Libya

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody is blaming Stevens, but his apparent comfort with the situation is certainly an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation.

-spence

yup..."apparent comfort"....right

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.


Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya, has told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that he and many other senior staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, "felt we needed more, not less" security personnel in the country, but were told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."


Wood and others have portrayed a State Department in Washington that was either unwilling to provide American officials in Libya with the security they required or ignorant of the pressing security concerns in a country where the central government is weak, and Islamic extremist militias have enjoyed virtual free reign in the power vacuum created by the toppling and killing of long-time dictator Muammar Qaddafi.


Top U.S. counterterrorism adviser John Brennan in Libya amid questions over security missteps - CBS News

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.

Yes, stationed in Tripoli. But we're also talking about a small number of agents.

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due to sectarian violence, not violence directed specifically at the US or Jim's large number of armed terrorists out to kill diplomats.

You guys will say anything if it makes Obama look bad, you're like MoveOn on steroids.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due ....
You guys will say anything if it makes Obama look bad, you're like MoveOn on steroids.

-spence

I'm starting to believe that you don't actually read a whole lot and what you do read isn't all that informative

Obama doesn't need help from us...he's doing a fine job doing a terrible job and looking really bad in doing so

is MoveOn trying to make Obama look bad?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due to sectarian violence, not violence directed specifically at the US or Jim's large number of armed terrorists out to kill diplomats.


-spence

Pants On Fire: Obama Scrambles For Cover As Benghazi Lie Explodes - Forbes


In addition to absolutely no evidence that the attack was connected to any objectionable video, information released in a letter from Representative Darrell Issa to Secretary of State Clinton shows that the situation in Libya had been deteriorating for months. It reads: “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.”

Those attacks began in April when two Libyans threw an improvised explosive device into the consulate compound. In June, postings on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page encouraged Libyans to attack Ambassador Stevens during one of his early morning runs around Tripoli. And in the weeks leading up to September 11th, Libyan guards were being warned by their family members to quit their consulate jobs because of rumors about an impending attack. These are but a few of the escalating series of incidents. There were also carjackings, shoot-outs, and even a rocket-propelled grenade being shot at a convoy carrying the British ambassador.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

In addition to absolutely no evidence that the attack was connected to any objectionable video

I believe this is factually incorrect as there was initial reporting, with interviews of the attackers, that indicated the video was a reason for the attack.

It's just one of the many mistakes in the OPINION piece you're referencing as a credible source.

Perhaps the largest is the flagrant use of al Qaeda to construct a narrative based on GOP talking points. I don't believe there is any evidence yet that this attack was planned or supported directly by al Qaeda in any material way.

The danger here is substantial. By exploiting this event for partisan gain the GOP risks undermining US security by attributing rock star status to a local militia.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe this is factually incorrect as there was initial reporting, with interviews of the attackers, that indicated the video was a reason for the attack.

It's just one of the many mistakes in the OPINION piece you're referencing as a credible source.

Perhaps the largest is the flagrant use of al Qaeda to construct a narrative based on GOP talking points. I don't believe there is any evidence yet that this attack was planned or supported directly by al Qaeda in any material way.

The danger here is substantial. By exploiting this event for partisan gain the GOP risks undermining US security by attributing rock star status to a local militia.

-spence

haaaa.haaa.haaaa

"I believe"...of course you do
" I don't believe"....of course you don't

"Everyone in the Sun King’s court has drunk the Kool-Aid."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The danger here is substantial. By exploiting this event for partisan gain the GOP risks undermining US security by attributing rock star status to a local militia.

-spence

pfffft....Lybia is "a tiny country"....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

pfffft....Lybia is "a tiny country"....

It's a pattern of behavior that eclipses Libya. It's political and irresponsible...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a pattern of behavior that eclipses Libya. It's political and irresponsible...

-spence

you are hilarious

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, stationed in Tripoli. But we're also talking about a small number of agents.

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due to sectarian violence, not violence directed specifically at the US or Jim's large number of armed terrorists out to kill diplomats.

You guys will say anything if it makes Obama look bad, you're like MoveOn on steroids.

-spence

Spence, you said Stevens had a false sense of security. That's your opinion. The fact is, he requested more personal security.

Wrong. For example, I have repeatedly given him kudos for using drone strikes to kill terrorists. I am fair. You are the biased one, who will say anything (even blaming an assassinated anbassador) to deflect any criticismof Obama.