Why wasn't there more security in Libya?
Barb ShellyThere’s no question that the attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others will be front and center in tonight’s presidential debate.
Neither President Barack Obama nor challenger Mitt Romney fared well in last week’s debate when Romney tried to press the question of why the Obama administration has sent mixed messages over whether the attack was terrorism, as opposed to a spontaneous reaction to an incendiary video.
That is a muddy subject. This story by McClatchy’s Washington bureau does a good job of summing up the problems.
I’m not sure Romney will get any further tonight by plumbing the aftermath of the attack. To me, the run-up is much more worrisome.
It’s pretty well established now that Stevens and others had asked for more security in Libya and were rebuffed. According to this CBS story, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from Libya in the six months before the attack, even as people on the ground there were asking for more, not less.
Somebody in Washington was making decisions that turned out to be very wrong. The underlying factors could well be complex, and I’m not sure how much we’ll learn about this in tonight’s debate. But there is no valid fiscal or political motivation that justifies leaving U.S. personnel vulnerable in the line of duty overseas.
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 4 weeks agoI don’t think Romney needs to say anymore tonight then you, big 0, had plenty of warnings, including numerous cables from the ambassador, that the area was unsafe. You choose to ignore these and in fact, as you correctly state ms. shelly, actually removed security. You failed in this also, and we have to “let you go”.
the big 0’s failed foreign policy stretches across the globe. Romney needs to play large tonight and just say how his policies will improve America’s standing vs. jimmy ii’s policies which have diminished our standing….
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 4 weeks agoOn a lighter note, it is too bad props are not allowed. Then, Romney could bring in a bunch of pictures showing the big 0 bowing from all over the world.
Then, as they say, a picture would be worth a thousand words….
Matt Henry
6 months, 4 weeks agoGotta give Barb credit for the one time a year she writes something that might be considered a negative to anyone on the left, especially President Obama.
While I agree that the run-up is more worrisome (because it is there that the problem ostensibly led to deaths), the “aftermath” of the attack is running a very close second because of the obvious political coverup.
You know, the Watergate breakin was a few dopes working for Nixon’s re-election campaign that Nixon had never met and were doing things that he didn’t authorize and didn’t know about until after they were arrested. Then his “stonewalling” began, which ultimately became his downfall. It was the cover-up that got him.
NOW the cover-up isn’t all that important? Were worries about foreign policy weaknesses and charges of incompetence right before an election perfectly acceptable reasons to forge a cover-up that went as high as the President himself?
Be honest, Barb. If this was a Republican you would be all over the cover-up charge.
The reason that the GOP cannot pivot to attack the level of security is because they then have to eat the GOP vote to cut $300 Million from the budget for embassy security. Ryan’s vote.
Let us not forget, the Prez labeled the attack an act of terror the next day — while Mitt was busy complainig that diplomats should not be diplomatic about offensive videos.
Thereafter the issue became not whether it was a coordinated attack but whether there was ALSO a separate demonstration about the video that was then USED by the attackers as cover for their attack. (Not an irrational assumption, since other such demonstrations were going on in Cairo at the same time.) It took a while to work through the facts from a VERY muddled situation on the ground.
Shooting from the hip is not Obama’s style — and that is a good thing. First impressions sometimes turn out to be inaccurate. Nor is it necessarily in the nation interest to conduct foreign policy as a real-time press conference. The Lybian Revolution is not a reality TV show where we get to vote by phone or twitter.
Gregg Motley
6 months, 4 weeks agoThe reason security concerns were ignored and Team State Department/White House did not come clean afterward is because it does not fit the campaign narrative, “Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is on its heels.” President Obama has now changed his canned stump speak, eliminating the statement about Al Qaeda being vertually defeated. The President has believed that he has a special connection to Islam because of his past. This has proven to be not the case.
Sean Williams
6 months, 3 weeks agoSeriously, if you get hypothetical, why not ponder the real important one. Why wasn’t there “no US involvement” in Libya? I’m sure you could counter the threat of terrorism would rise, but the US has used terrorism and red scare excuses since the early 20th century to scare citizens into allowing its country to risk such endeavors as Benghazi. Really, the idea to keep pushing the great white fleet all over the world and the war profiteering from industries associated with the US is having a crippling effect on the US itself, we’re just barely realizing it.
I can understand humanitarian aid in the middle east and throughout the world, but when it is carrying a rifle, it’s something other than that.