Regarding Benghazi- My first question is what was the Ambassador doing there? Benghazi supposedly was a consulate, four hundred miles from the US embassy in the capital of Libya. There were warnings that it was a very dangerous place. There were militias tied to Al Qaida. They were tracking him while he was there. Relying on a hired local bunch of guys to protect the consulate seems like a poor judgment call. The consulate was not fortified like the embassy. Why was he there? There are reports that Hillary Clinton asked him to go there and set up a consulate. There are other reports that the CIA was running an arms smuggling operation to send arms to the Syrian rebels. Perhaps the whole silence on the incident is because of the secrecy of the activity. The ambassador may have been there to get information, to see what was going on, or to further relations. Yes, the embassy had asked for additional protection; protection for the embassy or for the consulate? How could we have protected the consulate? We did not want to set up a military base in Libya. Protection would have required at least a hundred troops and logistics. Certainly not in Benghazi. The ambassador was there with three security people. Two were former SEALS--contractors, not even military personnel. Nothing I have read leads me to believe that the whole truth has come out. Did Ambassador Stevens go there without adequate planning on his part. Was he a cowboy? Are people afraid to say that? Little makes sense.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:40:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015