prez totally uninvolved in Benghazi *merged*

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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?

[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?

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]

[quote=northgagator;6401953]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?

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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/Unite...igon#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]

Originally Posted by northgagator

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/Unite...igon#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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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]

Originally Posted by vertigo0923

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.

Talk about respect to me? Hypocrite.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by northgagator

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]

Originally Posted by northgagator

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/foreig...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_p...w/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]

Originally Posted by northgagator

[

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/foreig...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_p...w/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.