- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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.
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.Either this is a additional detail to this case or we finally found the person who turned down offers of additional security.
Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy
Either this is a additional detail to this case or we finally found the person who turned down offers of additional security.
Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy
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.
Either this is a additional detail to this case or we finally found the person who turned down offers of additional security.
Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | McClatchy
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.....
And that stopped Obama from sending help on the day of the attack, how?
That hasn't been made clear at all, which is the point of my original post.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Refusing assistance is not a stand down order. please stop lying.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?