View Single Post
Old 11-01-2013, 09:30 AM   #107
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jettio View Post
Oh, so no new information. The state department could have approved the prior requests for more security. But once those are denied then Ambassador Stevens is responsible for making sure that he and his people are protected by the assets that are there.

There was no compelling reason for Ambassador Stevens to remain in Benghazi no matter the circumstances. It was up to him and his security team to know whether or not the Lybian militia could adequately supplement the CIA security force to protect them and if the protection was not adequate then it was up to him to leave the Benghazi compound and go to Tripoli.

The truth of this situation is that the Ambassador has final responsibility for security of his personnel.

I invite all of the prejudiced people in this thread to explain to what degree Ambassador Stevens bears responsibility for choosing to be in Benghazi on that day when he had full knowledge of the security assets available to him and the best knowledge of the threats, and the full authority to do whatever he thought necessary to protect himself and his people, including the authority to close the Benghazi compound, order all personnel to Tripoli and arrange for secure transportation.

4 Americans died, more than 30 were evacuated safely.

You can have this deputy ambassador Hicks continue to say how surprised he was that the calvary did not come to the rescue, but I want to see him explain how it was that they were even in Benghazi that night and how it was that so many Americans were evacuated safely.

Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith could have even been at the Annex in the first place, and if that were the first place attacked, that very likely would have been repelled and everyone would have been evacuated with no casualties.

Fact of the matter is that Ambassador Stevens served his country well. He was brave and he was killed by terrorists. Sometimes terrorists succeed. When that happens, Americans should rally together, but when you have prejudiced partisans, you get a whole bunch of BS allegations.

The GOP and Tea Party can continue to be glad that 4 Americans were killed by terrorists and hope they can twist that into some kind of way to win elections. But it is dishonorable to celebrate terrorist attacks against our people and that is what the GOP and Tea Party are hoping to do. They are intending to be opportunistic and the only way to do that is to be dishonorable.

Keep beating that drum. It did not work in 2012, and it will not work in the future. Dishonorable partisans impress themselves with their own BS. But a majority of voters are not impressed with that.
tl;dr = Blame the dead guy not the administration bigwigs who listened to him die from the comfort of their Washington DC campaign protection centers.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,741
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote