I get the whole situation leading up to it -- mistakes were made and hindsite is 20/20. Who knows that the chatter was saying, who knows if the protesters were just a cover for the attack, shouldn't have used contractors at an embassy in Libya (hello, this isn't Paris). I get all that.

What I can't figure out is what the hell happened once it all started going down. What was the President doing?!?! The firefight alone was 5 hours long. FIVE HOURS! Did they send in Marines? Did they call in any special forces? Cairo had already been going on for hours before that so was there any sort of movement of anyone to handle the situation. Then the Ambassador's body was gone for 12 hours!!! Only to show up at the airport in the hands of Libyians? WTH?!?! The President knew Tuesday night that the Ambassador was missing. What did he do? Did he go to sleep? Did he call in someone to get their asses there and find him?

That is what I find the most disturbing. How could we allow anyone to attack an embassy for 5 hours and take the Ambassador's body for 12 hours? This is the middle east, we have so many assets in that area and no one was sent in? I find that the most disturbing. I wish someone would focus on that.

Embassies are protected by the host country. You think this is the movies? The Libya retook the embassy, not US forces.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

It is not the President's job to lead search and rescue missions. He does not have to stay awake all night issuing orders to try to find a missing ambassador.

But it's okay for him to get full credit for "killing bin Laden," correct?

I don't know about "full credit", but he certainly gets credit for prioritizing the hunt for Bin Laden, appointing people capable of managing the effort, and approving the raid. Obama signed off on a memo putting operational control into an admiral's hands. That's what a leader does. Nobody expected Obama to be dropping out of a helicopter on to the roof of OBL's roof and nobody claims that he did.

jsteele wrote:

It is not the President's job to lead search and rescue missions. He does not have to stay awake all night issuing orders to try to find a missing ambassador.

But it's okay for him to get full credit for "killing bin Laden," correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe we shouldn't have let the Republicans start two wars that meant the Marines are, as a PP suggested, elsewhere. Maybe we shouldn't listen to the republican battle cry of "Privatize at all costs, no matter what!" how.

Last I checked, Obama's been the president for the past 4 years. Dems had control for 2 years. And yet we're still there; we still have military members dying everyday in the Middle East. The war is not over.

BUT free health care for slackers on everyone else's dime, hooray!!!

Anonymous wrote:I get the whole situation leading up to it -- mistakes were made and hindsite is 20/20. Who knows that the chatter was saying, who knows if the protesters were just a cover for the attack, shouldn't have used contractors at an embassy in Libya (hello, this isn't Paris). I get all that.

What I can't figure out is what the hell happened once it all started going down. What was the President doing?!?! The firefight alone was 5 hours long. FIVE HOURS! Did they send in Marines? Did they call in any special forces? Cairo had already been going on for hours before that so was there any sort of movement of anyone to handle the situation. Then the Ambassador's body was gone for 12 hours!!! Only to show up at the airport in the hands of Libyians? WTH?!?! The President knew Tuesday night that the Ambassador was missing. What did he do? Did he go to sleep? Did he call in someone to get their asses there and find him?

That is what I find the most disturbing. How could we allow anyone to attack an embassy for 5 hours and take the Ambassador's body for 12 hours? This is the middle east, we have so many assets in that area and no one was sent in? I find that the most disturbing. I wish someone would focus on that.

Based on what I've pieced together from a number of articles today, you and I have a different understanding of what happened. First of all, you may want to do some reading up on how special forces units operate. The idea that they could respond to Benghazi, Libya within 5 hours is laughable. Once the consulate was attacked, marines were dispatched from Tripoli. The consulate staff, minus the missing ambassador, escaped to a safe house. The marines met them at the safe house, but then came under attack themselves. That attack lasted quite a while until additional Libyan forces were able to help out. They could hardly be out searching for the ambassador when they were fighting for their own lives.

It is not the President's job to lead search and rescue missions. He does not have to stay awake all night issuing orders to try to find a missing ambassador. There are SOPs in place and others to whom authority has been delegated. If you have ever faced a crisis in your job (as someone in the computer field I am accustomed to problems with critical systems), the last thing you need is a boss constantly contacting you to tell you what to do while you are using all your energy to fix things. The most helpful thing Obama could do is stay out of the way. He seems to have understood that, while Mittens sadly didn't.

Anonymous wrote:I get the whole situation leading up to it -- mistakes were made and hindsite is 20/20. Who knows that the chatter was saying, who knows if the protesters were just a cover for the attack, shouldn't have used contractors at an embassy in Libya (hello, this isn't Paris). I get all that.

What I can't figure out is what the hell happened once it all started going down. What was the President doing?!?! The firefight alone was 5 hours long. FIVE HOURS! Did they send in Marines? Did they call in any special forces? Cairo had already been going on for hours before that so was there any sort of movement of anyone to handle the situation. Then the Ambassador's body was gone for 12 hours!!! Only to show up at the airport in the hands of Libyians? WTH?!?! The President knew Tuesday night that the Ambassador was missing. What did he do? Did he go to sleep? Did he call in someone to get their asses there and find him?

That is what I find the most disturbing. How could we allow anyone to attack an embassy for 5 hours and take the Ambassador's body for 12 hours? This is the middle east, we have so many assets in that area and no one was sent in? I find that the most disturbing. I wish someone would focus on that.

Are there Marines just parked everywhere, or is there some travel time? Maybe we shouldn't have let the Republicans start two wars that meant the Marines are, as a PP suggested, elsewhere. Maybe we shouldn't listen to the republican battle cry of "Privatize at all costs, no matter what!" how. How many assets do we have there? Are they supposed to reveal themselves at great risk to their own lives and our intelligence? You raise as many questions as you ask. Now we now, though. Romney won't hesitate to go blundering in no matter what we don't know. He gets some version of the PDB now, correct? Maybe he shouldn't have shot off his mouth.

Anonymous wrote:This is just like carter , now waiting for a hostage situation

+1

I get the whole situation leading up to it -- mistakes were made and hindsite is 20/20. Who knows that the chatter was saying, who knows if the protesters were just a cover for the attack, shouldn't have used contractors at an embassy in Libya (hello, this isn't Paris). I get all that.

What I can't figure out is what the hell happened once it all started going down. What was the President doing?!?! The firefight alone was 5 hours long. FIVE HOURS! Did they send in Marines? Did they call in any special forces? Cairo had already been going on for hours before that so was there any sort of movement of anyone to handle the situation. Then the Ambassador's body was gone for 12 hours!!! Only to show up at the airport in the hands of Libyians? WTH?!?! The President knew Tuesday night that the Ambassador was missing. What did he do? Did he go to sleep? Did he call in someone to get their asses there and find him?

That is what I find the most disturbing. How could we allow anyone to attack an embassy for 5 hours and take the Ambassador's body for 12 hours? This is the middle east, we have so many assets in that area and no one was sent in? I find that the most disturbing. I wish someone would focus on that.

Anonymous wrote:I want to know why we were using contractors to defend our embassy and not Marines.

The Marines are busy getting their limbs blown off in Afghanistan. They can't be everywhere.

I think the DoD does know more about the attacks and it is much bigger than the stupid video, which is why the Navy is being sent to the coast of Libya.

This is just like carter , now waiting for a hostage situation

I want to know why we were using contractors to defend our embassy and not Marines.

Op and Jeff, those are all very good questions and I hope that we get some answers. The thing that makes me sad is that some in our government still choose not to learn form our mistakes. Its is hard to pick a side when you dont know what you are dealing with and this is the issue in the middle (Iraq and Afganistan anyone). Also, we cannot afford to start a war every time there is an attack, especially when we do not know who is doing the attacking.

Personally, I think we need to adopt a Ron Paul approach to the middle east. "American" values are totally incompatible with the region, including the so called allies. Of course I know that we will not do that because there is "oil in them there sands".

We are pretty much screwed.

OP here.

I think the press isnt focused on these questions yet. The Yemen attacks got me really thinking what happened because it looks like something bad could be brewing

You raise good points. I would even go back further and ask:

Why did we get militarily involved in Libya in the first place?

Who should be held accountable for helping to create another safe haven for al-Qaida allies?

The same Islamist groups that are now active in Libya are also active in the Syrian opposition. Should this inform our policy toward Syria or should we still continue to get involved in every war possible?

romney's statement was dumb as hell and a complete attempt to gain some political points.

having said that, lets pretend he never released the statement. arent there real questions we have to ask regarding these attacks?

why didnt our intelligence get any indication on this attack?
is these protests really about this stupid video?
was stevens a target and if so, go back to my first question?

so basically, we have some real issues here outside of the whole romney mucking everything up with his statement.

does anyone else agree? and can we not mention romney's statement at all in this discussion because you are muddying the waters. assume the attack happened and we are only dealing with that.