Currently: 82° | Complete forecast | Log in
Letter to the editor:
Sunday, Nov. 25, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Thank you for your recent editorial “Lessons from Libya.” I wish, however, that you would have mentioned that Republican representatives, including Paul Ryan, cut from a bill $250 million for U.S. embassy security. Once more, Republicans create or, at least, contribute to a problem — and then place blame at the feet of Democrats.
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
lies about there not being enough money for Clinton and Obama to protect the embassy
OBAMA AND CLINTON CHOSE NOT TO PROTECT THE BENGHAZI EMBASSY AND THEN CHOSE TO SEND THE AMBASSADOR TO BENGHAZI TO HIS DEATH.
OBAMA AND CLINTON FAILED AND HIDE BEHIND SUSAN RICE AND A HOLLYWOOD VIDEO
Bull. Democrats and Republicans alike cut spending for security. Besides, it had nothing to do with the sacking of the Consulate in Beghazi Libya and murdering of the 4 American heroes including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The President, on the night of the terrorsist attack on the Consulate and CIA Annex, gave an order to his Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to do whatever is needed to save the Americans. What was done? We don't know yet and haven't been told. All we know for sure is an unmanned predator drone with no weapons was used to provide a real time account of the attack, which lasted over 7 hours, back to the White House.
CarmineD
Administrations have made foreign policy blunders for years and when they have, people died.
Former President Johnson should have completely occupied South Vietnam or totally exited. He did neither and Americans and Vietnamese died.
Former President Bush should not have disbanded the Iraqi Army and once Saddam was dead, should have pulled our troops out. He didn't and Americans and Iraqi's died.
President Obama should have pulled our personel out of Benghanzi as the British did and he didn't, and people died.
All three were blunders, mistakes... and there just isn't anyway around that fact. If you like the President, you're going to forgive the blunder. If you don't, you're going to blame him for it.
Michael
In reply to Samuel J. Marber; even though all the initial criticisms made about Benghazi were logical assumptions;
NEITHER THE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS WERE WRONG
As a former long term Marine who had never been assigned duty as a Marine Embassy Guard, it is a commonsensical belief that Marines assigned to U.S. Embassy duty would be heavily armed with the primary duty of protecting their Embassy and the diplomatic staff.
The actual truth as I discovered is much different;
"The Mission of the Marine Security Guard Detachments is to safe guard material and equipment vital to national security at various US diplomatic missions under the auspices of the US Department of State. MSG is neither a physical area protection detail nor an embassy staff protection detail. Those functions are handled by the host country and US Diplomatic Security Service details respectively."
Both the House Republicans and the Obama administration have proposed budget cuts to Embassy security.
In fact, as of 14 September 2012, buried on page 136 of their budget, are the White Houses' proposed cuts to Embassy Security, construction and maintenance.
I cannot, in the end place legitimate blame on either the Democrats or Republicans. If anything, I would blame the Libyan government, simply because they are the host country of our Benghazi consulate and were ultimately responsible. However, even in placing blame there, Libya's new post Gadhafi government is in transition and development.
In my final analysis, Al-Qaeda chose the perfect target to attack. While this is a definite tragedy, neither Democrats nor Republicans rightfully deserved to be blamed. Maybe, if anything, the United States should focus more closely on when is an appropriate and expeditious evacuation time from U.S. Embassy's where the host country has become either hostile towards America or just is not capable of providing adequate protections. At this point, besides Libya, I think maybe Egypt and definitely Pakistan would be other good choices where our U.S. Embassy's should be closed.
Anyone who maintains you can remove all risks in life is looking in the rear-view mirror. It's much harder to predict the future than it is to disect the past.
BChap correctly said:
"I cannot, in the end place legitimate blame on either the Democrats or Republicans. If anything, I would blame the Libyan government, simply because they are the host country of our Benghazi consulate and were ultimately responsible. However, even in placing blame there, Libya's new post Gadhafi government is in transition and development."
I say:
In addition to Bradley's spot on (first time in a while, but give credit when due) analysis -- the lack of emotional connection AGAINST the ACTUAL killers is upsetting to me still. Too many Americans have taken their eye off THAT ball. I would rather Obama feel THAT heat than the politicized drama queening proffered daily by the likes of DiFazio and republicans here.
BChap and Jeff claim "If anything, I would blame the Libyan government, simply because they are the host country of our Benghazi consulate and were ultimately responsible."
OBAMA AND CLINTON BOTH KNEW THAT LIBYIA COULD NOT PROTECT SMITH. - SO WHY WAS THE AMBASSADOR SENT TO BENGHAZI
"NEITHER THE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS WERE WRONG"
I say whoever told the troops to stand down, watched in REAL time these four men being murdered are to blame and whomever this person is needs to fess up and take responsibility. Funding had ZERO effect on the fact that the ambassador and these men were left unprotected.
Future:
I know and you should know that there is NO embassy that is close to 100% safe for our fellow citizens. A determined terrorist can, and likely will again kill Americans abroad working for the USA.
Grow up.
It comes with the territory.
This is a lame argument.
1) Even if the security budget was cut it does not mean one cuts important security in high risk areas.
2) Democrats run the Senate and the WH. No budget cut gets passed without their approval.
3) Even the WH is not using this bogus taking point.
4) Lack of budget did not force Obama's WH to lie about the event.
In reply to "Future"; in this unlikely scenario (LOL) where "Jeff from Vegas" and I agree, we both speak in the manner that we do from whatever our experiences were in the military.
"Many times the element of danger just cannot be avoided."
Whether in Foreign Service, the military, law enforcement or even just a totally innocent politician named "Gabby" Gifford's, there is always a high risk of danger. While in these occupations, we deal with that fact every day.
Well said in your posts "Jeff from Vegas".
In reply to "Sgt. Rock"; in case you didn't know, the intelligence provided to the White House are not elected officials. These are the same people who misled George W. Bush on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and now Barack Obama and his administration on the Benghazi attacks. They, intelligence bureaucrats, are the only liars in this mess, again!!!
The middle east is not a area of the world that we can truly believe what they say about them protecting our embassies at all costs.It simply is not something that we and other countries can take to the bank,(protecting all enbassies).
Most host countries in other parts of the world will do as they say and protect our enbassies and other foreign embassies as well,at all costs.
The hate that exists in the middle east towards the west may never change.A hard look should be placed in where or if we should place personnal in embassies in certain middle eastern countries.
Mr. Chapline et al, all I would like to add with regards to our "intelligence" community is that Mr. Clapper stated that the Muslim Brotherhood was a largely secular organization. Each time I see a picture of Mr. Clapper I think to myself that this has to be one of the dumbest "intelligence" workers in the world. He has made many other baffling statements but this has to be of SNL quality.
The problem in Libya was not due to lack of funding.
It was due to inept leadership.
The ensuing cover-up proved it.
over extended around the world. We can not afford to provide perfect security for everyone.
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; I know you're a strong supporter of President Obama. When I give my opinion on Mr. Obama's best traits as "Commander-in-Chief" it is that he has absolute guts and determination to bring terrorists to final justice that has attacked America.
President Obama reminds me of a weak individual who always gets picked on. Once the enemy goes too far they then learn the hard way that this little skinny weak person holds a "black belt" in martial arts.
Just ask the ghosts of the Somali pirates and Osama bin laden. Believe that Obama will get the murderers of our Ambassador and security staff in Benghazi.
"It's a great trait to be able to walk as a "tenderfoot" but truly carry the biggest and most dangerous stick of all." >B. Chapline<
In reply to John Thompson; I have no argument there on James Clapper. His height of stupidity was when he assured the House Intelligence Committee at the time of Mubarak's fall, that the Muslim Brotherhood was only a secular organization akin to that of an Episcopal Church.
Presidents, whether Republican or Democrat has made fatal foreign policy errors when following advice from a sometimes stupid Intelligence Branch.
HOGWASH! The monstrosity of an Embassy a.k.a Mall of the Americas has about 12,000 on staff not including contractors.
The US Embassy in Paris - has a Marine security detail assigned.
What happened in Benghasi was pure political, tactical and cubicle-cowboy incompetence! A mix of let's hope this works, let's keep a low profile (but have a CIA annex at the same vicinity) and let's see if hugs & kisses will get us through the day.
Why have a consulate building if the security is so bad, you cannot leave the compound - or let anyone inside?
Mall of the Americas is referenced to:
The Embassy of the United States in Baghdad is the largest and most expensive of any embassy in the world. At 440,000 square meters it is nearly as large as Vatican City.[1] It also employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build.
Future: You need to incorporate some facts into your narrative.
1. Sean Smith was a Foreign Service information management officer, NOT the US Ambassador to Lybia.
2. The US Ambassador to Lybia was Chris Stevens.
3. Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11 to open a new cultural center where Libyans could get access to books and movies about America, presumably Smith was also.
4. I've been unable to determine if Smith was in Benghazi voluntarily or whether he was "sent" there. It's not unreasonable, however, for an information management officer to attend the opening of this type of cultural center. If he wasn't in Benghazi voluntarily, recognizing the trip to be part of his official duties, it's not unreasonable he would have been "sent," quite probably by Stevens, his boss.
5. Many people participating in the arguments over Benghazi appear to hold the opinion that no American diplomats should ever be exposed to any risk whatsoever and that it is always better to have too much security than too little. Since it appears that Stevens himself did NOT hold such views, it appears reasonable that Stevens may have decided, of his own volition, that the opening was an event he, too, really should attend.
6. In saying that Smith, and presumably also Stevens, were "sent" to Benghazi you obviously have information I lack. Kindly provide your sources.
Benghazi was not an embassy. It was not a consulate, At best it may have been a mission. It's described by The Centre for Research on Globalization as ". . . a collection of villas (that is, a gated community) privately owned by one Mohammad Al Bishari, who was leasing the villas to US State Department personnel. Collectively the villas were what the US State Department calls an 'interim facility'. It had a level of security known as 'simple lock and key,' meaning it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors, US Marines, or other features common to embassies and consulates."
Gated community??? So much for the "compound" idea. . .
In a rush to hang Benghazi on Obama you on the right deleted a significant part of the equation. At that time twenty plus countries lost their minds over the xenophobic anti Muslim video. You also fail to acknowledge the CIA issued their report attributing the riots to the video as well.
How can we ever succeed as a country when people prefer to be ignorant by ignoring reality? Fear and hate is driving the far right over the edge of sanity and reason.
Renrobert -
You forgot to mention the "facility" did not even meet the criteria set by the Dept of State -
Vernos your time frame is WRONG> Supposedly Obama went in the rose garden on the 12th and said it was a terror attack. REMEMBER the debate when he asked Crwoley to bail him out. Come on you remember. Many in the Dem. party used that as an excuse that Obama new what the attack was, or are you now dicounting that asseration? 20 plus countries don't riot because of a 6 month old movie no one has watched. The attack was watched in REAL TIME and no help was sent. As a matter of fact NO ONE was even in the situation room.
Do us a favor and don't defend this disaster, you make a mockery of the people that died.
It was rented to "US State Department personnel." Was it even an official State Department facility? Or was it rented by individuals as a staff housing enclave?