Consider the facts:
- Neither Stephens, nor the three security personnel, had any bullet or shrapnel wounds. They died of asphyxiation, after retreating to a safehouse, which was obviously not impervious to the smoke.
They are dead nevertheless are they not?
And they were killed by moslem al qaeda terrorists performing jihad for islam.
I would post pictures of Stevens that dispute your claim he died of smoke inhilation but that is forbidden on this site.
There were no security personnel at the facility other than contracted Libyan guards who abandoned their posts after allowing the al qaeda men into the compound and probably pointed out where Stevens was.
There were four people killed there, Ambasador Stevens, his assistant Smith, (financial I think) and the two SEALs which were most likely performing classified work, at least I've not seen what their actual jobs were other than the fact that they weren't assigned to protect Stevens.
There was another safe house where other staff members were supposedly secreted, it came under attack when eight Marines arrived to evacuate them, two Marines were killed in that ambush.
The fault of it all lies at the feet of Barack Obama, whether by ineptness or by betrayal.
- There are very stringent ROEs for security personnel on diplomatic missions. Who would they shoot and kill if no one was shooting (at least with effective fire) at them?
Stevens expressed strong concerns about security at Benghazi four days before 9/11.
The Libyan president said that we were warned on an impending attack 48 hours before the attack.
On the night of 9/11, Smith, Stevens top assistant, expressed concerns about living through the night.
So did one of the SEALs.
Messages had been sent from Benghazi to our embassy in Tripoli that Libyan guards had been seen taking photos of the facility earlier that day. (probably to pass on to those who would be attacking that night.)
- You make some strong claims that you positively base upon a lack of evidence.
That is one of the most poorly constructed sentences I've ever read.
What claim have I made that lacks evidence?
Since you blame Obama for this (since he has not been vetting enlistees in a proper manner), do you give him credit for the vast reduction in KIAs this year (on pace to have 100 fewer KIAs in 2012 than 2011; 150 less than 2010)?
If we are in withdrawal mode and not activly searching out the enemy any more then that might be the reason. Ya think?
Also, is this a vetting problem? Or, is there something deeper (something that Obama would not be able to control in any manner)?
Yes it is a vetting problem.
Obama projects weakness, that is either treason or cowarice, either way that should be under his control unless he has delegated that to Valerie Jarret.
36 attacks overall. So, somewhere between 3 and 9 of these attacks are due to a lack of proper vetting; leaving between 27 and 33 attacks that are the result of what these Afghan troops must be taking as personal insults (I am not justifying the attacks; I am simply stating that proper vetting to keep enemy infiltrators out would not be the fix).
Who do you cite for your statistics?
Or are you just making it up out of thin air as you often do?
Proper vetting should eliminate those who would not be so easily offended and quick on the trigger, would you not agree?
Let me get this straight. The Obama policy has been, in your own words, on its face and from the beginning a policy that would not doubt put our soldiers at greater risk. Yet, you do not blame the commanders for executing the policy, because Obama is presumably so powerful that they cannot refuse or that refusal might lead to a loss of their career (or, whatever other justification you might want to offer).
We probably need more Lakins.
You know what it is like to be in charge of a unit.
Actually, refusing an order can result in imprisonment or worse, either Obama takes responsibility as CIC or not.
I don't see why you want to give him a free pass.
Yet, you follow that BS line of thought by then saying that the change in policy does not come from Obama. So, therefore, the Commanders must have enough power to say which policies they are going to execute.
Do you think there was a change of policy not OKed by Obama?
The reason for the change in policy was because of the amount of uproar because of American servicemen's deaths from friendly fire and he did it for strictly political reasons not concern for our troops, I'm convinced of that.
BTW, the families of the two SEALs who died in Benghazi have some very strong words to and about Obama.
Research that.
However, if this is the case, then they presumably had that power earlier. They had the power to refuse to carry out Obama's policy. If they had this power, yet carried it out anyway, then they are to blame as well.
What a crock, you are taking some flight into la la land now.
Uh-oh, GS:
You can choose not to believe this "official account"; however, this account certainly provides a huge obstacle to your following statement:
When saying they were working as 'security assets' I assume some sort of clandestine activity.
Now are you trying to say they were armed and not able to defend themselves at all?
