• 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

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?
I apoligize for labeling you a Obama drone, I wouldnt like that either if I didnt back him, but I stand by my the rest of my statement. The State dept. had no business outsourcing security to Libyans.
 
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 ... ??? ...

Did you not hear about the "safe house"?

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

You certainly can't when the marines are instructed to go without bullets in their weapons.

"For Governor Romney to NOT show solidarity in the face of such violence is sickening ."

Solidarity with a buffoon? Are you kidding??
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 ...

Ah, yes, more "leading from behind".

Americans are despised now. Has the news not yet reached you? An American ambassador has been murdered on the anniversary of 9/11 and his body dragged through the streets. That is not a symbol of friendship.

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

Fear-mongers go to war??? While the brave one hide under the covers sending out periodic messages that everything is their fault?

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 ...

More drones wherever Americans are attacked would bring peace more quickly.
 
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.

Does that mean the DEMs will stop blaming GWBush for not grounding all the airplanes in the country when a PDB had the title of "AQ is determined to strike within the US" - you know the same title that had been used for years on some routine intel?

I'm glad to see that you will now temper your fellow LIBs when they spew that stuff up again - and they will.

It is unconsciousable to not have embassy/consulates in M.E. hotspots not protected as certain significant dates approach (remember 9/11) - with or without specific warnings. With such a warning it is close to criminal to not respond with at least minimal protection and SOME kind of planning on "what-ifs."

For the POTUS to just continue his greedy campaign fundraising while all this is going on is irresponsibility writ large - large enough for anyone with eyes to see and brains to process and hearts to protect America. All attributes missing from the DEM masses.
 
The evidence is overwhelming at this point that there was plenty of advanced warning and nothing was done.

Then I suppose you have some source which demonstrates that actionable intelligence was communicated to the ambassador and to the President that the consulate in Benghazi was at risk rather than the mention of vague "security concerns" for international businesses operating in Libya communicated solely to the ambassador and his staff as pointed out in the article? My guess is that you don't and I repeat; it is the legal obligation of host countries to protect the embassies and consulates in their territory.

Does that mean the DEMs will stop blaming GWBush for not grounding all the airplanes in the country when a PDB had the title of "AQ is determined to strike within the US" - you know the same title that had been used for years on some routine intel?

Apples and oranges. I don't recall anyone saying that Bush should have grounded all airplanes in the country prior to 9/11 but he was provided with specific and actionable intel and we had an FBI informant living with two of the hijackers in California. That is a far cry from a random local security officer telling an ambassador that he had "security concerns" without any mention of a threat to the consulate or any evidence that those concerns were relayed to Washington.
 
Last edited:
Then I suppose you have some source which demonstrates that actionable intelligence was communicated to the ambassador and to the President that the consulate in Benghazi was at risk rather than the mention of vague "security concerns" for international businesses operating in Libya communicated solely to the ambassador and his staff as pointed out in the article? My guess is that you don't and I repeat; it is the legal obligation of host countries to protect the embassies and consulates in their territory.

I most certainly can provide sources :)

"According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted."

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

"Sources close to U.S. President Barack Obama's administration revealed that White House officials apparently received warnings that there were threats made to attack as many as seven U.S. missions in the Middle East, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, as early as September 4. Sources also revealed that additional warnings were received a few days later, with similar information, but that all of the warnings were largely ignored by the administration. Normally when such warnings are received by the administration, the threat level is raised at U.S. installations around the world. At this point, there is no evidence that the Obama administration communicated the warnings with Consular officials in Libya or Egypt in advance of attacks that took place Monday in Benghazi, Libya and Cairo, Egypt, leaving the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead, with eight others wounded, "

Obama administration warned of possible attacks, but failed to take precautions - Tucson Congress | Examiner.com

Deadly embassy attacks were days in the making

CAIRO -- Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others.

As the U.S. tightened security worldwide at embassies and Libya's president apologized for the attack, details emerged of how the violence began, according to experts who monitor Egyptian media.

--------------

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam's prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman. He is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

When the video started circulating, Nader Bakkar, the spokesman for the Egyptian Salafist Noor party, which holds about 25% of the seats in parliament, called on people to go to the embassy. He also called on non-Islamist soccer hooligans, known as Ultras, to join the protest.

On Monday, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people should go to the embassy and "defend the prophet," Trager said.

----------------
Deadly embassy attacks were days in the making

Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault
By Catherine Herridge
Published September 15, 2012


While the Obama administration says there was no "actionable intelligence" foreshadowing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, there were at least four attacks on diplomatic and western targets in Benghazi leading up to the murder of the U.S. ambassador.
“This (the U.S. Consulate) was a place that was targeted months before with an IED (improvised explosive device)," Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee who has been briefed on the attack and investigation, told Fox News. “It's clearly a target that they wanted to hit and they wanted to cause casualties. ... It's just too many coincidences here”

-----------

Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News

Is that good enough?
 
Is that good enough?

No, there is no actionable intelligence cited or any indication the President would have a reasonable expectation that Libya would not honor its obligations under international law to protect foreign diplomats with its own security forces.
 
No, there is no actionable intelligence cited or any indication the President would have a reasonable expectation that Libya would not honor its obligations under international law to protect foreign diplomats with its own security forces.

lmao there is plenty of evidence that pointed to violence...Spin it all you want,the Obama Administration botched this big time.
 
lmao there is plenty of evidence that pointed to violence...

Violence where? To be committed by whom? The Middle East is a big place and hindsight is always 20/20. There is no actionable intelligence cited in any of those sources that even suggested that the consulate in Benghazi would be attacked, abandoned by the Libyan security forces, and blown up with a rocket propelled grenade. Sorry, but the responsibility for protecting diplomats falls squarely on the host country under international law so you have no grounds upon which to blame the Obama Administration.
 
Violence where? To be committed by whom? The Middle East is a big place and hindsight is always 20/20. There is no actionable intelligence cited in any of those sources that even suggested that the consulate in Benghazi would be attacked, abandoned by the Libyan security forces, and blown up with a rocket propelled grenade. Sorry, but the responsibility for protecting diplomats falls squarely on the host country under international law so you have no grounds upon which to blame the Obama Administration.

spin spin spin

Fact remains Obama did not act on the warnings given.
 
Fact remains Obama did not act on the warnings given.

Feel free to cite the specific warning, verbatim, that any President could reasonably be expected to consider actionable and request permission from the Libyan government to deploy additional security forces to our consulate in Benghazi. You can't because it didn't exist. I don't care who the President is or what political party he belongs to; 'something might happen somewhere in the Middle East' is not actionable and I'm not the one spinning here. ;)
 
Last edited:
Feel free to cite the specific warning, verbatim, that any President could reasonably be expected to consider actionable and request permission from the Libyan government to deploy additional security forces to our consulate in Benghazi. I'm not the one spinning here. ;)

Who said anything about sending additional forces?Pulling US personnel out of the danger zone was the obvious solution to potential violence in an unstable region.
 
Who said anything about sending additional forces?Pulling US personnel out of the danger zone was the obvious solution to potential violence in an unstable region.

So based on the so-called warning that something might happen somewhere in the Middle East you would have done what? Recall every ambassador and evacuate all embassies and consulates in the Middle East?
 
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!!
 
So based on the so-called warning that something might happen somewhere in the Middle East you would have done what? Recall every ambassador and evacuate all embassies and consulates in the Middle East?

the links provided showed there was amble evidence that something was going to happen IN Libya and Cairo....Please look at the links.
 
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!!

I'm sorry,but the straw man argument you provide here is not in line with what has been presented.
 
the links provided showed there was amble evidence that something was going to happen IN Libya and Cairo....Please look at the links.

I've read the links and no such claim was made. But, hey, maybe I missed something. Can you provide a direct quote from one of those links stating that the Administration had intelligence indicating a security threat against our consulate in Benghazi and our embassy in Cairo on 9/11?
 
I've read the links and no such claim was made. But, hey, maybe I missed something. Can you provide a direct quote from one of those links stating that the Administration had intelligence indicating a security threat against our consulate in Benghazi and our embassy in Cairo on 9/11?

First two links and the last link ;)
 
First two links and the last link ;)

Read them and didn't see anything stating that the Administration had intelligence indicating a security threat specifically against our consulate in Benghazi and our embassy in Cairo on 9/11.
 
Read them and didn't see anything stating that the Administration had intelligence indicating a security threat specifically against our consulate in Benghazi and our embassy in Cairo on 9/11.

Then you aren't reading.
 
Violence where? To be committed by whom? The Middle East is a big place and hindsight is always 20/20. There is no actionable intelligence cited in any of those sources that even suggested that the consulate in Benghazi would be attacked, abandoned by the Libyan security forces, and blown up with a rocket propelled grenade. Sorry, but the responsibility for protecting diplomats falls squarely on the host country under international law so you have no grounds upon which to blame the Obama Administration.

Your relying on Libyans to protect American lives?

Why can't Americans protect their own?
 
Your relying on Libyans to protect American lives? Why can't Americans protect their own?

Because the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations places that obligation squarely on the host country and the embassy's represented nation cannot deploy security personnel without the consent of the host country. American embassies are not on American soil and we can't turn our diplomatic offices into barracks.
 

Read your source more carefully. The MSG is responsible for security within the grounds of the embassy or consulate; the host nation is responsible for security on the outside; i.e. preventing a mob from breaching the compound in the first place. This also does not change the fact that any additional security personnel outside the normal scope of security operations requires the consent of the host nation to deploy.
 
Read your source more carefully. The MSG is responsible for security within the grounds of the embassy or consulate; the host nation is responsible for security on the outside; i.e. preventing a mob from breaching the compound in the first place. This also does not change the fact that any additional security personnel outside the normal scope of security operations require the consent of the host nation to deploy.

Inside or outside, where was the security??? Where were the Marines?

This is just another distraction to COA.
 
Back
Top Bottom