jsteele wrote: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?

For once Jeff, I totally agree with you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are opining away and yet don't even have the most basic understanding of the fact that a consulate, NOT an embassy, was attacked.

Not that it makes much difference in this particular case, but if you can't even get that correct you really aren't informed enough to be arguing your case either way.

I think we knew that the U.S. Embassy in Libya was destroyed during the revolution this summer. I think most posters just found it easier to say embassy as a catch-all.

No, I think most people don't know the difference. But there are many of us in the foreign service community who do. If you are going to make arguments about complex, nuanced subjects, use precise language. Using "catchall" language dumbs down your argument and makes you less credible.

Good, replace my use of "embassy" with "consulate" in my post of 14:31. Now judge my post with that correction. Where else was I wrong?

OP here not sure how credible this article explaining what happened is

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are opining away and yet don't even have the most basic understanding of the fact that a consulate, NOT an embassy, was attacked.

Not that it makes much difference in this particular case, but if you can't even get that correct you really aren't informed enough to be arguing your case either way.

I think we knew that the U.S. Embassy in Libya was destroyed during the revolution this summer. I think most posters just found it easier to say embassy as a catch-all.

No, I think most people don't know the difference. But there are many of us in the foreign service community who do. If you are going to make arguments about complex, nuanced subjects, use precise language. Using "catchall" language dumbs down your argument and makes you less credible.

agree with PP. So many monday morning quarterbacks who use terms they think are correct but only show their lack of knowledge.

I mean I'm sure many of us here in the US werent aware of this movie before Stevens' death, yet people in the middle east knew? How is that?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it is because people in power over there, whether it's the new government or religious leaders or both, are telling them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are opining away and yet don't even have the most basic understanding of the fact that a consulate, NOT an embassy, was attacked.

Not that it makes much difference in this particular case, but if you can't even get that correct you really aren't informed enough to be arguing your case either way.

I think we knew that the U.S. Embassy in Libya was destroyed during the revolution this summer. I think most posters just found it easier to say embassy as a catch-all.

No, I think most people don't know the difference. But there are many of us in the foreign service community who do. If you are going to make arguments about complex, nuanced subjects, use precise language. Using "catchall" language dumbs down your argument and makes you less credible.

Anonymous wrote:Well flipping Mitt is beginning to walk back on his comments. The only support he was getting was from Hannity, coulter, and fat sloppy, drug addict limbaugh. The other republican leaders, including weeping boehner chastised Romney. What a surprise!

Of course. His team is so weak on foreign policy they didn't even bother to check the basic story before they came out with a comment. On top of that, his contribution as a man aspiring to the Presidency is to spin it into an "Obama Apologizes" moment. So putting the election aside, did he actually manage to say anything about how he would handle the foreign policy situation at hand?

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are opining away and yet don't even have the most basic understanding of the fact that a consulate, NOT an embassy, was attacked.

Not that it makes much difference in this particular case, but if you can't even get that correct you really aren't informed enough to be arguing your case either way.

I think we knew that the U.S. Embassy in Libya was destroyed during the revolution this summer. I think most posters just found it easier to say embassy as a catch-all.

So many of you are opining away and yet don't even have the most basic understanding of the fact that a consulate, NOT an embassy, was attacked.

Not that it makes much difference in this particular case, but if you can't even get that correct you really aren't informed enough to be arguing your case either way.

Well flipping Mitt is beginning to walk back on his comments. The only support he was getting was from Hannity, coulter, and fat sloppy, drug addict limbaugh. The other republican leaders, including weeping boehner chastised Romney. What a surprise!

9:35,

The protests were probably a cover by the jihadists to have the heavily armed crazies go out in the middle of the crowd and start firing the heavy equipment off. Alternately, they may have been told, "If a protest begins, go somewhere and start firing." I don't know how many people were involved.

9:41 (Jeff),

The alternative to getting militarily involved would be Colonel G slaughtering his people, or the rebels winning and being very angry at the US. We could either side with a complete tyrant (the usual charge of the US in the past 50 years in that part of the world), face a winning rebellion that owes us nothing (a la Iran 1979), or try to moderate the rebellion and appeal to its better angels.

With that said, is there any indication the Libyan government or elements thereof were complicit in the attack? At least ten Libyan soldiers died defending our embassy.

As for creating a safe haven for al-Qa'eda, we left Afghanistan alone in the 1990s; look how well that worked out.

Your other posts are spot-on.

10:43,

A Ron Paul approach wouldn't mitigate the hate, the assholes would just find some other offense, some other slight.

11:55,

Even when Marines are present, their job is to (1) defend documents and burn baby burn where possible, (2) defend buildings, then and only then (3) ensure the safety of staff. If heads need to be bashed in or shot, better to have locals doing that. Security around the embassy is handled by the host country.

I would like to know what the Libyan staff were saying the State mothership, what the Libyans were saying to our embassy (or what the CIA was saying to the Libyans) before believing someone needs to be demoted to pushing paperclips.

13:01,

One of the common talking points from Republicans four years ago was "Carter passed a bunch of housing laws and that led to the subprime crisis." Or, Bush had eight years to dig us a hole, you're expecting Obama to dig us out in half the time?

jsteele wrote:

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.

+1 from combat Vet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is damn well impossible to know of every group of 10-20 people who wants to hurt us. This is not an intelligence failure; it should be expected when that many people take up arms against us.

I think the protests really are about this stupid video, and they can sometimes be violent. It is to me the result of people who have lived in a world where attention only comes through violence, speech is suppressed, governments are not controlled by the people, and those governments do not keep the peace.

Stevens was not a direct target, based on how he died. But I'm not sure it matters when you attack like that.

i dont think we are certain that this is a "small" group as you indicated first of all. second, our intelligence doesnt just gather information on "big hits". we have people all over the world data mining and gathering info. even if the main intent is to focus on the big targets, you eventually trip up on even small things just doing your job (this assuming your theory of a small group is correct).

finally, i dont mean to minimize the video or how muslims get offended when their religion gets mocked, i am more so thinking that there is something bigger in play here. i mean im sure many of us here in the US werent aware of this movie before stevens death, yet people in the middle east knew? how is that?

i hope nothing i am suggesting sounds like im trying to be a conspiracy theorist because that is not my intent. i just think we have way too many questions unanswered and unfortunately our focus has been on the romney comments. again, sure they were dumb. now lets move on and figure out the real story because the romney statement is noise right now.

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.

How could we allow???

Have you ever tried to protect a house in the middle of a foreign country? Now imagine you have to do it for how many hundred consulates we have.

Of all the DCUM comments, I think the worst is "why didn't the government save us from XXX?" Government cannot be limited and budget constrained but omnipotent at the same time. It does not control the wind and rain. Government cannot make your house worth 20% more than it is, even if you thought it was worth more when you bought it. It cannot prevent trees from falling on power lines. And it cannot secure any house around the world, at will, in a few hours' time.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it is damn well impossible to know of every group of 10-20 people who wants to hurt us. This is not an intelligence failure; it should be expected when that many people take up arms against us.

I think the protests really are about this stupid video, and they can sometimes be violent. It is to me the result of people who have lived in a world where attention only comes through violence, speech is suppressed, governments are not controlled by the people, and those governments do not keep the peace.

Stevens was not a direct target, based on how he died. But I'm not sure it matters when you attack like that.