Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I guess I just don't need to concentrate on the "talking points" from the "talking heads" of the respective parties.... Benghazi was a tragedy, actually more like a tragedy of errors! Just one more place in the world that we are trying to ram our form of government down a countries throat and they rejected it..... These were diplomats in a hostile country, I doubt they thought there lives would be laying around eating bon-bons and checking out the local museums. It's a tragic loss of life, but no more tragic then the loss of life that goes on everyday in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, both the local population and our troops are having their lives wasted on a lost cause. Why is Benghazi the only point of interest when it comes to murder? Heck, we can't do a thing about the murder rate in our own country, how could this government (or any government) think the could control the loss of life in other countries?

There is a huge difference between troops in a combat zone and diplomats in dangerous city (you and I have both been in combat zones). And just in case any readers are thinking cheap shot thoughts, this isn't an endorsement of our soldiers being killed, and not valuing them less than ambassadors or assistants.

Soldiers are trained for combat, equipped for combat, expect combat, and are prepared daily for possible attacks. I'd be willing to bet that the commanders of the various units in or near combat zones were prepared, ESPECIALLY on the 9/11 anniversary, for something to happen. Diplomatic corp people are not trained, and armed for that sort of thing. They may (hopefully) have intelligence assets to warn them of potential attack, but need help from their higher ups to defend them or get them the hell out of there. As we learn more and more each day (hopefully it won't be buried for the sake of protecting the "guilty" parties) we find out that those guys in Benghazi expected something could happen. It appears there was plenty of correspondence where they asked for "home office" to do something for them. How much intel did we have? We don't know for sure, but if we had it why didn't we act on it? If we didn't have intel, why not? Have we disembowled the intelligence network to the point we're not getting enough to warrant taking the risks of having diplomats in a too dangerous area? If so, why weren't they pulled out? It looks like Al Queda was the responsible murderers. If so, were we wrong to assume that killing Bin Laden was sufficient to render them powerless? Or, were they still in existence, don't need Bin Laden to operate, and wanted to throw in our national face their ability to kill inspite of our government officials bragging about killing their "leader" at their political convention for a week? If those are just "talking points" and not valid questions about competent leadership and decision making then we're going to be paying some big penalties for short sightedness. These aren't partisan questions, these are citizen questions based on real potential problems and real outcomes. It's politcal posturing that's trying to take attention away from these important questions........................and that posturing should be condemned.