International News
See other International News Articles
Title: WTF!!!!!!!Report: U.S. consulate in Benghazi had no Marine protection
Source:
hot air
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/ ... hazi-had-no-marine-protection/
Published: Sep 12, 2012
Author: allahpundt
Post Date: 2012-09-12 23:12:04 by calcon
Keywords: None
Views: 2229
Comments: 10
The consulate where the American ambassador to Libya was killed on Tuesday is an “interim facility” not protected by the contingent of Marines that safeguards embassies, POLITICO has learned… A senior administration official Wednesday called the Benghazi consulate “an interim facility,” which the State Department began using “before the fall of Qadhafi.” It was staffed Tuesday by Libyan and State Department security officers. The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured. The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday. There’s not even a pretense of an excuse made there. Whether it’s S.O.P. to deploy Marines to “interim facilities” or not, this was no ordinary facility. It’s an unfortified building in a volatile Muslim city that’s been targeted by jihadis before — and it’s 9/11. Obama had no qualms about sending Marines to Benghazi today to reinforce the building; there’s no reason to think he couldn’t have sent them sooner. So what’s the excuse? Or is he simply counting on the media not to ask him this question? Because if so, I’ve got to tell you — that seems like a smart bet at this point. Speaking of our concern-troll press corps, here’s Chris Matthews summing up the narrative du jour by insisting that “The tragedy in Benghazi that cost Ambassador Stevens his life unfortunately has been overshadowed by the desperate reach by Mitt Romney to secure political advantage.” Top American diplomat killed by jihadis on September 11th at a consulate with no Marine protection = page two. Romney hitting Bambi hard on it = page one. I’ll leave you with two thoughts. One: Matthews can play dumb all he wants but Romney’s statement about the administration sympathizing with the attackers in Egypt was a perfectly apt way of describing that filthy press release from the Cairo embassy yesterday afternoon. And no, it’s no excuse that the embassy released that statement before protesters stormed the compound later in the day; they emphatically stood by their statement later in the afternoon. Unless Matthews is suggesting that the president can’t be held responsible for official U.S. embassy declarations (special rules for The One, as usual), I don’t know what his objection is. Two: Since we’re floating in a sea of pious leftist bilge today about politicizing attacks on the U.S., read this Washington Free Beacon report on candidate Obama referring to a specific attack on U.S. troops in July 2008 to criticize Bush on the war. That pattern doesn’t start with The One, either: Philip Klein pointed earlier on Twitter to this 2004 report noting that “On a day when seven U.S. servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing attack in Iraq, [John] Kerry termed the war in Iraq ‘catastrophic.’” Good, hard campaigning on a seminal foreign-policy issue, or disgraceful politicization of American grief? If you’re a concern-troll journalist, the candidate’s party affiliation will get you 95 percent of the way to an answer.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I figured that. These cowardly assholes would never face a marine
It was a CIA terrorist school and supply depot, aka US consulate. An academy of "regime change". Tip of the spear for the "democratic (al-CIA-da) rebels" of Libyan Arab Spring. Overthrowing legitimate governments may be hazardous to your health. In essence, the students turned on the faculty. We've been funding terrorists for decades, with similar results wherever we do it. It's the neocon MIC way. Mitt wants to increase the DOD budget, and do more of it. "War is the health of the state" ~Randolph Bourne [....] Conclusion Bourne's essays written in opposition to World War I while he was on the editorial staff of the New Republic are not typical of anti-war literature. He provides very little in the way of critiquing specific policies. He does not dwell upon the 'Butcher's Bill' of dead soldiers and civilians. He does not rail against the profits reaped by the military-industrial complex, which was collectively called 'the munitions makers' in his day. The thrust of Bourne's essays is to attack the sanctity of war by showing how it leads to the moral collapse of society by kicking out the props (the principles) of peaceful interaction upon which society rests. In essence, Bourne addressed the moral consequences of war upon a post-war society which had abandoned individualism in favor of "the herd-machinery." He eloquently argued that post-war America would be morally, intellectually, and psychologically impoverished. By this observation, Bourne did not mean that peace time America would struggle under the increased bureaucracy that never seems to roll-back to pre-war levels. Many historians have made this point. Bourne addressed the less tangible, though arguably more significant, costs of war. For example, post-1918 America would be burdened by intellectuals who had "forgotten that the real enemy is War rather than imperial Germany."(13) In converting World War I into a holy war, the intellectual and psychological groundwork was being laid for future instances of what he termed "the sport of the upper class" -- global conflict.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Can't afford them, have to 'cut the deficient' you know...
It is not easy reconstructing 'molded minds'...
cheney? mcCain? Since VietNAm you just don't get it. There won't be Fair John Wayne fights. And the Wars of Insurgents aren't over til the Insurgents say so....;} And how have the marines been doing in the iraq/afghans? War almost over?
It's amazing the amount of bullshit that comes out of your mouth.
WTF is amazing is the fact that you Never have a rebuttal to the facts I put up. Then waiting X amount of time, talking abortion, immigration, union bustin' until you think X has been forgotten, then ....wait for it....come right back with your State Agit Prop like nothing's changed. The USSA is disintegrating....;}
The only known facts here are that you're completely full of shit and are the metro-sexual version of yukon.
WTF is amazing is the fact that you Never have a rebuttal to the facts I put up. ;} Jane Stanley BBC: The Solomon Bldg (WTC7 standing behind her left shoulder) just collapsed..... ;}
so BorisY is the other alias you use here?
You wish....;} BorisY is some kind of libertarian....another Republican maybe minus the religion....;}
#2. To: calcon, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
"WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE": ITS MEANING 
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: calcon (#0)
#4. To: calcon (#1)
I figured that. These cowardly assholes would never face a marine
#5. To: mcgowanjm (#4)
#6. To: calcon (#5)
It's amazing the amount of bullshit that comes out of your mouth.
#7. To: mcgowanjm (#6)
WTF is amazing is the fact that you Never have a rebuttal to the facts I put up.
#8. To: calcon (#7)
The only known facts here are that you're completely full of shit and are the metro-sexual version of yukon.
#9. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
#10. To: calcon (#9)
BorisY
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]