Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

[mak2]

Of course you do. :roll:

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.

 

[tererun]

Heya TR. :2wave: 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)

I am well aware that the state department was taking a risk by continuing their business there. The reality is the people on the ground who died were also well aware of the risky and dangerous situation they were in. That is part of why they get hazard pay. It is dangerous and sometimes that means you get hurt. There is the same risk in war. You send troops into battle knowing that it is risking their lives and that sometimes they will get killed. The state department took the risk and one of the worst case scenarios happened. Presidents do that all the time. That is their job, and it is the job of those who serve to risk their lives. They do not have guaranteed safety and they know that. They know that when they need help the US may have it's hands tied because of diplomatic relations, and that may mean they die. This is why people call them heroes because they know the risks and do it anyway. They are not flipping burgers in some US McDonalds, they are going into dangerous volatile situations in foreign lands where there is no US authority. That is part of the job. because it is part of the job it means sometimes people die.

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.

And this is part of diplomatic ties with countries like that. I am cool with an argument we should abandon libya until they get their act together and can ensure the safety of our diplomats. However, there are strategic reasons to put those diplomats there. The president, whoever they are, has to weigh the benefits of diplomatic relations with any country, and the safety of the people to be sent on the behalf of the US. I am just saying the argument is wrong. People who do not like the fact those 4 people died should be arguing against diplomatic relations with libya until they can keep foreign embassies secure. The reality is that obama cannot legally do that without an invasion. The only way we can secure a US presence with our military in libya is to invade. Anything else we do will risk lives because security will not be enough to fight off the people of the country with all the arms floating around. Even invading risks lives, but it is the most secure way to lock down the country and make it safe for our people. I do not think an invasion is right, and our government is dedicated to diplomatic relations with libya, as it would seem most people are because no one is saying let us get the hell out of there all together. So yes any further attempts to put diplomats in that country is very dangerous. there is a good chance more will die.

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.

No, our embassies in many foreign countries would have the support of local law enforcement and perhaps military if they were attacked by the people. Think about it, if the people of the UK decided they hated the US and wanted to kill their embassadors in a riot the4 Uk police would step in and help provide protection. That is part of the diplomatic contract. We set foreign diplomats above out law because we protect them on our soil above our own citizens. That protection was not reciprocated and it should be threatened that the US would walk out of diplomatic relations and any financial support if that is not provided. We are playing a strange game in libya because we know that libya is incapable of providing that sort of support. Still there is reasons for us to continue to try to keep diplomatic channels open with them. If you disagree with those reasons i am cool with that. However, we have seen in the past many other presidents, including the last five we have had, have made those gambits and had casualties and damage result from it that was far worse than benghazi. This is what presidents do. This is not an Obama thing, or even an uncommon loss.

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!!!!!

i know all of that. the people who went there were aware of all of that. What I am saying is some more security would not have prevented the attack. These people were dedicated to that cause as we have seen. The best scenario would have been a heavily defended US military outpost with backup. We are not talking about diverting a couple more security people, i am talking a well defended base. The only thing you would have gotten with some more security in that situation is more corpses on both sides. I could see a better evacuation plan being something that should have been implemented, but I am not even sure if it was not already there and simply had been neutralized by the attack.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Heya TR. :2wave: 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!!!!!

TR will simply say that stuff occurs and blow it off as any good Obamatron would. What I want to know is what the real reason for the Benghazi terrorist attack was, and why the cover up (alternate explanation) was thought to be needed. I suspect that it was about the U.S. supplying arms to rival folks fighting in Syria (or maybe just in Lybia), but is it not very, very strange that none of those "survivors" from Benghazi were ever questioned by the congress critters pretending to investigate that attack?

 

[MMC]

I am well aware that the state department was taking a risk by continuing their business there. The reality is the people on the ground who died were also well aware of the risky and dangerous situation they were in. That is part of why they get hazard pay. It is dangerous and sometimes that means you get hurt. There is the same risk in war. You send troops into battle knowing that it is risking their lives and that sometimes they will get killed. The state department took the risk and one of the worst case scenarios happened. Presidents do that all the time. That is their job, and it is the job of those who serve to risk their lives. They do not have guaranteed safety and they know that. They know that when they need help the US may have it's hands tied because of diplomatic relations, and that may mean they die. This is why people call them heroes because they know the risks and do it anyway. They are not flipping burgers in some US McDonalds, they are going into dangerous volatile situations in foreign lands where there is no US authority. That is part of the job. because it is part of the job it means sometimes people die.

No, our embassies in many foreign countries would have the support of local law enforcement and perhaps military if they were attacked by the people. Think about it, if the people of the UK decided they hated the US and wanted to kill their embassadors in a riot the4 Uk police would step in and help provide protection. That is part of the diplomatic contract. We set foreign diplomats above out law because we protect them on our soil above our own citizens. That protection was not reciprocated and it should be threatened that the US would walk out of diplomatic relations and any financial support if that is not provided. We are playing a strange game in libya because we know that libya is incapable of providing that sort of support. Still there is reasons for us to continue to try to keep diplomatic channels open with them. If you disagree with those reasons i am cool with that. However, we have seen in the past many other presidents, including the last five we have had, have made those gambits and had casualties and damage result from it that was far worse than benghazi. This is what presidents do. This is not an Obama thing, or even an uncommon loss.

They may have took the Risk.....but that is after the warnings. The Libyan's own Security Chief at that time told them. Albeit he is no longer their Security Chief. Its on us knowing the Libyans couldn't provide security in Benghazi. They did provide security for those in Tripoli.

Which still changes nothing about Clinton sending Stevens into Benghazi at that time to meet with the Turk envoy.

Our people should have assed from the get go. All other NATO Countries had pulled their Embassy people out. Gadhafi was gone.....but lawlessness and Anarchy still reigned. Also which was due to Gadhafi's kids still being on the run. Team Obama should have known better than to pump up a group that had the MB and the Sunni in it and attempt to give it the country to them to run. (Which came from listening to the French) But then Hillary let the cat out of the bag. The State Dept had set up a mission. To go after Gadhafi's weapons and specifically the Man Pads. Which we now know that the Original excuse used by Rice, Clinton and Obama was all a lie and was used to attempt to throw off all the incompetency and focus from the Weapons going to Syria.

Which for some reason the Syrian Rebels came up with them a week earlier after a Libyan Freighter landed off the Coast of Syria, anyways.

The Berbers will never accept their rule. Plus they want the MB out of their Country. Obama says the FBI is investigating, Right? Now who are they getting help from in Libya? As any that were involved into the investigation. Have quit or come up missing. Which again Right now today with our people there. Including the FBI.....there is still no Police Forces or a Security Force that can cover the area in and around Benghazi.

 

[MMC]

TR will simply say that stuff occurs and blow it off as any good Obamatron would. What I want to know is what the real reason for the Benghazi terrorist attack was, and why the cover up (alternate explanation) was thought to be needed. I suspect that it was about the U.S. supplying arms to rival folks fighting in Syria (or maybe just in Lybia), but is it not very, very strange that none of those "survivors" from Benghazi were ever questioned by the congress critters pretending to investigate that attack?

Well.....that reason correlates with AQ and their Sunni Cleric. Plus the MB Cleric in Egypt. Which was to hit us on the Anniversary of 911. Knowing Obama was in a re-election. Which the Clerics used Social media and caused 23 Muslim countries to riot and protest the US. Which I think the other part of the plan was to show us that AQ had morphed into the Hydra.

Which then the Rise of all the Ansar al Shariah groups that rose up from Yemen all the way to the Magbreb......gave insight that AQ was not on the run. That they infact had morphed, and that they were continuing to spread.

 

[tererun]

No, far from it.

Well then make the argument next time. lol is not an argument.

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.

I completely agree. however, the argument is not about the attack, but rather the reasons those people were put in harms way. We are pretty well aware of a lot of those reasons. We want diplomatic relations and a trade partner. We want access to any natural resources they have like oil. We want a customer for our guns. We want a pawn which we can use in the area. We want to have access to the country to hunt down terrorists. These are nothing new. The only new thing is we are doing it in libya. obama did not start this, and this is pretty much SOP for our government, and sometimes it hurts us. Sometimes it blows up in our faces like on 9/11 2001. Those reasons have been good enough to sacrifice lives in foreign embassies in the past, why are they now so bad for you?

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.

I have said it was a gamble that did not work out. I never denied that. It's security was what it was at the time. There was no way short of an invasion to secure it. Any extra people would have been extra bodies given the attack force size. What I am saying is your argument should be against diplomatic relations with libya and not an Obama screw up which there was no way to do safely. That is an argument the benghazy detractors do not want to make because they know and agree with the reasons those men were put in such a dangerous place.

 

[tererun]

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.

Don't be like that, i am very sure you would step on my corpse to attack obama. You do not care about who it is. I could magically swap my life and three other lives of people you hate with those guys and you would still be complaining because that is your only purpose with benghazi.

 

[tererun]

They may have took the Risk.....but that is after the warnings. The Libyan's own Security Chief at that time told them. Albeit he is no longer their Security Chief. Its on us knowing the Libyans couldn't provide security in Benghazi. They did provide security for those in Tripoli.

Which still changes nothing about Clinton sending Stevens into Benghazi at that time to meet with the Turk envoy.

Our people should have assed from the get go. All other NATO Countries had pulled their Embassy people out. Gadhafi was gone.....but lawlessness and Anarchy still reigned. Also which was due to Gadhafi's kids still being on the run. Team Obama should have known better than to pump up a group that had the MB and the Sunni in it and attempt to give it the country to them to run. (Which came from listening to the French) But then Hillary let the cat out of the bag. The State Dept had set up a mission. To go after Gadhafi's weapons and specifically the Man Pads. Which we now know that the Original excuse used by Rice, Clinton and Obama was all a lie and was used to attempt to throw off all the incompetency and focus from the Weapons going to Syria.

Which for some reason the Syrian Rebels came up with them a week earlier after a Libyan Freighter landed off the Coast of Syria, anyways.

The Berbers will never accept their rule. Plus they want the MB out of their Country. Obama says the FBI is investigating, Right? Now who are they getting help from in Libya? As any that were involved into the investigation. Have quit or come up missing. Which again Right now today with our people there. Including the FBI.....there is still no Police Forces or a Security Force that can cover the area in and around Benghazi.

there were reasons for them to try to be there. They want rights to the oil and to develop their production. They wanted an ally and to be able to search the country for terrorists. there are probably arms customers, and corporate interests there also. Those things require a diplomat and an embassy and relations. There was no safe way to establish those connections with the new government. It is whatg our embassies are there for. Perhaps obama should have waited to set it up. However, that risks not being able to influence the power structure of that country. I am actually cool with the idea we should not have meddled in their affairs at all and never established a consulate there. That would be my preferred stance. however, no one is arguing that should happen.

 

[MMC]

there were reasons for them to try to be there. They want rights to the oil and to develop their production. They wanted an ally and to be able to search the country for terrorists. there are probably arms customers, and corporate interests there also. Those things require a diplomat and an embassy and relations. There was no safe way to establish those connections with the new government. It is whatg our embassies are there for. Perhaps obama should have waited to set it up. However, that risks not being able to influence the power structure of that country. I am actually cool with the idea we should not have meddled in their affairs at all and never established a consulate there. That would be my preferred stance. however, no one is arguing that should happen.

You say Oil.....but Libya wasn't supplying us. They were supplying who? Thas Right.....France, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the Europe. Now I want you to think back. To Obama's election and Right before the No Fly Zone was implemented. Who was on TV telling Gadhafi to step down? Who was sending a personal message to Gadhafi? Let me give you a hint.....it wasn't Obama or Hillary. Better yet.....what French, Italian, and British Diplomats always showed up at Gadhafi's parties in Europe back then?

Now lets take a look at the media and the major play on the EU's meltdown financially. As the US had already sent money to the IMF. Do you recall a speech by Obama explaining to the American people. Why we need to help our Allies and alleged European friends. Uh huh.....that Global Economy and how we are all interconnected.....Right? No choice as this (the Eu's meltdown) could affect all world markets. That our friends had call on us for help and that we would be there to help them....remember Obama saying that? Now this was all before anything took place with Libya or Gadhafi. Lets not forget that part.

Next think how all started hearing was how Gadhafi had gone out and killed his own people. Started massacring them. That it was Gadhafi who was committing all these atrocities. Yet afterwards we would discover the Mujhardeen were there, the MB, AQ and likes, the Salafis, and the Berbers. Whom Gadhafi had tribal battles going on with King Idri's Berber clan and their backing with the Sunni and the MB. Sounds familiar huh.....except for one wrinkle in all of Team Obama's game, couldn't go with any nation building......Due to the US economy and his Domestic Policy.

But he did sign on us with Afghanistan for another 10 years.

 

[Texmex]

Don't be like that, i am very sure you would step on my corpse to attack obama. You do not care about who it is. I could magically swap my life and three other lives of people you hate with those guys and you would still be complaining because that is your only purpose with benghazi.

Believe me, I would avoid your corpse at any cost.

 

[Grant]

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?

Then you do what the Brits and the Red Cross did - you get your people out. If you don't do that though you become responsible for their safety. The idea that it costs to much to protect them is a callous and cheap argument.

 

[Bronson]

Then you do what the Brits and the Red Cross did - you get your people out. If you don't do that though you become responsible for their safety. The idea that it costs to much to protect them is a callous and cheap argument.

Suddenly money matters to liberals when it comes to saving lives in Benghazi

It doesn't matter when it comes to Food Stamps and Welfare for surfer bums in La Jolla. Obama spares no expense to make sure he can sit around on his !@# all day and do nothing.

Priorities

 

[tererun]

Then you do what the Brits and the Red Cross did - you get your people out. If you don't do that though you become responsible for their safety. The idea that it costs to much to protect them is a callous and cheap argument.

That is a valid argument, but that was not the choice that was made, and many other presidents have made similar choices with worse results. It is an incident and not a scandal. However, feel free to encourage your elected representatives to pull back from such risky things and stop sticking their nose in every other country's business. I am cool with that.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

Well then make the argument next time. lol is not an argument.


I completely agree. however, the argument is not about the attack, but rather the reasons those people were put in harms way. We are pretty well aware of a lot of those reasons. We want diplomatic relations and a trade partner. We want access to any natural resources they have like oil. We want a customer for our guns. We want a pawn which we can use in the area. We want to have access to the country to hunt down terrorists. These are nothing new. The only new thing is we are doing it in libya. obama did not start this, and this is pretty much SOP for our government, and sometimes it hurts us. Sometimes it blows up in our faces like on 9/11 2001. Those reasons have been good enough to sacrifice lives in foreign embassies in the past, why are they now so bad for you?


I have said it was a gamble that did not work out. I never denied that. It's security was what it was at the time. There was no way short of an invasion to secure it. Any extra people would have been extra bodies given the attack force size. What I am saying is your argument should be against diplomatic relations with libya and not an Obama screw up which there was no way to do safely. That is an argument the benghazy detractors do not want to make because they know and agree with the reasons those men were put in such a dangerous place.

My argument is it is an Obama screw up. From the very start. Libya was out of the terrorist business, it's not now. Libya was a external threat to nobody, not the case now, trouble has already slipped past it's borders into near by countries. Libya posed no real or pretend threat to our vital national interest. Just another problem Obama created.

 

[Grant]

That is a valid argument, but that was not the choice that was made, and many other presidents have made similar choices with worse results. It is an incident and not a scandal. However, feel free to encourage your elected representatives to pull back from such risky things and stop sticking their nose in every other country's business. I am cool with that.

Right. That choice was not made. Instead the choice was made to let them die, which is why their should be a public inquiry.

 

[Grant]

My argument is it is an Obama screw up. From the very start. Libya was out of the terrorist business, it's not now. Libya was a external threat to nobody, not the case now, trouble has already slipped past it's borders into near by countries. Libya posed no real or pretend threat to our vital national interest. Just another problem Obama created.

His witless Sec. of State took responsibility for those deaths, and so she should, but it was the head buffoon who should have been involved in the decision making process as well. Would any American soldier want to fight under the command of either of these people? And how many 4-star Generals have been lost since this neophyte became President?

 

[tererun]

My argument is it is an Obama screw up. From the very start. Libya was out of the terrorist business, it's not now. Libya was a external threat to nobody, not the case now, trouble has already slipped past it's borders into near by countries. Libya posed no real or pretend threat to our vital national interest. Just another problem Obama created.

If you consider the very real point that we did not free libya, nor were the deciding factors of it's liberation then your entire complaint falls apart because the UN would have assisted anyway, and toppled kadaffy. I do agree that had the world watched while kadaffi put the uprising down the country would be much more stable now. Obama is not the first president to help out with killing a despot only to find the people are not ready to control the country. A difference between libya and iraq is at least are not committed to years and years of war and occupation and all that crap. I will give the points to Obama on that one for getting the job done without the quagmire of an invasion.

 

[tererun]

Right. That choice was not made. Instead the choice was made to let them die, which is why their should be a public inquiry.

First, a choice to let people die is made by every president. You cannot save every person on foreign soil simply because other countries do not want to allow the US military to act on their soil. It tends to strain alliances. It should also be noted that the actual reason we did not go in was because we would have had to send troops into invade a foreign nation as an act of war to accomplish it because the libyans were not going to allow the US military to act on their soil. It is all simple when you are just complaining, but a president has to deal with other countries who do not want the US military just driving through their neighborhoods blowing crap up to save 4 people. Yes, there is a reality it is let those 4 people die because a war would have been many more people.

 

[mak2]

Plus there was not troops to send in time. When the scandal part started Faux was saying there was an armed drone overhead and an AC 130 close by. It has got down to there was few troops, literally, at another American interest, and they were told to stay put. A reasonable order.

First, a choice to let people die is made by every president. You cannot save every person on foreign soil simply because other countries do not want to allow the US military to act on their soil. It tends to strain alliances. It should also be noted that the actual reason we did not go in was because we would have had to send troops into invade a foreign nation as an act of war to accomplish it because the libyans were not going to allow the US military to act on their soil. It is all simple when you are just complaining, but a president has to deal with other countries who do not want the US military just driving through their neighborhoods blowing crap up to save 4 people. Yes, there is a reality it is let those 4 people die because a war would have been many more people.

 

[mak2]

Another poster once mentioned the RWers have a "cartoonish" idea of America's military power. We just didnt have assets to send that probably wouldn't die too.

 

[Anthony60]

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.

Is there any excuse that the left will not resort to???? My God, we just don't know how brilliant this administration is! But of course, they saved lives by not having enough security. What shear genius.

 

[tererun]

Is there any excuse that the left will not resort to???? My God, we just don't know how brilliant this administration is! But of course, they saved lives by not having enough security. What shear genius.

I am pretty sure you have completely freaked out over what I have said. I do not think it was brilliant, just a logical and rational choice. brilliant would have been making the logical and rational choice and somehow thinking it through well enough to keep them secure. but do me a favor and next time you want to rebutt me please do tell us of alternatives and form an actual argument.

 

[Mizmo]

I am pretty sure you have completely freaked out over what I have said. I do not think it was brilliant, just a logical and rational choice. brilliant would have been making the logical and rational choice and somehow thinking it through well enough to keep them secure. but do me a favor and next time you want to rebutt me please do tell us of alternatives and form an actual argument.

The America I remember doesn't allow fellow Americans to die in a foreign land just because they're afraid if they send help, it will result in more casualties.

 

[tererun]

The America I remember doesn't allow fellow Americans to die in a foreign land just because they're afraid if they send help, it will result in more casualties.

Well that americas you remember never existed because america will not come and save your ass wherever you are. Yeah, this america here in this reality lets it's people die all the time. That is not an Obama thing, and has been going on far longer than he has been alive.

 

[Anthony60]

I am pretty sure you have completely freaked out over what I have said. I do not think it was brilliant, just a logical and rational choice. brilliant would have been making the logical and rational choice and somehow thinking it through well enough to keep them secure. but do me a favor and next time you want to rebutt me please do tell us of alternatives and form an actual argument.

If by "freaked out" you mean someone quietly reading your post and then typing a response without so much as a 1 heartbeat per minute increase, then maybe. I think you need a dose of reality on that front, because I don't think that is the first time you've fantasized that someone "freaked out" over one of your posts. Lighten up, Francis.

And no one is required to provide alternatives in order to rebut such a remark.