security or taken our people out long before the attack took place. Negligence and incompetence on the part of Obama and the State Department, and no one held accountable.
    With what money and what people? Do you know how much defense you would have to have in such a place to keep it secure? It is simply unaffordable, and it might not have even been allowed by the libyan government. The only legitimate argument i could see about Obama making a mistake was establishing a embassy in a country like that before they could provide proper law enforcement. Even then I can see why the attempt was made to have one there because the US saw a way to get at new interests by establishing diplomatic relationships through an embassy with a new government. It was a risk and everyone including the people who died knew what they were getting into.

Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •