Benghazi... no response?

My understanding is that the American Embassy in ANY country, while owned by the host nation (our embassy in any other country is NOT "American soil"), is under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic something or other that stipulates host nation may NOT enter an embassy unless give permission. If that is incorrect, I'm sure someone can correct me.

If that IS true, as I believe it is, then why have we not responded AT ALL to the tragedy in Benghazi? 4 US citizens, including the ambassador, were KILLED during an unprovoked attack on the embassy by citizens of the host nation... breaking international law... and NOTHING has been done in response. WTF?

For the record I'm NOT suggesting to carpet bomb the country. But SOME response (diplomatic or military) should have happened within days, shouldn't it? Regardless of the reason -- whether the attack was a protest response to a privately funded movie (the stupidest reason ever) or if it was, as is now rumored, terrorist initiated -- it doesn't matter.

I don't see anyone asking this question either... which is almost as disturbing. As someone who enjoys international travel (though I don't get to do it often), a lack of ANY response is really a little unnerving.

Anyone know what is going on or why? Do I have things wrong? Am I lacking information? I'll be the first to admit that this close to the election, when I have the RNC and DNC calling my house 10 times/day (minimum... those are just the ones that leave messages), I tend to tune out "news" but I still haven't seen anything that suggests the President or Congress or even SoS has made ANY kind of direct response to the killings that happened in Libya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tle

For the record I'm NOT suggesting to carpet bomb the country. But SOME response (diplomatic or military) should have happened within days, shouldn't it? Regardless of the reason -- whether the attack was a protest response to a privately funded movie (the stupidest reason ever) or if it was, as is now rumored, terrorist initiated -- it doesn't matter.

---

Why doesn't it matter? If it was terrorist initiated, which seems to be the case, then we can't really do anything to the host country as their government had nothing to do with it. We can't very well sanction them or punish anybody in the government (or the whole country) since they are not responsible.

If you're going to hold governments fully responsible for all acts of terrorism on their soil, should we go after the US government for the actions of Tim McVeigh or the Sikh temple shooting? It's one thing if you can prove the government/leadership is supporting such groups with money/arms/men, but until you can, I'm not sure how we can do anything overt.

I'm just sort of hard pressed to come up with a specific action that would be appropriate, besides using our intelligence networks to pin down the actual group responsible and then go after them specifically, which I believe is being done.

It might seem frustrating that we don't have the perpetrators in custody or dead already, or it may not satisfy our sense of vengeance that we haven't sent some military in there with guns a blazing to hold someone responsible. But IMO the last thing we need to do in the region is send in more military or thump our chests more.

The Administration is keeping a VERY tight lid on this and the major, mainstream media are aiding and abetting the silence. After the election you can expect to detect the stench of whitewash.

Hey, the Obama Administration has managed to successfully "stonewall" the death of a Border Patrol Officer. Why not a few more dead in a foreign place, far away.

G.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guilherme

The Administration is keeping a VERY tight lid on this and the major, mainstream media are aiding and abetting the silence. After the election you can expect to detect the stench of whitewash.

Hey, the Obama Administration has managed to successfully "stonewall" the death of a Border Patrol Officer. Why not a few more dead in a foreign place, far away.

G.

---

this.

if the truth came out, I bet many Americans would regret early voting.

"International Law" is a very nebulous thing in the aftermath of the GWOT and all the routine stretching, bending and opting-out that's gone on. Whether or not there should be a stronger US response is up for debate, but legitmating one through international law is problematic while we're still trying to rebuild global credibility on that score.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oved-role.html


This is all about the work he did. Plainly, this part of the world does not want peace and it was not just a few people who rose up to do this damage. The Russian news had the broadcast as the "people of Libya" rising up and not just a small cell of insurgents.

The thing is that we keep pretending that these places are in want of democracy when they in fact are not.

We do not need a sympathetic president that will keep us in bed with those who would do us and our leaders harm.

Will these countries "get it together" and create liberal democracies that guarantee both majority rule and minority rights? I don't know. Turkey seems to be pulling it off; Lebanon not so much.

I would note that the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution in 1783. The Constitution was written, in secret, by a small committee of leading citizens in 1787 and ratified in 1789. Its ratification was a near thing and it took efforts like the Federal Papers to get the job done. It's not a surprise that these former dictatorships have not yet achieved any significant level of stability.

The issue, however, is the Administration's response to an armed attack on a U.S. consulate. There is some evidence that this was not a "smash and kill" operation (like the raid on Bin Laden) but a firefight that lasted several hours (perhaps as long as seven). There is some evidence that U.S. military commanders wanted to intervene but were denied permission to do so. Most of this evidence is circulating "underground" on military oriented web discussion groups.

I would note that the Administration, when confronted with something that they consider erroneous or a "lie," turn loose an army of "flacks" to address the "misinformation." This response in generally quick and dramatic. In this case there is no response. There is only silence. This is very much out of character with the Administration. Why?

G.

It's going to be very difficult to extract ourselves from all the "nation building" we've been doing for the last 30 years. Obama says he wants to "nation build" in the USA. It looks like Sandy will be the catalyst for that and for more stimulous, which ought to help the econonomy. And nobody can gripe about it.

Nothing is being done, because the WH is involved in covering up their failure to help. The WH wants the whole thing to go away so Obama can get reelected. And they are counting on the people willing to bury their head in the sand to vote for him and not ask questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guilherme

The Administration is keeping a VERY tight lid on this and the major, mainstream media are aiding and abetting the silence. After the election you can expect to detect the stench of whitewash.

Hey, the Obama Administration has managed to successfully "stonewall" the death of a Border Patrol Officer. Why not a few more dead in a foreign place, far away.

G.

---

I owe you a huge apology...I meant to thumbs up this post and managed to hit the thumbs down instead. Gonna blame it on pain meds and my screwy tablet. Another prob with the thumbs thing.

A little more info about Benghazi...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...a24_story.html

I posted this on the politics thread as well.

Here is what I think about Benghazi, that place is a powder keg right now. Details we are not privy to, we are probably not supposed to be privy to for the simple reason that al quaeda has access to the same information we do from news outlets. There have already been cases of Congressional panels letting slip classified information that could be life threatening to those stationed in sensitive operations there. For things to be kept from us at this point makes to me total sense. I'd rather have this stuff revealed when it's safe for those in delicate military positions to be done with what they have to do then "tell all" and have them face danger because the American public had to have it's next conspiracy theory.

And I'll back you right up, too, darkmoonlady. How completely unethical and DANGEROUS it would be to make this a public affair and let everyone know what's going on because some faux news channel demands it and coverup.

Hey, why not do what the LAST administration did and rally a cry of war withOUT any facts and LYING about it, and then going to war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. That will do some job building, and killing off some of those extra people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat

And I'll back you right up, too, darkmoonlady. How completely unethical and DANGEROUS it would be to make this a public affair and let everyone know what's going on because some faux news channel demands it and coverup.

Hey, why not do what the LAST administration did and rally a cry of war withOUT any facts and LYING about it, and then going to war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. That will do some job building, and killing off some of those extra people.

---

We dont even need to look at the last administration, lets talk about the CURRENT administaration and how Obama sent armed drones into Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi , leaving a lawless country which was overrun with radical Islamic terrorists which then planned an attack on the American Consulate on SEPT 11, and killed 4 Americans including the first Ambassador killed in almost 40 years. But hey who are we kidding right, it was a youtube video right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noms

We dont even need to look at the last administration, lets talk about the CURRENT administaration and how Obama sent armed drones into Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi , leaving a lawless country which was overrun with radical Islamic terrorists which then planned an attack on the American Consulate on SEPT 11, and killed 4 Americans including the first Ambassador killed in almost 40 years. But hey who are we kidding right, it was a youtube video right?

---

Forgive me, but I totally do not remember Obama sending the drones to overthrow Qaddafi. I could have sworn that the Libyan people rose up, encouraged by the success of the peaceful Arab Spring rallies in Tunisia, only to be met by Qaddafi's mercenary army, and after wholesale genocide occurred NATO stepped in to offer air support to the rebels. Then Egyptians began to appear in Tahrir Square. Then the Syrians got stroppy. Obviously the Iranians have much to lose by this scenario... what if people get sick of the mullahs? All I seem to remember Obama doing is trying to wind down two wars and orchestrating the takedown of Osama bin Laden. But I could very well be mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutmeg

Forgive me, but I totally do not remember Obama sending the drones to overthrow Qaddafi. I could have sworn that the Libyan people rose up, encouraged by the success of the peaceful Arab Spring rallies in Tunisia, only to be met by Qaddafi's mercenary army, and after wholesale genocide occurred NATO stepped in to offer air support to the rebels. Then Egyptians began to appear in Tahrir Square. Then the Syrians got stroppy. Obviously the Iranians have much to lose by this scenario... what if people get sick of the mullahs? All I seem to remember Obama doing is trying to wind down two wars and orchestrating the takedown of Osama bin Laden. But I could very well be mistaken.

---

You are.

We were quite actively involved in the Libya operation. We "lent" two C-2A Greyhound carrier capable transport aircraft to the French Navy because they had no way to provide time-critical logistics support to the strikes they were flying against Khadafi forces from De Gaulle. We also provided air-refueling support to strikes flown from Europe. And we did use drone aircraft to provide real-time intelligence to both European and local forces. There have been persistent reports of American "boots on the ground" providing training and advice to Libyan locals. We were very much involved in the entire matter, no matter what the White House might say.

Of course the question is what have we created? Or allowed to arise? We really don't know. Presently, it looks like nothing that will be very good for us. Or at least good for people stationed there.

If Al Queda honcho'ed the attack we won't tell them anything they don't already know if we review our own screw-up (if it was a screw up). They already know about it. It allowed their guys to kill our guys.

It's "Fast and Furious" on a larger scale.

G.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutmeg

Forgive me, but I totally do not remember Obama sending the drones to overthrow Qaddafi. I could have sworn that the Libyan people rose up, encouraged by the success of the peaceful Arab Spring rallies in Tunisia, only to be met by Qaddafi's mercenary army, and after wholesale genocide occurred NATO stepped in to offer air support to the rebels. Then Egyptians began to appear in Tahrir Square. Then the Syrians got stroppy. Obviously the Iranians have much to lose by this scenario... what if people get sick of the mullahs? All I seem to remember Obama doing is trying to wind down two wars and orchestrating the takedown of Osama bin Laden. But I could very well be mistaken.

---

The French under NATO sent in a bunch of planes to bomb Libya and Obama sent a predator drone with a hellfire missile. It was the hellfire missile that hit Qaddafis convoy and lead to his death by the mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noms

The French under NATO sent in a bunch of planes to bomb Libya and Obama sent a predator drone with a hellfire missile. It was the hellfire missile that hit Qaddafis convoy and lead to his death by the mob.

---

Thank you for correcting me. I have never been able to tell a predator drone from a surveillance drone. No matter how often my instructor tells me, "eyes up!" A good friend of mine just returned from Libya where she was asked to lead a seminar in combatting corruption and she was quite shocked when I informed her of Obama's bloody attack. She had heard nothing about it from her students! The ignorant fools were falling all over her to thank the West in general. They seem to have no inkling of what constitutes fair and balanced news.

obama's failure to respond simply sends the enemy (Al Quaeda) the message that we are a weak nation without #alls...

Plus for political re-election reasons, he's not going to retaliate the torture, and murders of four American's including a U.S. Ambassador. :no:

It might hurt "His" campaign and to hell with anyone else, including the poor parent's of the soldiers who were killed. Even they aren't getting information as to what exactly happened.

The 3:00 am wake up call? Fly to Vegas, of course....

I don't know how obama or hillary can sleep at night, knowing full well they denied extra security for the U.S. Ambassador and also wouldn't send in troops that where in Tripoli, despite pleas for help as they were under attack. Sickening.....

Hunter? Really? You have secret knowledge of everything Obama does and all of the behind the scenes action?

Vegas? Really? Remember the journalists comedy dinner WHILE they took out Bin Laden? Seems like a better strategy to really get something done by not telling the whole world, even though sending in the troops and starting a war LOOKS really cool and strong.