I'm thinking the whole thing is just a wee bit more complicated than you are making out. Somehow I don't think any of the hire ups sat there & twidled their thumbs. Were bad decisions made? Quite possibly, but I doubt anyone just turned their backs on our people. The insinuations you are making are quite outlandish. From the little I've read thus far, it was decided not to just throw more soldiers in their blind & wind up with triple the casualties.
well you can believe that. The truth is that the embassies sent repeated requests for help because they knew violence was coming. That was denied.
Government investigation? That will go away just like Fast and Furious.
If 4 people die and Hillary takes full blame, shouldn't she resign right now?
While it's sad to see any American killed in the line of duty, the death of a US Ambassador or member of the State Department by terrorists is not an unusual occurrance. Many presidents have had to accept the deaths of friends they have appointed to these positions around the world. It's a dangerous job and the people who do it know full well they will be putting themselves in harm's way.
I don't think anyone in the Obama administration intentionally denied assistance to these people. Sending troops in may very well have had th same result and in fact more deaths could have resulted. If we aren't even capable of rescuing a downed helicopter crew in an African country when troops are immeadiately available, I don't know why anyone would assume we could rescue a US Embassy that's under attack by armed terrorists and bring everyone out safely with no casualties.
This was an unfortunate situation, but it's far from unprecedented. Many recent presidents have had to accept the deaths of people they had personally asked to represent them in volitile regions of the world. When the signs are clear that Americans abroad are in imminent danger and there is time to extract them that's what is done, In this case the situation changed too quickly to react in time to assure the safety of those involved. It's happened before and it will no doubt happen again. It's a dangerous world and these representatives of the US willingly place themselves in the most dangerous parts of it because they know the service they perform for their country is invaluable.
I personally think politicizing their deaths and trying to score points against Obama from a tragedy like this is abhorrent. No president wants to be responsible for sending American troops to their death, but these people who are appointed to foreign Ambassadorships are friends and confidantes of the president. To suggest he would sit idly by and do nothing if a solution of any kind were available is completly absurd to me.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber eludes security and almost completely destroys the US Embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people die, including 17 Americans.
On October 23, a truck bomb explodes in the US Marine barracks outside Beirut. 241 military personnel are killed. Two miles away, the French garrison’s barracks are also bombed, killing 58 French soldiers.
After each incident President Reagan announces that the US will stay in Lebanon. In response, no one suggests Reagan is playing fast and loose with American lives in an active war zone. No one blames him for the attack. No one faults the investigation of the incident, which experiences several false starts and is going nowhere fast. No one tries to score political points as America mourns its dead.
On December 12, the US Embassy in Kuwait is attacked.
On February 7, 1984, President Reagan announces the withdrawal of US forces from Lebanon. By February 26, the move is completed. None of the terrorist leaders have been brought to justice. Indeed, the identity of the barracks bombers is completely unknown. No one accuses Reagan of running from a fight. No one suggests that we have to stay and finish the job.
On March 16, CIA Station Chief William Buckley becomes the fourth person kidnapped by terrorists in Lebanon.
On September 20, the US Embassy Annex in Beirut is bombed. Twenty-four people are killed, including 2 US military personnel. No one accuses the president of failing to learn the lesson of the previous bombings.
In November, Ronald Reagan is re-elected, following a campaign in which neither the shortcomings of his Middle East policy, nor his failure to bring the terrorists to justice, are major issues. The opposition chooses to regard the Middle East as an incredibly complex situation and gives the president the benefit of the doubt.
There will be many foreign policy issues to fight about, but the tragedy in Benghazi is not one of them. Romney blew it when he made this event political the very night it happened. And this was the look on his face after he politicize this horrible event.
What a shock that Fox News didn't cover this. Oh that's right. They were smiling with him.
While it's sad to see any American killed in the line of duty, the death of a US Ambassador or member of the State Department by terrorists is not an unusual occurrance. Many presidents have had to accept the deaths of friends they have appointed to these positions around the world. It's a dangerous job and the people who do it know full well they will be putting themselves in harm's way.
I don't think anyone in the Obama administration intentionally denied assistance to these people. Sending troops in may very well have had th same result and in fact more deaths could have resulted. If we aren't even capable of rescuing a downed helicopter crew in an African country when troops are immeadiately available, I don't know why anyone would assume we could rescue a US Embassy that's under attack by armed terrorists and bring everyone out safely with no casualties.
This was an unfortunate situation, but it's far from unprecedented. Many recent presidents have had to accept the deaths of people they had personally asked to represent them in volitile regions of the world. When the signs are clear that Americans abroad are in imminent danger and there is time to extract them that's what is done, In this case the situation changed too quickly to react in time to assure the safety of those involved. It's happened before and it will no doubt happen again. It's a dangerous world and these representatives of the US willingly place themselves in the most dangerous parts of it because they know the service they perform for their country is invaluable.
I personally think politicizing their deaths and trying to score points against Obama from a tragedy like this is abhorrent. No president wants to be responsible for sending American troops to their death, but these people who are appointed to foreign Ambassadorships are friends and confidantes of the president. To suggest he would sit idly by and do nothing if a solution of any kind were available is completly absurd to me.
But, they asked for help time and time again? They were denied. They weren't allowed to be armed. Their request denied for that.
We had people who could have helped, but we didn't. Leave No Man is our creed in the US. It failed here.
Any which way, we failed these people. We let them die. It's that simple.
But, they asked for help time and time again? They were denied. They weren't allowed to be armed. Their request denied for that.
We had people who could have helped, but we didn't. Leave No Man is our creed in the US. It failed here.
Any which way, we failed these people. We let them die. It's that simple.
These people knew the risk involved when they took the job. Anyone put in a life-or-death situation is going to ask for help, even if they know help will not be possible or forthcoming. Your assumption that the administration simply allowed these people to die seems based on right-wing propaganda rather than the facts, most of which the public will probably never know.
Of course they weren't armed. The president does not want his representitives of peace in other countries armed. It completely defeats the purpose of them being there.
The sad fact is that even if your accusations were true, these would not be the first US Embassy people in history or even in this decade that were made to pay the ultimate price because they put themselves in harm's way for what they believed.
This wasn't a combat operation. They were put in harms way. That's why they had some seals there for protection and then we don't arm them? We always arm the protectors in place like this. According the Hillary apology they weren't allowed to carry weapons as to not upset the people around the embassy? What? Those are the people who hate us to begin with.
Like I said. It's a shame and people dropped the ball.
You can't tell the families of the dead that things like this just happens. Not when it could have been prevented or at least a chance of prevention.
By, the way. I'm one of those that doesn't believe in the two party political label system. It just leads to fighting. I just vote who I think is right at the time.
But, I know of Democrats who swear up and down that the only nut jobs come from the Republicans (and there a few). But, the blue dog democrats and some extreme left wing people say stupid stuff to. Case in point:
So how many American should die to try to save 4? If we sent in 100 marines and 20 died then you would be screaming about the waste of life.
We don't know the full situation. More people could have died if the military was sent in. Maybe by not sending in the army only 4 died instead of 10 or 20.
Until we know everything we need to stop the guessing and blame games.
Last edited by mtravis390; October 28th, 2012 at 12:12:41 PM..
By, the way. I'm one of those that doesn't believe in the two party political label system. It just leads to fighting. I just vote who I think is right at the time.
But, I know of Democrats who swear up and down that the only nut jobs come from the Republicans (and there a few). But, the blue dog democrats and some extreme left wing people say stupid stuff to. Case in point:
This guy is obviously one of those morons just out there to cause trouble - like Fox News - and should not even paid attention to - cause that's what they want. But yes, you are right - there are nuts on BOTH sides... which I posted before. I too, like you, vote for who I think is right for the job
That's one of the things that irks me about Obama. He can't take the blame for anything yet he will take credit for everything.
He has to own some of these economic problems. He still blames Bush for these economic problems when most of the problems in the Bush era started with Reagan and really went wild in the Clinton era with the banks (thanks Greenspan).
Heck, Bush came into a terrible economy at the end of the Clinton era and walked into a weak stance on terrorism yet he didn't blame the past all the time.
Sometimes you gotta own it and just do your best to fix it.
That's one of the things that irks me about Obama. He can't take the blame for anything yet he will take credit for everything.
He has to own some of these economic problems. He still blames Bush for these economic problems when most of the problems in the Bush era started with Reagan and really went wild in the Clinton era with the banks (thanks Greenspan).
Heck, Bush came into a terrible economy at the end of the Clinton era and walked into a weak stance on terrorism yet he didn't blame the past all the time.
Sometimes you gotta own it and just do your best to fix it.
This I sort of agree with... just the owning and fixing it part.
Bush did a number on this country and that's evident by just how much this election has tried their best to ignore and not discuss the Bush years
But - Obama should just move forward, like his slogan, and keep reminding people that things are in fact getting better - no matter how hard the right tries to spin it.
Sounds like this General Ham guy was a loose cannon - ignoring a direct order to stand down! There is a reason he was told to stand down, I'm sure, and he was going to put more troops in danger!
People seem to forget that the military is made up of people. Americans no less. People that have families to come home to.
We don't just throw in the military blindly and hope for the best. All situations are assessed carefully before sending these brave people into any hostile situation that could result in casualties.
Linear Mode
