Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
This is a criticism that deserves consideration....at least the part about the lack of security. I've heard the Dems blame the Repubs because it was a lack of funding, I've heard the Repubs blame the Dems saying it is entirely the responsibility of the State Department to furnish security for US embassies. I've heard the Ambassador specifically indicated on more than one occasion that additional security wasn't required and he didn't want it. I've also heard the opposite.
I don't know which is true or who should get the blame. I do know that in that area of the world, we should have had sufficient personnel with sufficient firepower to at least have made it more difficult for the attackers to gain access to the embassy, and in a perfect world, to have been in a position to be able to repel the attack until reinforcements could arrive. But, sorry....none of that shit is scandal material. It's just inefficiency, bad decision-making, stupidity or all three.....or maybe just Monday morning quarterbacking by a bunch of people sitting in the cheap seats.
I don't agree with the part of the post about us not having adequate security at the embassy because we're afraid to offend Muslims. That's just a stupid shot at the President making the ridiculous allegation that he's a Muslim, not an American, blah blah blah. Absurd. Regarding offending Muslims, we've been doing a lot more than offending them in the last ten years. We've been killing them and breaking their shit wholesale.....by the tens of thousands. And, we continue to do it to this day. I don't think we're too concerned about offending them....especially the ones we've already greased.
I think that was EXACTLY why we had lack security for the possible threat. It has nothing to do with The President being a Muslim, catholic, Baptist, or anything else. Personally, I don't think the President is anything. As the consummate narcissist. the only entity he worships is the reflection in the mirror.
What it does have to do with is the State Department that is naïve about the absolute hatred that Radical Muslims have for our Western Culture. Hatred that is manifested in a way as witnessed in the whole Benghazi affair.
Yes, I truly believe that the single biggest reason we had such lax security was fear of offending Muslims. Our State Department wanted to show the Muslims that we were not there to "take over" Libya, we did not want a large military presence because that speaks of imperialism.
What the State Department failed to realize is the very thing we did played right into the hands of a Radical Faction who will resort to any means in order to further their fanatical cause.
I think that was EXACTLY why we had lack security for the possible threat. It has nothing to do with The President being a Muslim, catholic, Baptist, or anything else. Personally, I don't think the President is anything. As the consummate narcissist. the only entity he worships is the reflection in the mirror.
What it does have to do with is the State Department that is naïve about the absolute hatred that Radical Muslims have for our Western Culture. Hatred that is manifested in a way as witnessed in the whole Benghazi affair.
Yes, I truly believe that the single biggest reason we had such lax security was fear of offending Muslims. Our State Department wanted to show the Muslims that we were not there to "take over" Libya, we did not want a large military presence because that speaks of imperialism.
What the State Department failed to realize is the very thing we did played right into the hands of a Radical Faction who will resort to any means in order to further their fanatical cause.
I don't know enough about what constitutes normal security at an embassy any more to be able to respond to some of what you post. A platoon of Marine Embassy guards with M4's, frags and a SAW or two could have prevented the initial assault from gaining the inside of the embassy, at least as I understand how it occurred. I don't think that constitutes a "large military presence." I thought that was normal. Especially in a place like Libya. Again, maybe I'm wrong, things change.
But, and I hate to be repetitive here, it does seem to me that we are long long past the stage of being worried that we "offend muslims".....we've invaded their countries, killed their people and blown up their shit for a decade.....don't get me wrong, I ain't apologizing for it, in some cases, it was well-deserved. But, the idea that we make decisions about not putting a dozen marine rifleman on the ground in an embassy is because we don't want to offend somebody doesn't wash in my opinion.
Regarding the muslims hating us....I don't know how to respond to what you post, it just seems silly to take the position that any element of American government is unaware of the level of enmity some elements of Muslim culture hold for us. We know they hate us. The fly planes into our buildings, they cut the heads off of Americans they can get their hands on, they blow up American soldiers, contractors, CIA workers and any other American any chance they get. I think we know there are elements of the muslim population that hate us.
What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy that was most likely the result of a long time-line of mistakes, bad judgment and miscalculations. What happened after Benghazi is probably the same thing. What it wasn't is this absurd supposed scandal that the Republicans have ginned up for solely political purposes.
I don't know enough about what constitutes normal security at an embassy any more to be able to respond to some of what you post. A platoon of Marine Embassy guards with M4's, frags and a SAW or two could have prevented the initial assault from gaining the inside of the embassy, at least as I understand how it occurred. I don't think that constitutes a "large military presence." I thought that was normal. Especially in a place like Libya. Again, maybe I'm wrong, things change.
But, and I hate to be repetitive here, it does seem to me that we are long long past the stage of being worried that we "offend muslims".....we've invaded their countries, killed their people and blown up their shit for a decade.....don't get me wrong, I ain't apologizing for it, in some cases, it was well-deserved. But, the idea that we make decisions about not putting a dozen marine rifleman on the ground in an embassy is because we don't want to offend somebody doesn't wash in my opinion.
Regarding the muslims hating us....I don't know how to respond to what you post, it just seems silly to take the position that any element of American government is unaware of the level of enmity some elements of Muslim culture hold for us. We know they hate us. The fly planes into our buildings, they cut the heads off of Americans they can get their hands on, they blow up American soldiers, contractors, CIA workers and any other American any chance they get. I think we know there are elements of the muslim population that hate us.
What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy that was most likely the result of a long time-line of mistakes, bad judgment and miscalculations. What happened after Benghazi is probably the same thing. What it wasn't is this absurd supposed scandal that the Republicans have ginned up for solely political purposes.
Just like I thought, you can not back up your ridiculous claim that the State Dept told Gen Ham to contact Amb Stevens and offer him additional security. You have posted a lot of dumb comments in the past, but this is one of your finest! And yes, your comment was total bullshit!
At least he's civil in his response. But I sense the edge is quickly approaching.
