• 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

Grant said:
They would have tried. No one knew how long the Americans there would be able to hold out against far superior numbers but they could have tried to help. They could have tried.

Would you want to fight for a country knowing that when the chips are down you will be abandoned if there is a chance of anyone getting hurt?
Click to expand...

only foolish people send others to die when there is little/no chance for success
 
Grant said:
So the American people should be apprehensive because some third world religious crackpot says he doesn't like them? You feel Americans should appease religious crackpots? At one time any American would have laughed at this slobbering dickhead but now there are those who, like BHO himself, bow to kiss their rings.

How things have changed in this once proud country.
Click to expand...

acting honorably is not the same thing as appeasing religious crackpots
pity i needed to explain that to you
 
justabubba said:
acting honorably is not the same thing as appeasing religious crackpots
pity i needed to explain that to you
Click to expand...

Acting honorably?

Do you think the religious fanatics are going to give you points for 'acting honorably"???
 
Grant said:
Acting honorably?

Do you think the religious fanatics are going to give you points for 'acting honorably"???
Click to expand...

so now we learn it is YOU who wants to appease religious crackpots ... probably including resident Christian crackpots
go figure
 
Grant said:
How do you know there was little chance of success?
Click to expand...

because they were dead within minutes of the attack
emphasis on "minutes"
 
From the OP article.....


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

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


It appears that Stevens was requesting for "strengthened security" for Benghazi in a memo to the congressional oversight committee..not the State Department or the WH or the military. It is the congressional oversight committee's response to Stevens request that seems to be missing in all of this.

Stevens was requesting for an extension of TDY personnel....which is 16 man military security team with expertise in counter terrorism. I've heard mention that the CIA's mission in Benghazi was to clear the area around the Annex of violent extremists, weapons and hostile militants. With the continued unpredicatable violence, how could do they do that if they didn't have the personnel with counter terrorism expertise? As we all know the CIA is supposed to operate in secrecy so I would argue that Stevens was making the request on behalf of the CIA to the congressional oversight committee. So where is their response to Stevens?

I think if we dig deep enough we are going to find that the CIA is at the bottom of all of this and they are the ones who screwed up are trying to deflect the blame and pass the buck. I think we might also find that the congressional oversight committee shares in the blame....remember Jason Chaffetz bragging about underfunding the state department security?


One more thing....Stevens was requesting more body guard security for the Tripoli embassy...not Benghazi. The media is doing a lousy job of making that distinction.....when they just say Libya they are mostly referring to Tripoli. The US embassy consoluate was located in Tripoli. The CIA annex and safehouse was located in Benghazi. Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for the CIA in Benghazi and that is why the state department was largely unaware of his activities at the "Special Mission Compound."


From the OP article...


...Stevens sent the cable to request an additional 11 bodyguards at the U.S. Embassy in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. In a July 9 cable, he noted that conditions in the country hadn't met "benchmarks" to reduce American security personnel.

"Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach," Stevens wrote in the Aug. 2 cable....read"
Click to expand...

Stevens was referring to the Tripoli embassy....not the Benghazi compound. The day of the attack in Benghazi...Hicks ordered the Tripoli security to go to Benghazi to help Stevens....which then left the Tripoli embassay without enough security and vulnerable to attack.

If the witnesses testifying before congress aren't telling the whole truth.....it's because congress isn't asking the right questions.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
so now we learn it is YOU who wants to appease religious crackpots ... probably including resident Christian crackpots
go figure
Click to expand...

I know it's probably a bad idea to ask but what could i have possibly said that would cause you to believe that I would want to appease religious crackpots?
 
Grant said:
You want historical evidence of countries ignoring the sovereignty of other countries? Do you not have access to a history book?
Click to expand...
Comprehension....or short term memory.....or AAD...or?

Gimmesometruth said:
Not when it comes to embassies. Beyond Iran in 79, I'm not aware of external US military forces being sent in to host states to engage in an embassy rescue without the host states permission in modern times, and as far as it happening in the US, I know it hasn't happened in modern times, but I'll be interested to see what you have.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Or use the original quote you may be referring to.
Click to expand...
Oh...OK...I'll remember from now on that you cannot keep track of a conversation and the burden is upon me to remind you what the context of our conversation is....just like this...


Grant said:
Both premises are accurate and there is much historical evidence to document them.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
Not when it comes to embassies. Beyond Iran in 79, I'm not aware of external US military forces being sent in to host states to engage in an embassy rescue without the host states permission in modern times, and as far as it happening in the US, I know it hasn't happened in modern times, but I'll be interested to see what you have.
Click to expand...
Grant said:
The Libyans were responsible for protecting the American Embassy and they were obviously not up to the task. At that point American forces should have stepped in. It was the Libyans who provided American leadership with the Intel, despite the lying liars saying it was the result of a youtube video.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
See now, I expected you to provide historical precedence to back up your claims of "historical evidence"....but you haven't, instead you give a weak excuse and off topic tangents.
Click to expand...
Grant said:
You want historical evidence of countries ignoring the sovereignty of other countries? Do you not have access to a history book?
Click to expand...


This is just sad.
 
Grant said:
And several months after his death it was discovered that he and his staff didn't need help after all. And this was in one of the cables Hillary Clinton actually read, so the Sec. of State and the and President followed his instructions.

That sounds logical.
Click to expand...

Heya Grant. :2wave: Not really. He requested that the 16 man team be kept thru there in Sept. Plus Lt Col Wood testified Stevens was fighting to keep a team around.

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~
 
CanadaJohn said:
Funny you would use those words when the point for many of us is that there is no honor in leaving your countrymen to die without any attempt to save them.
Click to expand...

but there is dishonor in sending other service members to their death on a mission which has no chance of success
 
justabubba said:
but there is dishonor in sending other service members to their death on a mission which has no chance of success
Click to expand...

Not at all - there are many examples of honorable men and women attempting what some considered hopeless causes in the name of saving someone else. You must think a person dies dishonorably if they happen to drown trying to save someone who's drowning, or a fireman who risks his life entering a burning building to save someone knowing full well that he may not make it back out because it's impossible to know what might happen. From accounts, it appears there were men and women willing to make the attempt, knowing what they knew. I consider them honorable people.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not at all - there are many examples of honorable men and women attempting what some considered hopeless causes in the name of saving someone else. You must think a person dies dishonorably if they happen to drown trying to save someone who's drowning, or a fireman who risks his life entering a burning building to save someone knowing full well that he may not make it back out because it's impossible to know what might happen. From accounts, it appears there were men and women willing to make the attempt,
knowing what they knew. I consider them honorable people.
Click to expand...
the difference is in your examples there was a prospect, possibly even a reasonable one, of success
in benghazi, we would have put our troops at risk for no valid reason ... just to say we did is NOT a valid reason
i am guessing you have never led men into combat
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh...OK...I'll remember from now on that you cannot keep track of a conversation and the burden is upon me to remind you what the context of our conversation is....just like this...
Click to expand...

OK, an example of a country ignoring the sovereignty of another country was Germany invading Russia in WWII.

Happy now?
 
MMC said:
Heya Grant. :2wave: Not really. He requested that the 16 man team be kept thru there in Sept. Plus Lt Col Wood testified Stevens was fighting to keep a team around.

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~
Click to expand...

Hi MMC,

I was being sarcastic but sometimes, with all the strangeness going on, it's difficult to tell when someone is serious..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom