The reality of this situation is the left should be killing the President on this. The dumb idea that we should bunker our diplomats by the right is nuts.
The real issue here is putting diplomats into countries that can't defend our embassies because the President wanted to show how smart a move it was to get rid of Kaddafi without Congressional approval. The President should be skewered for getting the US into a civil war without Congressional approval and putting our Ambassador and his staff into a country at civil war to prove what a smart move it was.
The right doesn't want to make this attack because they are fully supportive of Presidents taking us to war without Congressional or the Nations backing. War by Presidential fiat is the policy of both the President and the Right. The idea that we should have our Ambassadors or their staff living in armed bunkers in unsafe countries is the insanity that led to the Iran hostage crisis. If a country can’t provide basic security get them out.
The attack by the right doesn't even begin to scratch the surface because they don't want a change in the basic policy that led to the deaths of our people.
But....with that said, the fact that I keep hearing from the left (media) that "America doesn't care about Libya", what happened there, or the possabillity (very real IMO) that the administration consciously lied to us for strictly political reasons about the cause, well, I find that rather troubling.
Generally speaking, for the "most open administration in history" I find them to be right about on par with the Bush administration in keeping secrets and engaging in questionable actions then trying to cover them up. At least on Bush's level tbqh.
Maybe they wanted the truth. It seems others outside the administration lnew it was a terrorist attack. But what really bugs me why wasn't help sent in?
The folks who are screaming about Benghazi are insincere and trying to score political points.
Your point on our involvement in Libya is well taken but has little to do with the attack on our embassy
We should never put our diplomats in countries that they refuse or can't defend them.
It used to be a somewhat obvious position that we would not have a diplomatic mission in a nationstate that would not or could not provide rule of law and a safe environment for those we've sent there.
I believe that is a prudent and appropriate guideline for diplomacy. If teh host nation cannot provide a reasonably safe situation for our diplomatic staff, we should not have a diplomatic staff there.
That nation could, of course, choose to still send a diplomatic mission to the U.S. for diplomatic contacts of course.
2. This situation is compounded by the administrations inaccurate presentation of the attack as a response to a Video, and the clear attempt by the administration to cover up the circumstances of how/why the killings came to pass, and who (in our Government) is responsible for creating the situation that allowed it to happen.
3. Why do you not hold this Administration to the same standard you held the last one, on anything related to war, rights or foreign policy Ken?
France, Greece, Turkey and S.A., right now? No. All of those nations currently can provide an appropriate level of safety for a U.S. Diplomatic Mission.
Libya, Pakistan and Afgahnistan, for example, IMO cannot.
It is time to pick our friends and enemies. So far as I am concerned we have no friends in the Islamac world. So stop funding these countries including food. But lets not stop there if countries want our military presence let them pay for it. Enough is Enough already!
and quit selling them weapons.
And lol at "still investigating".
Not even close Ken. If you really believe you are, I feel very sorry for you. You're far too smart to be so blind to your own bias and unequal treatment.I am holding them to the same standard.
Not going to repeat myself ad neaseum, I think my view is clear as stated.Really, because in the last 12 years our embassies were attacked by "terrorists" in each of those countries. Is that what you consider "providing an appropriate level of safety"?
I spend too long a while plumbing the depths of the J.I. Archives, post ten posts proving you wrong said x, y and/or z exposing your double standards, and then you suddenly dissapear again for a few weeks. Thats alot of effort for no gain.
I don't need to prove it to myself old friend, and frankly, other posters can judge for themselves or go play in the archives themselves, if they want to know how you felt about Iraq/Afganistan and how you felt/cheerlead for Libya, for example.
If you claim you treat/have treated the two administration equally and without bias of foreign/millitary/security policy, I will continue to respectfully disagree with you.
Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money
—By Kevin Drum| Wed Oct. 10, 2012 9:56 AM PDT
Via Steve Benen, I see that Darrell Issa might have a wee problem on his hands when he holds his hearings today about inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. Dana Milbank reports:
House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
That's the problem with budget cutting: it sounds great when you're thumping tubs on the campaign trail in front of adoring tea party crowds, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.