Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
I guess no one wants to address my question.
|
Here are some answers for you:
the "lack" of security was due to the fact is wasn't an embassy it was a CIA base
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/o...ow-cias-cover/
The CIA is running a covert war in Libya. The fact is America is too broke to have another Iraq / Afghanistan style conflict so they have opted for convert operations supporting "freedom fighters" in Libya and Syria.
Now in Libya three things happened
1. The new Libyan government did not want US security contractors on the ground in Libya (google blackwater Iraq and you'll see why). So in order to keep the appearance of a legitimate government the U.S.A. appeased them in the wish so a Libyan security contractor got the job.
2. The fact is that the USA didn't send military security detail to Libya because the only way too afford it would be to use private contractors. The budget for embassy security is stretched due to the fact that the world hates America and America has embassies everywhere.
3. The CIA is a ghost agency, they don't want their operations to come to light. They were trying to play it both ways, have the appearance of a friendly to the people embassy while covertly over taking the Libyan Government.
So this argument of Obama should of sent more security is really a misguided attempt to score points for Romney. Why aren't republicans saying "Why is the CIA in Libya?", "Why did we remove Gaddafi if it was going to result in a prolonged insurgensecy?", "Why at a time when we have four covert wars in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan are we injecting (or creating depending on who you believe) ourselves into a Libyan conflict"?
because Republicans have been a part of the plan since day 1. And if Republicans cared so much about embassy security why did the cut funds for it?
And they made Ron Paul seem crazy for wanting to close all U.S. bases over seas and stop trying to play world police.