- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,534
To me the whole bengazi debacle was the administrations intent to make Obama's Lybia versus Bush's Iraq seem like a wild sucess. They wanted it to appear to be a very stable country. If Stevens died in a general protest to a film it was not their fault, however if Stevens died at the the hands of radical muslims that had been supported by american airpower was contrary to a reelection theme. Assets could have gotten there.
Spot on. I concur. So much nonsense going on here that the big picture is lost. Hillary and friends wanted to pretend that the Libya "liberation" was a great, resounding success. Libya was now a wonderful, Democratic, land of the free, with rainbows and unicorns dancing in the streets. No need for security in wonderland. And of course Embassies and consulates must be there because it's so safe and free that Hillary should get a Nobel Peace prize.
They didn't want to send in military help during the assassination attack, because that would be an admission that all was not well.
The truth was that Hillary and Obama's political theater outweighed the safety of personnel on the ground. That's the story.
IMHO, if an area is not safe, we should have no presence at all. Our people should not be put in harms way for political posturing. And all of this talk about more money for more security is nonsense. If a place is inherently not safe, extra security personnel will not help.
We can spend a billion dollars on a fortress in Baghdad, yet it still isn't secure. It's a waste of money and potentially lives.