prez totally uninvolved in Benghazi *merged*

[g8orbill]

what great leader :no:

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/34896-secretary-of-defense-commander-in-chief-barack-obama-awol-during-benghazi-terrorist-attack/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%2347794&utm_campaign=02-07-2013%20IJ%20Review

[JerseyGator01]

All will be forgiven by the media if he says he was reading to children for seven whole minutes during the tragedy.

[mocgator]

The USA is a rudderless ship... Captained by The most stinking politicians of all times. There are no statesmen of any kind in this administration. Just a bunch of leftist political hacks. Sad.

[bluelang]

I'm sorry, wasn't the big gripe about BGZI that the president was watching the whole time and let everyone die - and denied requests for help that were coming in?

So now that none of that happened, the complaint is that he didn't personally jump in and "do something" about a situation that no one understood?

[rivergator]

Much of the criticism about Benghazi has been the same constant whining from the same people who whine about everything. But in this case, yeah, he should have spoken more than once to the people handling the situation.

[G8trGr8t]

Unbelievable. So it is true that the president received the briefing within 90 minutes of the attack and then prepared to set off for a Las Vegas fundraiser without so much as checking back on the American diplomats and servicemen missing, killed by terrorists, or abandoned in harm’s way.


totally uninvolved in most everything that is really important..jobs, economy, etc and yet so many still want to believe that he is some great leader

[cocodrilo]

"What difference does it make?" - Hillary Clinton

[The_Graygator]

And he still lied about what caused the attack.

[DaveFla]

Why does this surprise you? He has been totally uninvolved in matters of the country for over four years now. He is, without a doubt, the most worthless president America has ever had.

[g8orbill]

I was one who was very critical that he was there and did nothing-now we know why he did nothing-he was not there and didn't even give a damn to be involved-I find it very difficult to understand his inaction either way- the ........ is President and once again has shirked his responsibilities and those sent to protect our freedoms died for it-not only was he not involved but it shows the totally ineptitude of his administration

at least river is up front enough to admit the guy should have been involved

[Row6]

Why does anyone think a president should be hands on on an incident like this, but not equally with all the other - thousands - of lives of other Americans lost in service overseas in the last decade? That's not his job and it wasn't Bush's either.

[surfn1080]

Why does anyone think a president should be hands on on an incident like this, but not equally with all the other - thousands - of lives of other Americans lost in service overseas in the last decade? That's not his job and it wasn't Bush's either.

Because its a terrorist attack on a us embassy?!?! You don't think both Obama and Bush spent time overseas with our men and women? War is long and cold and not one person here will think one person is going to be intensive to every event or attack in a war. But a attack on our us embassy is a much different story.

An attack on a us embassy is like an attack on our home land!

[gatormoe1]

Why does anyone think a president should be hands on on an incident like this, but not equally with all the other - thousands - of lives of other Americans lost in service overseas in the last decade? That's not his job and it wasn't Bush's either.

Credibility, down the toilet.

[jimgata]

When any crisis hits, he disappears. Check it out.
No time to govern, but plenty of time for hollywood.
I think he believes he is in a tv reality show, where nothing is real, just make believe.
He is commander in chief of the Armed Forces and should be hands on in any military action .
The libs have only 4 more years, before his term is over, to continually defend the ineptness of this administration.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Sounds like CYA to me.

[Row6]

Because its a terrorist attack on a us embassy?!?! You don't think both Obama and Bush spent time overseas with our men and women? War is long and cold and not one person here will think one person is going to be intensive to every event or attack in a war. But a attack on our us embassy is a much different story.

An attack on a us embassy is like an attack on our home land!

It wasn't an embassy, though one did occur on one the previous day in Cairo. Were there not regular attacks on the Baghdad embassy?

[mocgator]

Levin nails it. The teflon president... and the sissy la la liberal press.

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90085&sitesection=breitbart&VID=24340356

"The current batch of leftist-Marxists don't take the job seriously. It's all a power trip.
Benghazi was just a distraction away from campaigning that day. Why deal with a crisis with 10,000 swooning liberals waiting in Las Vegas who don't understand what you say, but they love it, nonetheless. This is the golden age of Low Information"

[rpmGator]

I am 3,000 times more upset by 911 than Ben's Gazi.

It is called a sense of proportion.

[rivergator]

Actually, it turns out that conservatives have been carefully editing the testimony, leaving out bits like this:

DEMPSEY: I would, if I could just, to correct one thing. I wouldn't say there was no follow-up from the White House. There was no follow-up, to my knowledge, with the president. But his staff was engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work.

[fredsanford]

I would have thought Election Day would have educated some of you about focusing on non-issues.

Instead of feeding the Obama obsession, how about working on some policies that voters might actually support?

[jimgata]

The staff AIN"T the president! What was he too busy with not to take a hands on approach? OH yeah, his reelection, which was all that mattered to him.

[mocgator]

I would have thought Election Day would have educated some of you about focusing on non-issues.

Instead of feeding the Obama obsession, how about working on some policies that voters might actually support?


Policies like free food stamps, free housing, free money, free food, free phones which produce $16T debt, $4 gasoline, 15% real unemployment, negative GDP...

Let's focus on gays and gun control... that will work...

[chemgator]

I would have thought Election Day would have educated some of you about focusing on non-issues.

Instead of feeding the Obama obsession, how about working on some policies that voters might actually support?

Exactly. Obama only killed four Americans that day. And technically, Obama didn't even kill them. He just let them die. Sure, it would have taken some courage and awareness of his responsibilities to call in the military, but he only calls on the military for top terrorist targets. If it's just lower-level terrorists committing an attack on American soil, he just rolls the dice and hopes for the best.

When the original 9-11 terrorist attack happened, it was over before the president could do anything about it. When the Benghazi terrorist attack happened, it was over after the president did nothing about it. When you look at those two sentences, they're almost the same, except for a couple of words. So the president practically assisted in a terrorist attack against the United States. Is that wrong? Besides, whatever happened to "Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas"?

Obviously, it's a non-issue.

[cocodrilo]

When the original 9-11 terrorist attack happened, it was over before the president could do anything about it.

What do you base that on? It's true that Bush did nothing, but how did he know there wouldn't be time to do anything? That guy must be smarter than we think.

[chemgator]

What do you base that on? It's true that Bush did nothing, but how did he know there wouldn't be time to do anything? That guy must be smarter than we think.

The first plane to hit the WTC was widely assumed to be pilot error or aircraft malfunction. They didn't know for sure that it was a terrorist attack until the second plane hit or was well on its way to its target. And it wasn't that long before all four planes had crashed. The military was totally unprepared to respond. Even if GWB had issued some order, the military could not carry it out before all planes hit the ground. Obama could have issued an order that the military could have carried out in Benghazi before it was all over. The military was ready to act, but the president was not.

[jimgata]

This strange hold Obama has on the left is still a mystery. They will defend him and blame Bush under any circumstance.
Cult?

[cocodrilo]

The first plane to hit the WTC was widely assumed to be pilot error or aircraft malfunction. They didn't know for sure that it was a terrorist attack until the second plane hit or was well on its way to its target. And it wasn't that long before all four planes had crashed. The military was totally unprepared to respond. Even if GWB had issued some order, the military could not carry it out before all planes hit the ground. Obama could have issued an order that the military could have carried out in Benghazi before it was all over. The military was ready to act, but the president was not.

That won't wash. After the second plane hit, Bush did nothing for seven minutes (that's how long the goat story lasted, as I recall), and then, as I recall, sat around the schoolhouse composing a speech for TV, doing nothing for about half an hour in all. Meanwhile, how did he or anyone else know that only planes were involved? After the fourth plane crashed, they just assumed, well, that's it, the attacks on America are over? Notwithstanding that there was an apparent assassination attempt on Bush that morning, and even after that he sat in a schoolhouse full of kids, effectively inviting anyone else out there to "bring it on." Bush's behavior at the school, like so much else about the official story of 9/11, is a pile of government manure.

[northgagator]

It wasn't an embassy, though one did occur on one the previous day in Cairo. Were there not regular attacks on the Baghdad embassy?

1, It was a US consulate that was attacked.
2, It was a CIA facility that was hit later that night.
3, There was a chemical weapon site nearby.
4, There were terrorist cells in the nearby area.
5, There was a US ambassador at the consulate.
6, Prior to that attack that same US Ambassador sent communications airing his concerns about security.
7, Also, it was confined this week the the White House knew that there was not any assets available for a rescue.

Now if you were the POUS what what woul be your priority: Hollywood Fund Raiser or your Ambassador whose life was in jeopardy?

[secgator]

1, It was a US consulate that was attacked.
2, It was a CIA facility that was hit later that night.
3, There was a chemical weapon site nearby.
4, There were terrorist cells in the nearby area.
5, There was a US ambassador at the consulate.
6, Prior to that attack that same US Ambassador sent communications airing his concerns about security.
7, Also, it was confined this week the the White House knew that there was not any assets available for a rescue.

Now if you were the POUS what what woul be your priority: Hollywood Fund Raiser or your Ambassador whose life was in jeopardy?

With liberals whose heads are so far up Obama's worthless ass---the Hollywood option would be at the forefront of priorities....for ALL liberals.

You already know that I'm sure.:yes:

[northgagator]

I am 3,000 times more upset by 911 than Ben's Gazi.

It is called a sense of proportion.

I understand your position but there was more in play than Ben Gazi.

It is clear that the US took their eye off the ball in Libya. Chemical Weapons to keep in the right hands, regular weapons leaving Libya to other hit spots (Tunisia, Syria, Mali), and unrest in Egypt.

911 was planned in Afghanistan.

It is very possible that the next 911 will planned somewhere in The deserts of North Africa.

[jimgata]

So if proportion matters, if guess the next sense of outrage will be when the death toll of another heinous act exceeds that of 9-11. A death is a death and there should be outrage at incompetence, whether it be one death or 5000.

[The_Graygator]

Obama couldn't be bothered... he was too busy shooting skeet.

Joking aside... it's amazing how libs actually voted for this uncaring, incompetent.

[Row6]

1, It was a US consulate that was attacked.
2, It was a CIA facility that was hit later that night.
3, There was a chemical weapon site nearby.
4, There were terrorist cells in the nearby area.
5, There was a US ambassador at the consulate.
6, Prior to that attack that same US Ambassador sent communications airing his concerns about security.
7, Also, it was confined this week the the White House knew that there was not any assets available for a rescue.

Now if you were the POUS what what woul be your priority: Hollywood Fund Raiser or your Ambassador whose life was in jeopardy?

There weren't any realistic options that would resolve the issue, and Stevens was dead before Obama left for Las Vegas. Do you suggest that the president - whoever he is - define his schedule by whatever crisis beyond his immediate control is occurring in dangerous but limited foreign situations like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya? BTW, security for foreign embassies and consulates are always the responsibility of the host country, including in the US. We had a very small footprint in Libya by design and who knows how many more dead Americans there might be there if we didn't.

[DaveFla]

Obama couldn't be bothered... he was too busy shooting skeet.

Joking aside... it's amazing how libs actually voted for this uncaring, incompetent.

And continue to support him.

[Row6]

And continue to support him.

I'm sure you equally held Bush personally responsible for every attack on US troops and the embassy in Iraq and demanded an accounting of where he was and what he did when it happened. I know that I didn't, though I did hold him responsible for our being there.

[DaveFla]

I'm sure you equally held Bush personally responsible for every attack on US troops and the embassy in Iraq and demanded an accounting of where he was and what he did when it happened. I know that I didn't, though I did hold him responsible for our being there.

And you didn't, right?

[chemgator]

That won't wash. After the second plane hit, Bush did nothing for seven minutes (that's how long the goat story lasted, as I recall), and then, as I recall, sat around the schoolhouse composing a speech for TV, doing nothing for about half an hour in all. Meanwhile, how did he or anyone else know that only planes were involved? After the fourth plane crashed, they just assumed, well, that's it, the attacks on America are over? Notwithstanding that there was an apparent assassination attempt on Bush that morning, and even after that he sat in a schoolhouse full of kids, effectively inviting anyone else out there to "bring it on." Bush's behavior at the school, like so much else about the official story of 9/11, is a pile of government manure.
For someone of GWB's intellectual stature, 7 minutes isn't enough time to gather his thought, much less react. He was in an appropriate intellectual environment, learning a story about a goat. That was the safest place for America to have him during a crisis.

[Row6]

And you didn't, right?

As I said, I correctly held him responsible for our being there - as you can Obama for our having any presence in Libya - but I did not think it was his proper job to oversee every attack on or personnel there.

[jimgata]

Obama is certainly hands on with every hollywood party, whether it be in hollywood or the White House. There is always time for that.

[cocodrilo]

That was the safest place for America to have him during a crisis.

If he was alone, absolutely. But how did they know all those children and their teachers were safe?

I recall that as soon as they realized that America was under attack, a Marine with the president's party said, "We're out of here." But, oddly, they weren't. The Secret Service was in charge and apparently thought they were fine right there where they were.

Earlier that morning this same Secret Service had turned away some Arab types who tried to get access to Bush at his lodging for what they called a scheduled interview. Rather than find out who these guys were, the Secret Service simply told them to go away. How did the SS know later that these same guys, or anyone connected to the attacks, wouldn't try something at the schoolhouse?

Exactly one person acted like a professional or someone not in the know with the president that morning. The Marine who said in vain, "We're out of here."

[g8orbill]

If you libs want to criticize W for continuing to read the story to the kids rather than leave abruptly when we realized we were under attack-go ahead-he delayed his departure for less than 15 minutes-prezbo was awol on ?Benghazi for the entire 7+ hours things went on-we were without anyone who had the where with all to make a decision-it goes back to prezbo's leadership or lack there of-there is nothing W could have done to prevent 9-11; there is plenty prezbo and his team could have done-and they did zilch and prezbo was not even involved-he was told of the initial attack and still went to the sleeping quarters of the WH because he had a big campaign fundraiser scheduled for the next day- total lack of leadership-and yet you people gave him a do over-amazing

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/35051-defsec-panetta-chairman-jcs-dempsey-no-one-sent-to-benghazi-during-raid/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%2347794&utm_campaign=02-09-2012%20IJ%20Review

[vertigo0923]

You know, you all are just so "righteously outraged" over Benghazi, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but two points:
1. Biggest intelligence failure ever happened on 9/11/01, not 9/11/12, and who was president then?
2. How many of our embassies were attacked during the next 8 yrs? Or, in previous years, for that matter, with no preference for the party in power. I think Hillary Clinton explained ALL of what I said. Try to view her whole testimony not just Fox sound bites.

[vertigo0923]

Keep in mind that the republican held house of reps denied additional funding requested by the state dept for better security.

[DaveFla]

Hillary's testimony; "who the hell cares?"

Yes. She said everything we need to know about how the Obama administration viewed the killings of these Americans.

[DaveFla]

Keep in mind that the republican held house of reps denied additional funding requested by the state dept for better security.

This claim had been shot down a long time ago. Please, try and keep up.

[vertigo0923]

Figures Dave "who the hell cares". If you want real answers then YOU should care. So, I can only surmise you don't care about the truth and just want to politicize a tragedy, which I already knew republicans were doing. Facts? You don't ""need no stinkin facts!!!"

[DaveFla]

Figures Dave "who the hell cares". If you want real answers then YOU should care. So, I can only surmise you don't care about the truth and just want to politicize a tragedy, which I already knew republicans were doing. Facts? You don't ""need no stinkin facts!!!"

Ummm... That was Hilary's (and Obama's) response... Read it again. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[vertigo0923]

I've watched it, where'd you get you info? Right wing blogosphere?

[DaveFla]

"What difference does it make?" translated for the lemming masses "who the hell cares?"

[chemgator]

You know, you all are just so "righteously outraged" over Benghazi, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but two points:
1. Biggest intelligence failure ever happened on 9/11/01, not 9/11/12, and who was president then?

Irrelevant. The president is not personally in charge of intelligence at any given moment. The president is responsible for reacting to intelligence and making decisions. The CIA, NSA and FBI are responsible for gathering intelligence. And the FBI was following the terrorists in the days leading up to 9-11, but FBI middle management was more concerned for the Saudis' civil rights than the safety of Americans. This lack of leadership and morale in the FBI can be traced to Louis Freeh, the head of the FBI for several years. Who put Freeh in charge of the FBI, even though he was unqualified? Bill Clinton did.

2. How many of our embassies were attacked during the next 8 yrs? Or, in previous years, for that matter, with no preference for the party in power. I think Hillary Clinton explained ALL of what I said. Try to view her whole testimony not just Fox sound bites.
Hillary was busy fighting for more money for staffing the embassies, not for security. She was building her empire, ignoring the requests for more security.

[vertigo0923]

Especially the part where she said, in testimony, that the state dept asked for more funding for safety, passed by the senate but not the house,you are the one who "needs to keep up"

[DaveFla]

Ahh, yes... The Gorelick Wall..

[vertigo0923]

"Staffing" equals guards as well as whatever/whoever you think she asked to fund, again, watch her frickin entire testimony. It's actually funny when rand"the idiot" Paul starts his insane questioning, Hillary had no idea what that nutjob was talking about.

[vertigo0923]

Ok I'm done in this thread. This is "dead horse beating" at its finest. I know what she said, I know who turned down the request for funding, I know you guys are gonna put all blame on Obama or Hillary, I'm sure it'll be the big rightwing attack on her if she runs in 2016, how predictable. Ignore the times your guys abandoned the constitution, ignore the intelligence failure under bush (Iraq, anyone? No WMD there!!!!), and you'll never accept anything not told to you by "the guys you trust" and seeing that thread calling all news outlets, save Fox, are "liberal biased", there's no point in discussing this dead horse issue. Now, on to the next dead horse issue. Obama's birth certificate?

[DaveFla]

Is that you, Charlie (Sheen)?

[vertigo0923]

is that the best you can do, dave? really?


but i'll quote charlie, right now, wrt the election. "WINNING"

;)

[DaveFla]

is that the best you can do, dave? really?


but i'll quote charlie, right now, wrt the election. "WINNING"

;)

Given the fact that you proclaimed, quite clearly, that you were done trying to defend Obama in this tragedy, then yes. That's the best I can do.

Yes, Obama won, but America lost... Quite badly.

[jimgata]

What is the mindset of someone who rationalizes an action of the current administration as beikng ok because they feel that someone in the past was worse?
What someone else did in the past does not have a damn thing to do with the incompetence of this administration.
Of course the left has been indoctrinated to blame Bush for everything, which is a wek argument.

[vertigo0923]

It's called "having set a precedent" (former administrations ) we may not like it, but there was a precedent set, and that IS used as defense of an action.

[The_Graygator]

Given the fact that you proclaimed, quite clearly, that you were done trying to defend Obama in this tragedy, then yes. That's the best I can do.

Yes, Obama won, but America lost... Quite badly.

What's even more sad, is that these Obama voters who voted for this socialist again knew for almost two weeks that Obama lied through his teeth about Benghazi, but it didn't matter to them. Much like all of the other lies which have come out of Obama's mouth didn't matter to them either.

It was all about voting their party, not their country.

[fredsanford]

What is the mindset of someone who rationalizes an action of the current administration as beikng ok because they feel that someone in the past was worse?
What someone else did in the past does not have a damn thing to do with the incompetence of this administration.
Of course the left has been indoctrinated to blame Bush for everything, which is a wek argument.

Says one of the people who undoubtedly gave Bush a pass by blaming everything on Slick Willie.

[G8trGr8t]

these lame attempts at justification are pathetic. the man is an embarrassment to the office, a consumate politician who is incapable of being a real leader

[vertigo0923]

What's even more sad, is that these Obama zombies who voted for this socialist again knew for almost two weeks that Obama lied through his teeth about Benghazi, but it didn't matter to them. Much like all of the other lies which have come out of Obama's mouth didn't matter to them either.

It was all about voting their party, not their country.

No actually we were voting for our country. We just have very different views from you all on what's good for our country. If we know that about you, while disagreeing totally on policy, why can't you afford us the same respect?

[vertigo0923]

And Dave, doesn't matter. Still lame response.

;)

[g8orbill]

for someone who said they were done you sure seem to have a lot more to say

[northgagator]

There weren't any realistic options that would resolve the issue, and Stevens was dead before Obama left for Las Vegas. Do you suggest that the president - whoever he is - define his schedule by whatever crisis beyond his immediate control is occurring in dangerous but limited foreign situations like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya? BTW, security for foreign embassies and consulates are always the responsibility of the host country, including in the US. We had a very small footprint in Libya by design and who knows how many more dead Americans there might be there if we didn't.

Your post is so full of it that I am printing it off to fertilize my spring garden.

There weren't any realistic options that would resolve the issue, and Stevens was dead before Obama left for Las Vegas
Are you saying that it went this way in the White House: "Oh well our hands were tied and Stevens is dead we might as well go to Vegas"?

Beyond his immediate control
Why aren't you pissed that we had an ambassador in such a hot spot in such an under defended position?

security for foreign embassies and consulates are always the responsibility of the host country, including in the US. We had a very small footprint/] Libya is the Dodge City of North Africa. Why did Clinton/Obama send their ambassador into harms way without backup?

[QUOTE]who knows how many more dead Americans there might be there if we didn't Well if we were that concern about our footprint then why did we have a Consulate and a CIA Ops center there? Looks like we had both feet in their. Hell we could of escape that big cluster f?&k by having no one there.

[g8orbill]

north- the takers are going to prop of prezbo no matter what

[Row6]

Your post is so full of it that I am printing it off to fertilize my spring garden.


Are you saying that it went this way in the White House: "Oh well our hands were tied and Stevens is dead we might as well go to Vegas"?


Why aren't you pissed that we had an ambassador in such a hot spot in such an under defended position?

[QUOTE]security for foreign embassies and consulates are always the responsibility of the host country, including in the US. We had a very small footprint/] Libya is the Dodge City of North Africa. Why did Clinton/Obama send their ambassador into harms way without backup?

Well if we were that concern about our footprint then why did we have a Consulate and a CIA Ops center there? Looks like we had both feet in their. Hell we could of escape that big cluster f?&k by having no one there.

And what did you expect the president to do about Benghazi after the fact, beyond publicly expressing regrets and telling his guys to get on it and find out what happened? Care to look up what ever Bush did under the scores of similarly mini-crisis over the course of our wars over seas? I don't and didn't at the time question where he was or what he was doing at the time they occurred.

Perhaps you didn't know it - and this is part of the tragedy - but Stevens was totally committed to the mission, believed in being close to the Libyan people, and was known to jog unaccompanied through the streets of Tripoli. He - and any diplomat in a country like Libya who does something other than stay in the embassy and attend state dinners - know they are on a dangerous assignment. We need someone to do this work and Stevens eagerly sought it.

Should other steps security have been taken and is Obama ultimately to blame for whatever faulty procedures could be improved - sure, he's the boss. Did he likely have a clue as to what they were before it happened - about as likely as Bush or Reagan (perhaps you remember the dead marines in Lebanon) - hell no! Should we have thousands of troops in Libya to protect against this kind of situation? I don't think so and of course how many of them might be killed should be part of the equation.

[g8orbill]

no matter how you spin it row-this is on your guy and he failed to lead

[northgagator]

And what did you expect the president to do about Benghazi after the fact, beyond publicly expressing regrets and telling his guys to get on it and find out what happened? uhhhhhhhh, act like a leader. Hell it took over a month for the FBI to get the security video out of Benghazi. The SEAL team hit in and out of Pakistan I one night when the toke Bin Ladin out.

Care to look up what ever Bush did under the scores of similarly mini-crisis over the course of our wars over seas? I don't and didn't at the time question where he was or what he was doing at the time they occurred.
One last time BUSH IS NOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND HASN'T BEEN IN FOUR YEARS.

Perhaps you didn't know it - and this is part of the tragedy - but Stevens was totally committed to the mission, believed in being close to the Libyan people, and was known to jog unaccompanied through the streets of Tripoli. He - and any diplomat in a country like Libya who does something other than stay in the embassy and attend state dinners - know they are on a dangerous assignment. We need someone to do this work and Stevens eagerly sought it.

That is a dodge and you know. Obama is the commander and chief. Supposedly the buck stops with him. Just because his subordinates take to their duty knowing of the dangers and that there are risk doesn't give the the Commander and Chief a pass for not providing the necessary covet. For crying out loud there wasn't even a guard at the gate. Steven's Klerk walked in I opposed.

Should other steps security have been taken and is Obama ultimately to blame for whatever faulty procedures could be improved - sure, he's the boss.
Is he acting like a boss on this scenario?
NO. For an entire month his immediate subordinates put out one confusing story after another. Did he take the blame? NO. His subordinates started finger pointing. They attempted to blamed Bush for budget cuts made four or five years ago

Did he likely have a clue as to what they were before it happened - about as likely as Bush or Reagan (perhaps you remember the dead marines in Lebanon) - hell no!

Odd that you left Carter out of your last paragraph. I guess you forgot about the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran. By the way, REAGAN NOR IS BUSH THE PRESIDENT, OBAMA.

At this time Obama has the cumulation of 237 years of US Presidential and State Department history available to him 24/7. As for recent history he should if learned how the US evacuate the Embassy in Saigon when it fell to the North Vietnamese, the storming if the Embassy in Tehran, the bombing of the Marine barracks and the Embassy in Beriut, and the attacks in US Embassies under Bush 1/2 and Clinton. Looks like all that experience was pissed away.

Should we have thousands of troops in Libya to protect against this kind of situation? I don't think so and of course how many of them might be killed should be part of the equation.

If it takes thousands of troops to protect one US Ambassador then our military is in deep trouble.
You really underestimate abilities of the US Military.

On 25 April 40 Marines from the 9th MAB on the USS Hancock (CV-19) were flown in by Air America helicopters in civilian clothes to the DAO Compound to augment the 18 Marine Security Guards assigned to defend the Embassy, an additional 6 Marines were assigned to protect Ambassador Martin...,,

By the morning of 29 April it was estimated that approximately 10,000 people had gathered around the Embassy, while some 2500 evacuees were in the embassy and consular compounds. From 10:00 to 12:00 Major Kean and his Marines cut down trees and moved vehicles to create an LZ in the embassy parking lot behind the Chancery building. Two LZs were now available in the embassy compound, the rooftop for UH-1s and CH-46 Sea Knights and the new parking lot LZ for the heavier CH-53s.[27]........,

Between 19:00 and 21:00 on 29 April approximately 130 additional Marines from 2nd Battalion 4th Marines were lifted from the DAO Compound to reinforce perimeter security at the embassy,[29] bringing the total number of Marines at the Embassy to 175.[26]....

Finally at 10:51 the order was given to commence Operation Frequent Wind, however due to confusion in the chain of command General Carey did not receive the execute order until 12:15.[25]...,,

The two major evacuation points chosen for Operation Frequent Wind were the DAO Compound adjacent to Tan Son Nhut Airport for American civilian and Vietnamese evacuees and the Embassy for Embassy staff.[26]

CH-46s evacuated the Battalion Landing Team by 07:00 and after an anxious wait a lone CH-46 "Swift 2-2" of HMM-164[33] arrived to evacuate Major Kean and the 10 remaining men of the Marine Security Guards, this last helicopter took off at 07:53 on 30 April and landed on USS Okinawa (LPH-3) at 09:30.[35] At 11:30 PAVN tanks smashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace (now the Reunification Palace) and raised the National Liberation Front for South Vietnam (NLF) flag over the building; the Vietnam War was over.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Embassy,_Saigon#section_6

The US Embassy was surrounded by 10,000 people consisting of two groups of people. One group wanted out of South Vietnam. The other group were supported of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. The security of the Embassy was in great danger.

The order to evacuate was give at 10:00 AM April 29. The last chopper left the Embassy at 7:53 AM April 30. The evacuation took 22 hours to complete. I am not sure about the compound at
the DAO Compound adjacent to Tan Son Nhut Airport but I pretty sure that we did not have any one of our people killed at the US Emabassy.
Marine pilots accumulated 1,054 flight hours and flew 682 sorties throughout Operation Frequent Wind, evacuating 5,000 from Tan Son Nhut and 978 U.S. and 1,120 Vietnamese and third-country nationals from the Embassy.[36] Some 400 evacuees were left behind at the Embassy including over 100 South Korean citizens.

I know that the US evacuation in Saigon was well planned and in a greater scale then the situation in Benghazi. However, you consider all the factors the situation in Benghazi was a cake walk compared to the Saigon evacuation.

1, The operation in Saigon itself only required the active participation of less than a thousand US military personnel.
2, A Benghazi rescue operation could of been executed with less than a hundred US military personnel.
3, The Saigon Operation was well planned and expected.
4, The Benghazi situation should of been expected (just based on US experience in the past 40 years).
5, A there should be risk assessments on all US Embassies and their personnel. There should be activate mitigation strategies for the identified risks. There should be contingency plans when the risk becomes reality. Contingency plans need to be practiced.

Bottom line: The US Department of State and the Executive Office got lax and was going through the motions. There are sufficient assets in that part of the world that should if been incorporated (in advance) into the contingency plans.

[jimgata]

I don't remember the media blaming Clinton for much of anything, even cheating on his wife in the oval office. Bush was blamed for everything, even situations that occured under Clinton. Based on some comments, I doubt some posters were too young to even remember Clinton.
By the way many of the programs, that Bush started , and were soundly critisized by Obama a nd the left, have now been expanded by Obama, and now supported by the left. This is being praised by the left for one reason, Obama says so.
According to Obama, closing Gitmo was going to be his first order. The only thing that has closed regarding Gitmo is the office set up to close Gitmo. What a joke.

[Row6]

uhhhhhhhh, act like a leader. Hell it took over a month for the FBI to get the security video out of Benghazi. The SEAL team hit in and out of Pakistan I one night when the toke Bin Ladin out.


One last time BUSH IS NOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND HASN'T BEEN IN FOUR YEARS.



That is a dodge and you know. Obama is the commander and chief. Supposedly the buck stops with him. Just because his subordinates take to their duty knowing of the dangers and that there are risk doesn't give the the Commander and Chief a pass for not providing the necessary covet. For crying out loud there wasn't even a guard at the gate. Steven's Klerk walked in I opposed.


Is he acting like a boss on this scenario?
NO. For an entire month his immediate subordinates put out one confusing story after another. Did he take the blame? NO. His subordinates started finger pointing. They attempted to blamed Bush for budget cuts made four or five years ago



Odd that you left Carter out of your last paragraph. I guess you forgot about the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran. By the way, REAGAN NOR IS BUSH THE PRESIDENT, OBAMA.

At this time Obama has the cumulation of 237 years of US Presidential and State Department history available to him 24/7. As for recent history he should if learned how the US evacuate the Embassy in Saigon when it fell to the North Vietnamese, the storming if the Embassy in Tehran, the bombing of the Marine barracks and the Embassy in Beriut, and the attacks in US Embassies under Bush 1/2 and Clinton. Looks like all that experience was pissed away.



If it takes thousands of troops to protect one US Ambassador then our military is in deep trouble.
You really underestimate abilities of the US Military.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Embassy,_Saigon#section_6

The US Embassy was surrounded by 10,000 people consisting of two groups of people. One group wanted out of South Vietnam. The other group were supported of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. The security of the Embassy was in great danger.

The order to evacuate was give at 10:00 AM April 29. The last chopper left the Embassy at 7:53 AM April 30. The evacuation took 22 hours to complete. I am not sure about the compound at
the DAO Compound adjacent to Tan Son Nhut Airport but I pretty sure that we did not have any one of our people killed at the US Emabassy.


I know that the US evacuation in Saigon was well planned and in a greater scale then the situation in Benghazi. However, you consider all the factors the situation in Benghazi was a cake walk compared to the Saigon evacuation.

1, The operation in Saigon itself only required the active participation of less than a thousand US military personnel.
2, A Benghazi rescue operation could of been executed with less than a hundred US military personnel.
3, The Saigon Operation was well planned and expected.
4, The Benghazi situation should of been expected (just based on US experience in the past 40 years).
5, A there should be risk assessments on all US Embassies and their personnel. There should be activate mitigation strategies for the identified risks. There should be contingency plans when the risk becomes reality. Contingency plans need to be practiced.

Bottom line: The US Department of State and the Executive Office got lax and was going through the motions. There are sufficient assets in that part of the world that should if been incorporated (in advance) into the contingency plans.

I didn't know history stopped on 1/20/2009 and that comparison to other incidents and presidential actions - or inaction - were moot except for the abandonment of the Saigon embassy - which was in no way a parallel event.

BTW, explaining the details of events which involve the CIA and the investigation of terrorist activity is not the presidents job, or any of his staff. You and I have no need to know, except for scoring political points, the true goal of those worked up over this minor international event.

[northgagator]

I didn't know history stopped on 1/20/2009 and that comparison to other incidents and presidential actions - or inaction - were moot except for the abandonment of the Saigon embassy - which was in no way a parallel event.

Who said it stop? I didn't nor did I infer imply that it did. In fact it history is still rolling. Unfortunately it may say that the Obama Admin was the the final blow to the USA.

What is wrong with comparing the events?
In some cases they were the results of botched diplomacy. In other case we got caught with our pants down. In some of those pants down cases the Blane goes to the gutting of the CIA and damage done by spies and traitors.
The best thing that came out if those failures is that we learned a lot. Unfortunately we either stopped learning, ignored what we learned, or forgot. Take your pick.

What is wrong with using the Saigon event?
Was it because it was a success?
Was it because it happened under Nixon's watch?

] BTW, explaining the details of events which involve the CIA and the investigation of terrorist activity is not the presidents job, or any of his staff.
Who is asking for the details?
What we got from the Obama Admin was statements that were vague, inaccurate, contradictory, and finger pointing

Please note that we US Citizens do not work for Obama or any other US President. He works for us. We elected him just like all of the other Presidents before him.
We pay his salary and his perks.

Obama is the Commander and Cheif.
He is our leader.
He had the responsibility to lead
One of the biggest requirements to lead is to be accountable for the actions of his subordinates.
The number one symptom of poor leadership and the inability to maintain the command structure is when a subordinate screws up. In the Presidents case it starts with his Cabinet and down to the lowest ranked enlisted person.

You and I have no need to know, except for scoring political points, the true goal of those worked up over this minor international event.
Scoring political points is for politicians whose main objective is to get power, to keep power, and to get more power. Scoring political points has nothing to do with leading our country. Actually it has more to do with catering to the special interest groups. Which by itself is a corrupting process (done by all parties).

As far as a need to know......
1, How much of your freedom do want to surrender?
2, Since we US Taxpayers are paying the bills then we do have a right for information. That right hoes up to a point where we do not put lives and our county's safety into jeopardy.
3, The President is our CEO that we hired. We are not accountable to him. However, he is or should be accountable to us.

Once we put our selves into the position of being accountable to any US President we cease being free people and become slaves to the government.

[The_Graygator]

No actually we were voting for our country. We just have very different views from you all on what's good for our country. If we know that about you, while disagreeing totally on policy, why can't you afford us the same respect?


No, you were voting for your party. Your country had zero, zip, nada to do with it. You support a socialist who is spitting on our Constitution, who even called a "charter of negative liberties" and said it was "flawed and needed to be re-written" to give government more power. You knew his many life aquaintances were socialists and communists and a domestic terrorist, but it was all about "ebating those 'evil' Republicans" to you.

I've been there. I've thought the same thing, so don't talk to me like I don;t get it. The sad thins it, you honestly believe this socialist dictator-wannabe isn;t lying to you or stepping all over your Constitutional rights. At least I pulled my head out of the sand.

I was in the libs camp over a decade ago, so you're not talking to someone who doesn't get the liberal mindset.

As for respect, you, and a number of others were either calling me (and many others here) racists, or asserting it in some fashion on these boards even before the 2008 election because I didn't agree with Obama's policies (without any intervention by the board 'powers-that-be'), who are also liberals. :whoa:

Talk about respect to me? Hypocrite. :laugh:

[Row6]

Who said it stop? I didn't nor did I infer imply that it did. In fact it history is still rolling. Unfortunately it may say that the Obama Admin was the the final blow to the USA.

What is wrong with comparing the events?
In some cases they were the results of botched diplomacy. In other case we got caught with our pants down. In some of those pants down cases the Blane goes to the gutting of the CIA and damage done by spies and traitors.
The best thing that came out if those failures is that we learned a lot. Unfortunately we either stopped learning, ignored what we learned, or forgot. Take your pick.

What is wrong with using the Saigon event?
Was it because it was a success?
Was it because it happened under Nixon's watch?

BTW, explaining the details of events which involve the CIA and the investigation of terrorist activity is not the presidents job, or any of his staff.[/QUOTE]
Who is asking for the details?
What we got from the Obama Admin was statements that were vague, inaccurate, contradictory, and finger pointing

Please note that we US Citizens do not work for Obama or any other US President. He works for us. We elected him just like all of the other Presidents before him.
We pay his salary and his perks.

Obama is the Commander and Cheif.
He is our leader.
He had the responsibility to lead
One of the biggest requirements to lead is to be accountable for the actions of his subordinates.
The number one symptom of poor leadership and the inability to maintain the command structure is when a subordinate screws up. In the Presidents case it starts with his Cabinet and down to the lowest ranked enlisted person.


Scoring political points is for politicians whose main objective is to get power, to keep power, and to get more power. Scoring political points has nothing to do with leading our country. Actually it has more to do with catering to the special interest groups. Which by itself is a corrupting process (done by all parties).

As far as a need to know......
1, How much of your freedom do want to surrender?
2, Since we US Taxpayers are paying the bills then we do have a right for information. That right hoes up to a point where we do not put lives and our county's safety into jeopardy.
3, The President is our CEO that we hired. We are not accountable to him. However, he is or should be accountable to us.

Once we put our selves into the position of being accountable to any US President we cease being free people and become slaves to the government.[/QUOTE]

We could keep this shorter if you dropped the gratuitous declarations of dislike for our president and stuck to the issue, but of course that assumes you have another reason for holding him to higher standard than I do for Bush and Reagan, and I dare say, you do as well.

Hold him as accountable as you want at the voting booth, but you are unfortunately in a minority on the issue, as where those who might have objected to Reagan having a few score marines blown up in Lebanon, whether that was due to his personal. failings or those under his authorit, or larger goals than protecting Americans in service overseas. In each case I think one of the latter was the case.

No, I don't think we have a right as citizen to details of either ongoing police, cia, or military investigations. You should know that the family of ambassador Stevens is so far satisfied with both the actions and explanations of the state department regarding the matter, so perhaps you and others who think some grand conspiracy and cover up is in progress can take comfort in that.

[northgagator]

We could keep this shorter if you dropped the gratuitous declarations of dislike for our president and stuck to the issue, but of course that assumes you have another reason for holding him to higher standard than I do for Bush and Reagan, and I dare say, you do as well.

I respect the Office of the Presidency of the United States. It is no secret that I am not an Obama fan but if i were to met him i would give him the respect of the office he holds. I am not a Reagan fan. There were two black Marks on Reagan's watch that come to mind at this moment. One was ContraGate. There were other mean available to support his agenda in Latin America. The other Black mark was the Marine Barracks bombing. We had a wake up call with the May 1983 Beirut US Embassy bombing. To bad Reagan's Team did not pick up the phone. That failure cost us a lot of Marines. Reagan got off way too easy on both of those items.

What may surprise you is that I am not a Bush fan ( GH or GW). The W Bush should of taken way more heat for not putting enough boots on the ground in Iraq and for putting Afghanistan on the back burner. He also should if taken more heat for spending like a Liberal. One more thing about W Bush. He was a weak Leader in his second term by bending to the Rhinos and not setting a fiscal conservative agenda. To be honest with you the W Bush second term was a failure.

Hold him as accountable as you want at the voting booth, but you are unfortunately in a minority on the issue, as where those who might have objected to Reagan having a few score marines blown up in Lebanon, whether that was due to his personal. failings or those under his authorit, or larger goals than protecting Americans in service overseas. In each case I think one of the latter was the case.

It doesn't matter who vote or who the voted for. We are all Americans. Our Party affiliation does give us leverage or penalize us. Our President is accountable to us no matter who we voted for or what party we belong to. By the way check the US Constitution. You won't s8!t about political parties getting special consideration.

[/QUOTE]No, I don't think we have a right as citizen to details of either ongoing police, cia, or military investigations. You should know that the family of ambassador Stevens is so far satisfied with both the actions and explanations of the state department regarding the matter, so perhaps you and others who think some grand conspiracy and cover up is in progress can take comfort in that.[/QUOTE]

Three questions
1, How low do set the bar for our leaders?
2, Is the bar higher for your employees and subs?
3, Do you set the bar higher for Non Libs?
4, Are for rewarding under achievers?
5, Where in the hell did I say conspiracy?

I see that you totally ignore my points in risk assessment This not a new strategy. It has been around for years. When they did the post mortem on the failed rescue mission for the US Embassy hostages one of the glaring errors that came out (in the pubic view too) was the failure to execute the contingency plans. That mission should of been scrubbed when the choppers experienced too many failures. Since that debacle future operations adhered to risk assessment strategy.

It is very clear that the US Department of State failed in their planning and follow up on the Ambassador's security concerns. It is nice that the Ambassador's family is in a forgive and forget mood. However, it is apparent that Obama's and his immediate subordinates leadership style is going to create another incident. Oh it maybe be minor like Benghazi but it will could have some deaths and send signals to our enemies that we are week and open for more attacks.

Question: How many minor events like Benghazi will it take for you to realize it is time to raise the bar?

[Row6]

I respect the Office of the Presidency of the United States. It is no secret that I am not an Obama fan but if i were to met him i would give him the respect of the office he holds. I am not a Reagan fan. There were two black Marks on Reagan's watch that come to mind at this moment. One was ContraGate. There were other mean available to support his agenda in Latin America. The other Black mark was the Marine Barracks bombing. We had a wake up call with the May 1983 Beirut US Embassy bombing. To bad Reagan's Team did not pick up the phone. That failure cost us a lot of Marines. Reagan got off way too easy on both of those items.

What may surprise you is that I am not a Bush fan ( GH or GW). The W Bush should of taken way more heat for not putting enough boots on the ground in Iraq and for putting Afghanistan on the back burner. He also should if taken more heat for spending like a Liberal. One more thing about W Bush. He was a weak Leader in his second term by bending to the Rhinos and not setting a fiscal conservative agenda. To be honest with you the W Bush second term was a failure.



It doesn't matter who vote or who the voted for. We are all Americans. Our Party affiliation does give us leverage or penalize us. Our President is accountable to us no matter who we voted for or what party we belong to. By the way check the US Constitution. You won't s8!t about political parties getting special consideration.

No, I don't think we have a right as citizen to details of either ongoing police, cia, or military investigations. You should know that the family of ambassador Stevens is so far satisfied with both the actions and explanations of the state department regarding the matter, so perhaps you and others who think some grand conspiracy and cover up is in progress can take comfort in that.[/QUOTE]

Three questions
1, How low do set the bar for our leaders?
2, Is the bar higher for your employees and subs?
3, Do you set the bar higher for Non Libs?
4, Are for rewarding under achievers?
5, Where in the hell did I say conspiracy?

I see that you totally ignore my points in risk assessment This not a new strategy. It has been around for years. When they did the post mortem on the failed rescue mission for the US Embassy hostages one of the glaring errors that came out (in the pubic view too) was the failure to execute the contingency plans. That mission should of been scrubbed when the choppers experienced too many failures. Since that debacle future operations adhered to risk assessment strategy.

It is very clear that the US Department of State failed in their planning and follow up on the Ambassador's security concerns. It is nice that the Ambassador's family is in a forgive and forget mood. However, it is apparent that Obama's and his immediate subordinates leadership style is going to create another incident. Oh it maybe be minor like Benghazi but it will could have some deaths and send signals to our enemies that we are week and open for more attacks.

Question: How many minor events like Benghazi will it take for you to realize it is time to raise the bar?[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your honest assessment of Bush and Reagan, though I fault them for strategic moves - as you mention - and not the details of engagement, which is what the Benghazi incident is about. On a strategic basis you can reasonably fault Obama for deciding to intervene in Iraq, beyond the recommendations of his cabinet and joint chiefs of staffs, though operational details like the defense of consulates is below his pay grade. However, when considering the strategic decision and risk management, the Libyan affair has been low risk and high reward so far. Qaddafi is dead and most of the Libyans and their government are exceedingly thankful of the US and love us as their saviors. We have lost 4 good men in that effort and do not have thousands of others in harms way. We can have many more "incidents" there and still be eons ahead of the standard set in VN, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

[g8orbill]

nm

[northgagator]

[
I appreciate your honest assessment of Bush and Reagan, though I fault them for strategic moves - as you mention - and not the details of engagement, which is what the Benghazi incident is about. On a strategic basis you can reasonably fault Obama for deciding to intervene in Iraq, beyond the recommendations of his cabinet and joint chiefs of staffs, though operational details like the defense of consulates is below his pay grade.
Why do you hold our President to a lower standard then his subordinates are held to? He hand picked his Cabinet. If they screwed up then so did he. In this situation he has to be a leader and exercise one of two options: Terminate or Reprimand. Why do you have a hard time with this concept? Instead of taking responsibility Obama shifted blame. That is not action of a leader.

However, when considering the strategic decision and risk management, the Libyan affair has been low risk and high reward so far. Qaddafi is dead and most of the Libyans and their government are exceedingly thankful of the US and love us as their saviors.

Do you actually believe that crap? What is your definition of a Libyan being thankful? Is it them leaving their security post and letting the Stevens killers walk into the consulate?

If what you are say us true why do the Brits have a different opinion (the Brits helped Libya too)
The Foreign Office said it was liaising with the Libyan government in response to the unspecified threat.

‘We are aware of reports of a potential threat against the British embassy in Tripoli and we are liaising closely with the Libyan government,’ a spokesman said.

‘There is no change to our travel advice: we still recommend against all but essential travel to Tripoli.
Last week British nationals were urged to leave the eastern city of Benghazi if they had not already done so due to a ‘specific and imminent threat’.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/28/foreign-office-aware-of-potential-threat-against-british-embassy-in-tripoli-libya-3370720/

Looks like the French, Germany and the Netherlands aren't safe in Libya too.
PARIS, Jan. 25 (Xinhua) -- French foreign ministry on Friday called on its people to avoid trips to the east Libyan region of Cyrenaica on terrorism threat against Westerners.

Due to the persistent tensions related to security situation in the region and rumors of threat against citizens of Western countries, it's advisable not to go to the Cyrenaica temporarily, the ministry said in a statement.

On Jan. 16, an al-Qaeda-linked group, headed by an Afghan-trained fighter Mokhtar Belmokhtar, claimed responsibility of kidnapping up to 41 foreign workers at a gas plant in Algeria, in a revenge to French operation in Mali.

On Thursday, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands urged their citizens to leave the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi immediately in response to a so-called imminent threat against Westerners.

Even our own US Department of State warns of travel to Libya.
The Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the risks of traveling to Libya and strongly advises against all but essential travel to Tripoli and all travel to Benghazi, Bani Walid, and southern Libya, including border areas and the regions of Sabha and Kufra. Because of ongoing instability and violence, the Department’s ability to provide consular services to U.S. citizens in these regions of Libya is extremely limited. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning dated September 12, 2012.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5853.html

Are you booking any travel plans to Benghazi so that you can site around the camp fire and sing Kumbaya with the locals?

Question: Were you spouting off some unqualified BS or did you make an honest mistake on that "love us as their saviors" line?

We have lost 4 good men in that effort and do not have thousands of others in harms way. We can have many more "incidents" there and still be eons ahead of the standard set in VN, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

You really have a myopic view of North Africa.
McCain had it right last fall when he said that North Africa is in play. the stakes are high and the risk are way beyond one dead ambassador. The recent events in Mali proved him right. I hope that Obama and Kerry the new Secretary of State learned the lessons from Benghazi. By the way tryout just belittle the evacuation of the Saigon Embassy. That event was a masterpiece and was only possible due to the bravery and skillful execution if the men involved in that action. There is no way that event can be exceed by eons.

[Row6]

[

Why do you hold our President to a lower standard then his subordinates are held to? He hand picked his Cabinet. If they screwed up then so did he. In this situation he has to be a leader and exercise one of two options: Terminate or Reprimand. Why do you have a hard time with this concept? Instead of taking responsibility Obama shifted blame. That is not action of a leader.



Do you actually believe that crap? What is your definition of a Libyan being thankful? Is it them leaving their security post and letting the Stevens killers walk into the consulate?

If what you are say us true why do the Brits have a different opinion (the Brits helped Libya too)

http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/28/foreign-office-aware-of-potential-threat-against-british-embassy-in-tripoli-libya-3370720/

Looks like the French, Germany and the Netherlands aren't safe in Libya too.
[QOUTE] PARIS, Jan. 25 (Xinhua) -- French foreign ministry on Friday called on its people to avoid trips to the east Libyan region of Cyrenaica on terrorism threat against Westerners.

Due to the persistent tensions related to security situation in the region and rumors of threat against citizens of Western countries, it's advisable not to go to the Cyrenaica temporarily, the ministry said in a statement.

On Jan. 16, an al-Qaeda-linked group, headed by an Afghan-trained fighter Mokhtar Belmokhtar, claimed responsibility of kidnapping up to 41 foreign workers at a gas plant in Algeria, in a revenge to French operation in Mali.

On Thursday, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands urged their citizens to leave the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi immediately in response to a so-called imminent threat against Westerners.

Even our own US Department of State warns of travel to Libya.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5853.html

Are you booking any travel plans to Benghazi so that you can site around the camp fire and sing Kumbaya with the locals?

Question: Were you spouting off some unqualified BS or did you make an honest mistake on that "love us as their saviors" line?



You really have a myopic view of North Africa.
McCain had it right last fall when he said that North Africa is in play. the stakes are high and the risk are way beyond one dead ambassador. The recent events in Mali proved him right. I hope that Obama and Kerry the new Secretary of State learned the lessons from Benghazi. By the way tryout just belittle the evacuation of the Saigon Embassy. That event was a masterpiece and was only possible due to the bravery and skillful execution if the men involved in that action. There is no way that event can be exceed by eons.[/QUOTE]

I'm tiring of your combative tone, so this is my last post responding to you:

1 I credit the president for going over the recommendations of his cabinet and JCS and deciding on a successful Libyan intervention which has been low cost in lives and dollars. You apparently need to read more about the high regard in which America is held in that country by most - not all - Libyans and their government, which by the way sent it's ambassador to the US to the Stevens memorial in SF at which he offered the apology of his country and countrymen for the his death. According to NBC veteran foreign correspondent Chris Engle, an American can't buy a drink in Libya and are continually thanked on the street. Do you know anywhere else in the world this has happened since WWII?

2 The fact that Libya is still dangerous due to Qaddafi loyalists still being loose, the plethora of weapons, and lack of control in the provinces does not negate 1 above.

3 Who still listens to whatever McCain says about foreign policy? If you have forgotten, he predicted an easy and swift victory in Iraq with parades through Bagdad thanking Americans. You know, kind of like what happened in Libya.