Skip to main content

View Diary: And Now comes the Benghazi Security Smear (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, according to the Wall Street (17+ / 0-)

    Journal, Stevens didn't want more security:


    Current and former officials said the security choices in Benghazi reflected efforts by Mr. Stevens to maintain a low-profile security posture and show faith in Libya’s new leaders, despite questions about their ability to rein in heavily armed bands of militants. Officials say Mr. Stevens personally advised against having Marines posted at the embassy in Tripoli, apparently to avoid a militarized U.S. presence.

        The security plan for the consulate also reflected confidence Mr. Stevens felt in a city where he worked for months with rebels battling Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.

    That said, there are some real questions that should be asked and answered about this incident, especially in regards to the administration's claiming that this wasn't a pre-planned terrorist attack long after they had info suggesting it was just that.

    Sometimes paranoids have enemies; and sometimes Republican hacks have legit questions.

    Unfortunately, this won't be a genuine inquiry into the causes of this incident and terrorism generally, but a gettuffonterra fear-fest.

    •  That is true from what I've read (8+ / 0-)

      Again from the Daily Beast:

      A senior State Department official contacted for this story said the ambassador was “not reckless” with his own security or that of his staff. But this official also acknowledged that the ambassador was “an old-school diplomat” and strongly desired to have as few barriers between himself and the Libyan people.
      All Ambassadors need to understand a fundamental principle. There are too many in the ME that hate us (well there are too many in the world that hate us). And the reason? Our foreign policy. That's why ambassadors should not be negligent with security but very cautious and on guard
      •  Right, I'm not sure that the (5+ / 0-)

        the fact that an ambassador doesn't want heavier security absolves higher-ups of the responsibility of not providing it.

        In any case: a real tragedy, real questions. It's not happy for Dems that this is happening right before the election and being pushed by un-principled GOP hax, but dem's the breaks. It's the flip side of being CIC and reaping the political benefits of killing bad guys.

        •  Thanks to you both (0+ / 0-)

          I imagine Secretary Clinton will be providing additional insight shortly.

          At some level, I trust the professionalism and seriousness of the people involved enough that I suspect that when the truth comes out, it will have been solidly justified and well thought out.

          Never believe your own press, never drink your own KoolAid

          by Mindful Nature on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 03:49:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's also be nice if pols and journalists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawn Russell

        pressed the administration on the response -- does the admin believe they have a right to kill the suspected perpetrators in response and if so, by what authority?

        •  I guess what the admin is use this rationale (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          david mizner

          Since OBL orchestrated 9/11 and we killed him, we also have a right to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the instigator behind this attack.

          Zawahiri acknowledged the death of his second in command Abu Yahya and urged Libyans to avenge his killing.

          Not sure if that meets the standards of international law, but when has the "law," stopped us before? I say that with sadness not sarcasm.
          •  Yeah, but even Zawahiri (0+ / 0-)

            doesn't claim he "Orchestrated" this attack, only that he called  - as he has tendency to do - for someone, anyone, to strike back in revenge for the killing of his second-in-command by drone strike.

            •  That's true but don't you think this gives the (0+ / 0-)

              administration a perfect justification to kill him as well?

              I am all for killing Zawahiri if it meets legal standards. I just don't think it does. Here is why:

              None of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the fight against international terrorism, and in particular al-Qaida (Res. 1267 of 1999 to Res. 1974 of 2011), authorize the carrying out of operations on foreign territory, nor the arrest, and even less the killing, of (suspected) terrorists. These resolutions can, at best, be read, in line with the various Terrorism Conventions, as allowing the extradition or prosecution (aut dedere aut iudicare) of terrorism suspects.
              •  He's already on the hit list... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                he's al Qeada's current #1, since the death of Bin Laden.

                •  Sadly, we probably cannot either kill or capture (0+ / 0-)

                  him anytime soon, thanks to Pakistan:

                  There are indicators that some elements of the Pakistani government may be protecting Zawahiri,” says a U.S. intel official who did not want to be named discussing sensitive information. “We have reports that he’s been hanging out in Karachi for brief periods, and we just don’t think he’s going to be doing that without a lot of people knowing about it.”

                  At the moment, it would be politically fraught, however, for American special operators and CIA agents to carry out an attack even in the remote tribal areas, much less in a city. Pakistan’s political and military leaders, humiliated and furious that Washington kept them in the dark about the bin Laden raid and other missions, have forbidden the United States from conducting drone strikes in their territory. American forces are respecting Pakistani wishes—for now—in an effort to “lower the temperature,” says one senior administration official. But that forbearance won’t last long. Eventually, American officials tell Newsweek, offensive drone operations will restart, with or without Pakistan’s approval.

    •  I appreciate (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rja, angry marmot, kefauver, blueoasis

      his position. One can certainly understand his rationale for not wanting enhanced security. He thought of the Libyans first at risk to his own life.

      That's something most people would respect...including Libyans.

      I suppose we have to wonder now if he was the final authority for that decision or whether someone might be in trouble for allowing it. Chris Stevens was a brave man, and all this politically inspired controversy is the work of cowards.

      "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

      by valadon on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 02:11:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site