Violence against Americans in Cairo and Benghazi
Let me see if I’ve got this straight:
A privately produced and amateurish anti-Islam film made by expat Coptic Christians in the US and distributed on YouTube is said to spark violent protests in Cairo. The US Embassy there apologies for offending Muslim sensibilities. Violence escalates in Cairo and in Benghazi (cities in countries that have recently undergone American-approved oustings of long-time dictators). It is reported that an”embassy worker” may have been killed in Benghazi. Mitt Romney condemns the Cairo embassy apology in a statement that also condemns the attacks. The Obama administration disavows the apology issued by its own embassy. Later it is announced that the “embassy worker” was actually the US ambassador to Libya, and that three other diplomats were killed as well.
And one of the main responses of the MSM and the left is to condemn Mitt Romney for his statement. I kid you not.
Here’s a good summary of the timeline of events.
The press has been eagerly awaiting a major and important gaffe by Romney, and they’re hoping this is it. I can’t quite see that, though. I can’t imagine that most Americans (at least, the ones following the story, which may not be most Americans) were not as outraged as Romney by the statement of the Cairo embassy at the time.
The fact that this sort of violence occurred in two countries where Obama supported the revolts and the installation of the present governments does not make the president look good. It also seems that Obama either initially approved of the Cairo embassy statement and then backtracked, or had so little communication with and control of the embassy there that it was issuing a rogue statement with which he disagreed during the crisis. Neither possibility makes the president look good.
And now the terrible murder of the US ambassador to Libya, and the three other embassy workers—complete with horrific-appearing visuals conjuring up memories of Blawkhawk Down, but which have recently been reported to be of people taking him to the hospital (hard to believe, but I suppose possible)—spark further outrage, and also do not make the president look good.
In addition: why was the security at the embassy so poor? Could this not have been predicted? Especially on 9/11? Which also does not make the president look good.
And if by saying that I’m “politicizing” the attacks, of course I am. But they are already political; what else would they be, in addition to tragic and anger-provoking? Such an event will naturally engender commentary and criticism, and part of that commentary and criticism will be of the administration on whose watch it occurred.
It is only two short months before the election. One of the major issues—although we don’t hear as much about it as we hear about the economy, or dogs on the roof—is foreign policy. Obama’s has been execrable, and it has featured (among other things) bowing to dictators and appeasement abroad. Whether he approved of the Cairo embassy statement or not, he has created a perception of weakness and lack of fortitude on the part of the US. Some people consider that’s the right way to go—it’s sensitive and all that, and should appease those offended by our actions. Others (and I include myself in this group) think that honor/shame cultures are only inflamed by the perception of our weakness.
[ADDENDUM: (Hat tip: “Artfldgr”) It seems likely that the attacks were coordinated and not by spontaneous mobs at all. That makes a great deal of sense, especially considering the locations—embassies in two different countries— and the date, 9/11, as well as the fact that a rocket seems to have been involved. It has all the hallmarks of coordination by an al Qaeda-esque group.
I have not written about the exact circumstances of Ambassador Stevens’ murder because the reports I’ve read so far are conflicting.]
[ADDENDUM II: Here is the text of a statement Romney issued today. It begins with a lengthy expression of mourning and a tribute to Stevens and the others. Then he adds:
America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t ”˜cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.
The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.
We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter. ]
[ADDENDUM III: Astounding. Just astounding.
And yet I suppose it shouldn’t be. Much of the left would dearly like to stifle speech it finds inconvenient.]
[CORRECTION: It was a consulate in Benghazi, not an embassy. Embassies are only in capital cities, and Tripoli is the capital of Libya.]
Obama is the carbon copy of Carter.
The actual gaffe is the one committed by the quisling press …a product, one and all, of the quisling members of the Academy.
…I trust that the implications of using that term are crystalline.
The line drawn in the sand between these traitors of the West are being ever more clearly delineated by the events of the past two decades, and the past 24 hours.
The press really tried to get Romney on “jumping the gun” “before all facts were known”. But Romney handled those questions well.
Seems to me, the relevent facts were known, like the embassy response.
Obama did not acceopt questions.
If Americans get to actually see and hear Romney, he will be fine.
Can anyone be foolish enough to believe that it is just coincidence that these attacks occurred around the anniversary of 9-11? Apparently the Cairo Embassy had advance warning that this spontaneous attack would happen. It was evacuated, or there could have been loss of life there.
Why wouldn’t any competent Administration set up adequate security measures in these unstable countries in which Islamist radicals are pushing into power? On the eve of the anniversary of 9-11?
The Administration and the media are very conveniently ignoring that the film that is being blamed for the outrage was made a year ago, and shown ONCE. It was also made by Coptic Christians who have every right to criticize the Islamists who are systematically killing them throughout the Muslim world–particularly of late in Egypt.
This strikes me as similar to an incident in Afganistan a while ago. If memory serves, the “incitement” was some obscure book that had been out for some time. These attacks are definitely planned. Artfldgr?
I want to get the truth about whether our ambassador’s body was drug through the streets by his killers in a victory parade or whether he was merely being transported to a hospital by officials/employees of the Libyan government. Doesn’t look very official to me. This is important because Obama, in his speech, presents the “transported to hospital” version.
Any apologies from the Egyptian or Libyian governments forthcoming?
Paul in Boston: dreamer.
I would be exceedingly surprised if that were to happen. I assume your question was sarcastic?
The logic is even more twisted than your summary. Those Coptic Christians, who many seek to blame for making the film, they have been imprisoned or killed and their churches burned. By the logic of the left shouldn’t that excuse their making of the anti-Islam film especially since they responded to violence using a peaceful method of words?
Otherwise, spot on. I worry that many Americans aren’t following the news, as if it wasn’t important. And the politics complaint–the killing of an ambassador is an inherently political act! Taking out an ambassador is perhaps just a step below invasion in the list of aggressive political acts because an ambassador is the representative, the essence of the other country. You kill an ambassador because he symbolically stands in for his country. Hence, how many wars have started or escalated over these assassinations? How many novels use an ambassador assassination as a catalyst for plot? Most recently is it Game of Thrones or The Tudors that opened with an ambassador hit?
Also this:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/12/Exclusive-Obama-Skipped-Intel-Briefings-Week-Before-Embassy-Attacks
Perfectly understandable since he’s been busy preparing for appearances at a Las Vegas campaign event and the Letterman show — reading the Top Ten List?
Since this is a new thread… and it gets us off the thread where i put the posts, and to this one, leaving the unread… i will try to be short.
NEO:
And one of the main responses of the MSM and the left is to condemn Mitt Romney for his statement. I kid you not.
A request to Occam… you write better than I, and you know the information. can you explain to our illustrious readers that like it when others say the same thing, how the left during WWII always followed the line of the other state, and so, this put them in a similar bind as to what to support or not support until a new line was provided. this is a famous thing in the history of the CPUSA.
I will detail what it is…
or rather, where its from which says what it is, and how, if you know the past, you would have known too…
Deviationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviationism
So if the leaders say being gay, incest, after birth abortions, child sex, and all that is ok, then your a deviate if you oppose it.
you see… its a different definition. as i explained endlessly and then ignored.
just as our definition of peace is the absence or war and conflict that is extreme…. (when not war, its competition).
their definition is no more opposition to socialism/communusm.
the common concept of deviate is a person who does something unnatural… ie. not good from a point of nature and outcome.
their definition of deviate is a person who does not do what they are told by those above them in the “piss layer cake”. ultimately that chain leads up to the great leader who dictates what is real what isnt and so IS reality and so your not following is deviating from reality.
Accusations of deviationism often led to purges.
Forms of deviationism included revisionism, dogmatism, bourgeois nationalism, and rootless cosmopolitanism.
Neither Obama, Clinton, or the MSM can set a narrative that distracts us from the facts: on 9/11, one embassy and another consulate were attacked by Muslim extremists. They have killed 4 people and afterward, paraded the body of the dead ambassador to Libya just as was done with the downed soldiers in Somalia (the event that convinced bin Laden that the U.S. was a paper tiger).
The whole world is watching how Obama reacts, and how he reacts will be directly responsible for what happens next. All this talk of offensive films and an improper response by Romney are immaterial.
“And if by saying that I’m “politicizing”
the attacks, of course I am. But they
are already political; what else would
they be, in addition to tragic and
anger-provoking?”
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
On War – by Carl von Clausewitz
The violent attacks on our Consulate & Embassy were political acts, i.e., war.
Islam: An eternal grievance in search of a religion.
The MSM:
@lizzy The whole world is watching how Obama reacts
…and what the whole world saw this morning was a president befuddled and confused. Stunned by the events. Uncomprehending. So far out of his sophomoric depths that only the ever more dangerous and strident quisling j-schoolers could choose not to have noticed.
Hillary has been proven strikingly correct after all, about that 3AM call at the white house, eh?
Political acts of war?
The Nearest Marines were the FAST 50 the reinforcement forces are the MEU/SOC so where is the MEU?
It’s ashore in egypt training the Egyptian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood Commanders on how to fight Israeli’s.
Obama cancelled Training planned in advance with the IDF to train the Egyptians.
As PJ media said, Obama has switched sides for American’s now we are allied with the Muslim Brotherhood against Israel.
lets not forget the scuttlebutt that DHS has been told, “It’s going hot.”
Two months ahead of the election and now we have a Carter moment for Obama.
BIG QUESTION OF THE DAY:
Why did the marines not protect the embassy?
Why did they LET the crowd in and not protect the people serving the US there?
Why was this different than the attack on embassy in Somalia, where our troops DID protect and evacuate personnel.
WHO gave the order to STAND DOWN and abandon these people?
Who allowed American soil to be invaded (embassies traditionally are not part of the country they exist in).
absent such orders, the embassy would have been defended… as it was in Somalia, as it was in Vietnam…
a round from a 50 cal can cut a human into two pieces… the 30, and 50 call machine guns can cut a crowd in half at the waist.
if the attackers were carrying hand grenades, grenade launchers and scaling the walls, why are none of them dead in the fight?
there was no fight..
our embassies and their people were given up without one…
davisbr,
Hillary’s ad missed the last line from Obama: Let me check with Valery and get Dave to runs some polls. I’ll get back to you tomorrow. Wait a minute, can I put this on hold till aftr the election? I’ll have more flexibility then.
Artfldgr: first of all, it wasn’t an embassy (see my correction after the post), it was a consulate. Secondly, reports are that Marines weren’t guarding it, Libyan security was. The two Marines that were sent there and may or may not have been killed (conflicting reports on that) were not initially guarding it.
I can’t remember my source right now, and don’t have time to look for it, but I don’t believe that consulates are ordinarily guarded by Marines. Of course, if you read this most recent post of mine on the subject, you’ll see that security probably should have been stepped up prior to this, and was not.
Marines being sent now, after the fact.
In his statement, President Obama said:
Now that is certainly true, but I raise this question to constitutional scholars: Did the founding fathers really consider Islam within that sphere of tolerance?
Let’s break Godwin’s Law and play mental game. Let’s say that in the 1930s instead of tying their “final solution” to the state and the National Socialist Party, the Nazi’s tied it to a new “Christianized” religion. Someone had a revelation from on high and God told them that the Jews were the scourge of the earth and to erase them from social and genetic history.
Now any sane and sentient person condemns the Holocaust; it has no redeeming value and it exposes the very rotten potential, the Dark Side, that exists in the human condition. But if this philosophy existed under the guise of a religion instead of a state would we, today, feel constitutionally obligated to tolerate a European religion that wanted to exterminate the Jews?
I am a fervent First Amendment proponent, yet I will draw the line at something like child-porn which victimizes the powerless and most victimizable in our society. Likewise, I have a serious problem with the tolerance of a religion that is enamored of violence to spread its version of a true word, and before someone responds with a Crusade analogy, I suggest that the Crusading mentality was a medieval social mindset, not, like Islam, a holy war enshrined in its sacred text.
The great conundrum is that tolerance of the intolerant is always a losing proposition and when that intolerance is dedicated to the extermination of ANYone who disagrees, then it is the “final solution” writ large.
If you want to be ill read comments to the stories in WAPO.Wow it is the same as yelling Fire in a movie theater and things in the same vain.It is truly sickening .The people in this country have truly lost their minds.I am 54. I always used to wonder how Hitler and Stalin etc. came into power. It has become so obvious these last few years.Horrifying.
neo
Marine Security Guard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard
The Marine Corps Embassy Security Group, formerly Marine Security Guard Battalion, and also known as Marine Security Guards or Marine Embassy Guards, are members of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group, a battalion-sized organization of U.S. Marines that have detachments posted at American Embassies, American Consulates and other official United States Government offices such as the U.S. Interests Section, located in Havana, Cuba, or the United States Mission to NATO located in Brussels, Belgium.
OK?
they were supposed to be there guarding it. they were not. someone gave them the order to stand down…
from same link:
The secondary mission of Marine Security Guards is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action.
people.. please study history, organizations, how they work, what their jobs are, the laws, the groups, the slang and tons more..
the idea that the marines do not protect consulates would be fomented by who to distract you from a important point
Consul
i did a search…
obviously, no one else did
slamists storm U.S. embassy in Cairo; Ambassador killed in Libya
http://www.examiner.com/article/islamists-storm-u-s-embassy-cairo-ambassador-killed-libya
According to the Examiner source, the U.S. Marines assigned to perimeter security were ordered to stand down in spite of facing thousands of rabid protesters.
so… were they ordered to STAND DOWN? is that the proper term? do they protect consulates?
yes,.,. because consulates are were you go to be protected if your in trouble in another country. (i know this as i have gone to an Islamic country where they kill Christians and knowing where you can run to is a good idea)
Artfldgr: wrong, according to the link I provided. It appears that (as best I can tell from all the info I’ve gleaned so far) that Marines guard some consulates but by no means all. The Benghazi consulate did not have a Marine guard that was ordered to stand down; it had no Marine guard to begin with, and that situation is not unusual for a consulate.
I am in complete agreement, though, that it should have had one. It is very odd that it didn’t. But it did not have one that was ordered to stand down. I have only been speaking about Benghazi, by the way, not Cairo. Embassies have such guards.
Oh, and before you say that they were being guarded by the local government (which they obviosly werent), in order to do that, someone with authority has to order the marines to stand down from their mission.
Period.
can the secret service decide on its own to leave presidential protection to some other state? no.
can the marines divisions created for this purpose, and trained for this purpose, leave the job to others IF THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC ORDERS TO DO SO?
the security that the host state provides is OUTSIDE the walls, NOT inside…
ie. the host state protects the people from the consul – the marines protect the consul from the people.
Under international agreements, they could have cut down the whole crowd… but someone thought that self defense was not something to be allowed (which side thinks that way as normal?)…
in libya, the marines DID defend the building and the people were evacuated.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/09/gannett-american-killed-attack-on-us-consulate-libya-egypt-protest-embassy-091112/
Artfldgr: sometimes I wonder whether you actually read what I write.
It is not standard for Marines to guard a consulate, although in unstable countries it is often done. There was no guard in Benghazi, and no one was asked to stand down. The relevant question is why there was no guard in the first place, since Libya is an unstable country.
I cannot find a list of which consulates are currently guarded by Marines. But it says here that Marines guard 125 embassies and consulates around the world. That makes it pretty clear that it is not standard to guard consulates; if it were, there would have to be a lot more than 125.
The press is so concerned about Romney’s statement.
They must have been doing their shopping list however when Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, and others were crucifying Bush while troops were dying in Iraq.
Even my salty old Army lingo isn’t sufficient to express my contempt for those people.
A request to Occam
I defer to your greater knowledge, Artfldgr, but will try. The most egregious example of leftists following the Party line occurred, of course, in connection with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. The day before it was signed, American Reds were howling against the Nazis, and Fascism generally; the day after, crickets. Meanwhile, Stalin annexed part of Poland.
When WWII started, the Reds were isolationist and anti-war until June 22, 1941, when Hitler invaded the USSR. Then they were again howling, this time for intervention to stop fascism. (One of the reasons, btw, that the country was united in WWII; even the Reds were on board.) During the war they softened Stalin’s image (“Uncle Joe”) and pressed hard for us to support the USSR with materiel, and later, a second front.
The only good part of this violent twisting and turning to toe the Party line is that it (especially that twisting occasioned by the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) disillusioned some Party members.
The same phenomenon of the Party line is on display today. The reactions of environmentalists, feminists, the press, etc. to a given event cannot be predicted from the event itself, shorn of surrounding details (e.g., “a government recently announced the building of a new coal-burning power plant”). One has to know whose ox is being gored, and the implications of the event for America, to make that prediction. (E.g., the power plant is in the US – reaction: outrage – if in China, yawns.)
I think of this phenomenon as the political equivalent of phase-sensitive detection in electronics. The idea is to label a signal of interest by superimposing a known frequency on it (i.e., a warble), and then looking for signals with that characteristic warble as a way of discriminating against other, unwanted signals. (Only the desired signal will zig and zag in sync with the zigs and zags of the detector. All other signals will go in and out of phase with the detector’s zigs and zags, so that each positive resultant (zig-zig) will eventually be balanced by a corresponding negative one (zig-zag), and lead to zero net signal.)
your link is wrong neo…
here is the quote:
U.S. embassies, particularly in major countries and in unstable or less secure nations, usually have a resident contingent of Marine security guards. Early indications were that there were not at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY WHO ORDERED THEM TO NOT BE THERE… your Assuming that they have a choice. they don’t. any more than the guard at the eternal flame can pop off for a beer and a pee.
they are supposed to be there
who ordered them NOT to be there?
Obama? the RSO? where was SDU?
the fox article says they were not there!!!!!!!!!
and your saying that the article says its ok that the people stationed to guard our consulate, the citizens that flee there, the spy equipment and records, and weapons..
just happened not to be there..
and when i ask why, who what, you point to an article that says, they are not there. great, i agree, they were not there, they were ordered to STAND DOWN at some point.
I am reading the MARINE TIMES..
the newspaper for the marine corps
i am reading the law and the military as a source for military and your going to a news bureau? haven’t we been complaining that NONE of them do the job they are supposed to do? even fox…
they cant just leave without orders.
NO consulate is left unprotected…
its where citizens run to FOR protection…
Richard Wilson…
Gunnery Sergeant / E-7 at United States Marine Corps
As Commanding Officer, managed and administered annual budget of $500,000 for a 24-person Marine detachment in the Egypt Embassy and a 10-person detachment in the Pakistan Embassy.
wow. another man serving that detachment
give me enough time and i will get you the names of the men there.
you can keep waiting for the news to tell you…
and my OTHER SOURCE?
Marine Corps Embassy Security Group
“In Every Clime and Place”
http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
Egypt is Region 7
and this
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/138440.pdf
read the above…
YOU CANT NOT ENTER A CONSULAR OR EMBASSY WITHOUT DEALING WITH MSG OFFICERS.
They were guarding john F Kennedy in Paris…
oh.. they stand down in Egypt, as that’s safe, and they don’t stand down in Paris in the 60s, as that was a hot bed of revolt and Frenchmen storming US consulates and embassies..
what I am looking for is who is the RSO?
Regional Security Officer
there are 148 MSG detachments, they were in nairobi, somalia, and dar es salaam when those places were attacked.. and in jedda…
again…
even if there werent MSG there, that had to be ordered by the RSO… we have RSO and MSG in every place… including peaceful places where there has never been an incident.
heck we have them in NORWAY…
think the norwegian people will storm our places? me niether, but we guard them anyway… (but not in egypt)
without a RSO for the MSG what would they do with SDU? (Surveillance Detection Units)
The task of the SDU is just what the name says it is — detecting surveillance, i.e. counterintelligence. Find out who, if any, are watching, and then watch them to see if there’s a need to do anything but watch them. If there is a need, then redirect the “doing something” part to the appropriate authorities.
so where was the SDU that should have seen the consulate being watched and monitored before the incident?
Question: does the Pottery Barn Doctrine (“if you break it, you bought it?”) still obtain?
It’s a rhetorical question, obviously.
FWIW, back in the early sixties, the U.S. consulates in Aruba and Curacao had no Marine guards. Of course, these were very stable islands.
The U.S. embassy in Caracas DID have Marine guards. And that was back when they were having fairly democratic elections in Venezuela with only an occasional bombing and/or coup d’etat.
NEO: I cannot find a list of which consulates are currently guarded by Marines. But it says here that Marines guard 125 embassies and consulates around the world.
do you know how stupid it is to think that they provide the world with a list of where we are unprotected?
why not look for a list of all bank vault combinations? and hours when the employees are not there…
did you really think they would provide AQ a list of unprotected state facilities?
and i DID read your links. DID you read mine?
your links. a fox news article that says they were not there, BUT NOT WHY.
and an about.com listing that has its information wrong.
i wnt to the website of the marines and the specific units that do that work. i did NOT go to Fox, i did not go to about.com. i went to the marines themselves.
why did you think that the fox article explained anything? all it said was they wer enot there… not why… was the RSO sick? did he order them away? why? they were there in libya..
I went to the freaking MSG marine site.
I even got names of people who were stationed there…
now, how can you be stationed there if your not there because about.com said so?
the number is off too…
over 148 embassies (according to the marines. i guess the marines have it wrong and they should go to about.com too)
and the RSO is in charge of security from all. he may work out of the embassy, but overseas consulate security too.
go here:
http://www.usembassy.gov/
you can find a list of all consulates and embassies.
here is the website of egypt. its consulate is in the embassy…
http://alexandria.usconsulate.gov/
i guess the english club will not be meeting today
anyway… it was closed in the 90s, and conveniently opened this year by hillary clinton. nice photos, you can see the MSG guards there…
so, now it gets more interesting..
they re-opened a consulate/embassy that was closed, in a country with a civil war and Muslim brotherhood, and decided NOT to guard it at all… (for no reason we can find, as fox gives no reason, and about.com doesnt either)
and now, the attack before its open a year, happens and may insure Obama re-election?
how convenient.
U.S. EMBASSY CAIRO
SECURITY NOTICE — PROHIBITED ITEMS
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/egypt/210334/PDFs_001/PROHIBITED_ITEMS.pdf
without security of the MSG, who would insure the prohibited items were not allowed in?
FIREARMS AND EDGED WEAPONS – Including replica or non-firing weapons, blank or starter
pistols, tear gas pistols, stun guns, and toy guns; knives of all kinds, swords, scissors, cutting tools and straight razors.
the visitors decided to illegally bring in guns, grenades, and so on…
but then again.. the guards were conveniently not there…
meanwhile, i did not want to get into this, as there is a LOT more that is not commonly known… (and you wont get it from FOX its the LESSER of evils, not the greater of good… and you wont get it from About.com… which is orders of magnitude worse than wiki, which is better, but not best)
Artfldgr: what are you referring to? Are you reading me at all?
The consulate in Benghazi was not an embassy.
And I am in agreement that, despite the fact that it was merely a consulate and not an embassy, it should have been guarded.
The only point of disagreement we have here is whether the Marine guard would have been standard operating procedure for the consulate in Benghazi and was called off. It was not. But basic security interests would have dictated ordering a Marine detail to guard the Benghazi consulate, especially in light of the 9/11 anniversary.
Also, you write “do you know how stupid it is to think that they provide the world with a list of where we are unprotected?”
My answer: why do you assume that’s what I’m implying? Did I ever write, or even suggest, that such a list ought to exist? I merely said I could not find one. I am well aware (and I was well aware when I wrote that) that there is a very good reason why it might not be possible to find such a list, and that security would dictate it not be published.
That’s not the same as thinking I might be able to find the information online if I looked. Stranger things have happened than that information that would compromise our security could be found online.
I have noticed that you often interpret my words in the light that would assume a fairly great degree of ignorance and/or stupidity on my part. Not sure why you do that, but it’s somewhat dismaying, to say the least.
I think I see the purpose with this line of questions:
There was not a Marine detachment at the Benghazi consulate. Why?
That’s hardly a place not “fraught with danger”. Even more so on the 11th of 9-11.
It’s not “just” that the administration “owns” this …the administration owns this.
Someone made the decision to not have a Marine contingent there when the ambassador was present …on a very dangerous day.
When? Who? Why?
The answer is relevant to parsing the details of the history of this act.
(Not that either answer will absolve the administration of responsibility for the result of the negligence in not anticipating this: and we all know what the attitude and response of the quisling media would have been if this had occurred in, say, 2006 or 2007.)
Point, Arfldgr.
davisbr asks: Someone made the decision to not have a Marine contingent there when the ambassador was present …on a very dangerous day.
When? Who? Why?
Another important but closely related question would be, what are the rules of engagement for Marines or other security personnel at US Embassies and Consulates around the globe? Who formulated these rules, when, and why?
I dunno if this is right, but the fact that it was lodged in my memory somewhere, from somewhen long past that is lost in time, caused me to go looking.
…via Wikipedia:
I thought I recalled that little factoid …i.e., that no matter where the ambassador of a country is, that is the “embassy”.
Stevens should have been protected …at the least, under an “aura of protection”.
We all agree on that, and that he wasn’t being so protected. Why?
We shouldn’t lose sight of the importance of the answer to that question.
I don’t care what you want to call the building that houses him, chancery, embassy, consulate, whatever: when an ambassador is anywhere in-country, he’s on American territory. And in dangerous times, deserving of protection.
Someone is responsible for this “on our end of the thing”.
That someone wasn’t Romney.
Artfldgr: one more thing (please read my comment here first)—yes, I certainly looked up a list of embassies and consulates in the course of my research. And again, in my entire discussion of security, I was referring only to the Benghazi consulate, not the Cairo embassy.
You seem to be implying that “the guards were not there” at the Cairo embassy. As far as I can see, the Cairo embassy ought to have had Marine guards as a matter of course (unlike the Benghazi consultate). I can’t find any reference (so far, anyway) as to whether the guards were actually at the Cairo embassy at the time of the demonstration, and if so what they did. If they were not there, it is pretty clear they would have had to have been called off. But so far nothing about their presence or absence—which in itself is an odd omission.
By the way, the Cairo embassy had been evacuated by the time of the major demonstrations there:
Another interesting fact about the Cairo embassy is that “The U.S. Embassy is built like a fortress, with a wall several meters (yards) high. But security has been scaled back in recent months, with several roadblocks leading to the facility removed after legal court cases by residents.”
Here’s some more information I just located about the Benghazi consulate [emphasis mine]:
davisbr: agreed.
Why wasn’t Stevens protected? I very much doubt it was because Obama wanted him killed. My guess is that it was a combination of failure to see what the dangers are, plus the need to look PC and friendly in Libya and therefore not have such a big police presence.
Stupid. And that’s not just 20/20 hindsight.
This is helpful to the discussion …and explains artfldgr’s question about who the RSO was (I, at least, didn’t parse that question closely enough: apologies, artfldgr).
My reading now (after reading that page …and finally understanding the RSO part of the equation) of that is that this whole thing is going to go down as the display of the usual depressing lack of competence of the administration, and the intelligence community.
The Marines are subject to requests by the diplomatic corp, and the RSO.
The RSO is going to get the call (i.e., whom to blame). Bus, anyone?
Appalling.
…the only real issue …the “tell” if you will …is how the administration …how we …respond, to what still remain as “acts of war” (in both countries).
My best recommendation: “You’ve got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky? – Well? Do you, punk?”
…interesting read I also came across on the MEU in Saigon, that day of infamy in April, 1975.
1. What United States president developed a foreign policy emphasizing worldwide human rights?
2. What change was made in 1969 to the South Carolina constitution of 1895?
3. Why were rural counties able to control the South Carolina state senate until the early 1970s?
made by expat Coptic Christians in the US
I was under the impression that the producer is an Israeli citizen living in the US, and that the Egyptians took the opportunity to blame the Copts.
@neoneocon I very much doubt it was because Obama wanted him killed
No, neither do I. But in the presser this morning, the president appeared obviously shaken.
I can’t believe it was because Stevens was a friend of his.
I think he has stared into the Abyss.
The most sympathy I can stir though, is that he seems to have recognized that things have spiraled out of control.
He’s a second rate politician, an inexperienced sophomoric hack, out of his depth. And totally overwhelmed.
For the second time in 30 years, we have an utterly incompetent individual presiding during a moment of historical crisis.
The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Once again in our history as a nation, this is stark.
The American electorate might yet be the demise of the American Experiment …and of the West.
This may not end well. It certainly won’t end soon.
Artfldgr: what are you referring to? Are you reading me at all?
yes i am
not only did i tell you they ARE guarded..
but i showed that the marines point out that EVERY embassy has a officer that ALSO oversees every consulate.
i am showing you the law, the missions, and such, and your refusing to conclude that someone, someplace, had to make the choice NOT to guard it.
this was a NEW consulate, opened this year by hillary (and msg offcers were there). it was in a state in flux, and its unlikely that they were not using it to collect infomration on the street..
ALL this requires MSG the RSO, and the SDU…
ie. i know how consulates work, and what the rules are and the work they do in the back end besides the front they show people. I have known several consulate workers. a friend worked in a consulate in senegal… TODAY, i bumped into a woman from the indonesian consulate/embassy in ny who knows my wife.
i am basically coming from the rules, regulations and such that are supposed to be in effect. if not, then there is someone ordering it, or ordering the person who gives orders there, to act.
many of the consulates are only guarded by two people… which is why the number seems low, and they are not the only ones.
but still.. even with only one marine…
he would not run, and he will not stand and not protect them…
I dont know where you get your information (ignoring fox and about.com), but the MSG website and such do not agree with you. nor does their mission statement… nor do the deployed commanders that served as MSG in THAT consulate before it was closed and later re-opened.
Let me clear this up easy.
your references you keep going to are FOX / About.com / MiamiHerald
my references are US marines, State department, MSG website.. facebook pages of the officers that served in that consulate…
do you see the problem here?
in one breath we discuss the fact that the press is crappy, and down right wrong… and openly willing to lie…
and in another breath, we ignore that and use them as a reference when they say what we need.
now… which do you think is correct? the Marines themselves bragging about themselves and by law having a website that HAS to tell you the facts about them, their mission, etc.
OR
fox news which lies, but less
about.com – of which, if you read the marine website, was build from old information from there, and never updated.
Miamiherald
SOURCES MATTER…
the miamiherald is a paper that played the game…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674
they used the young trayvon picture, they ran with the left line… and how many newspapers report military anything well?
the lesser of two evils is still evil
basically your using the miami herald reporter as proof the marine government website is wrong.
so why not write to the marines and tell them they are wrong too? as i am getting my information from them, not the herald, the ny times, huffington, etc..
when i use them, i only use them when they are saying the truth… or to illustrate some screwed up thing they do.
you have NOT gotten it yet, or realized yet, that these newspapers were reporting your point as fast as they can.
why?
then obama and his administration cant be blamed. your confusing newspapers pravda game to save the election and the president… with reality.
the left, when everyone, including you asks why they were not protected… in a new location. (which has to be protected before you move in to prevent what the soviets did to our embassies and consulates)…
foreign entities protect the OUTSIDE.
they are not allowed inside… where ‘arts’ are practiced, where there are listening stations, and so on..
i am explaining how that system works, what is done there, how new the location is, who protects it, who leads the protectors, what the chain of command is, and so on.
and all you give me is a sentence you blindly believe from the miami herald that doesnt explain anything.
yes. maybe the us consulate in Canada is not protected /so now the article is ‘truthful’ not all are. and the US consulate on the island of pago pago might not be..
but the consulate in norway is…
but the embassy and consulate in a Islamic nation with a coupe, where intelligence is being gathered, and ambassadors are stationed (not all consulates have ambassadors either!!)
and the mission statement of the marines says they DO protect consulates, and the website points out that in the past they didn’t have enough troops, but today they do. (and that they have other military areas that are also involved)
i am still befuddled why you think the miami herald leftist newspaper people who learned journalism was what lippman said is better than the marines themselves?
By the way, the Cairo embassy had been evacuated by the time of the major demonstrations there
yes.. you used my link..
but you did NOT read it right..
they did NOT EVACUATE…
you changed that… the word evacuate is not even on the page… (go ahead search it)
sending the staff home, is NOT evacuation…
evacuation is taking them out of the country and closing the embassy/consulate
these words have specific meanings.
and to call – sending people home an evacuation shows your changing the meanings of the events not transmitting things as they are or were said.
and by the way… when they evacuate, the LAST to leave are the few marines.. how can you forget that when you wrote about that with vietnam? it was the same in somalia.
the paragraph prior to the one you quote:
In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Egyptian police had removed the demonstrators who entered the embassy grounds. She also condemned the attack on the consulate in Libya “in the strongest terms.”
yes… they did.. what they do is grab them, and turn them over at the gate. the police are not allowed into the compound any more than your allowed to cross the border into north korea.
to enter a consulate or an embassy is to leave the country your in, and enter the country of that consulate. so to enter the US consulate anywhere, is to leave wherever you are, and enter the US… which is why they require passports and immigration people are stationed…
Sending people home is not an evacuation…
e·vac·u·ate – Military definition – to withdraw from or quit (a town, fort, etc., that has been occupied).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evacuate
they did NOT evacuate… it has a specific meaning to the people that are talking to the news.
i am sorry neo, but all they did was send the people at the office home for the day so they would not travel thorugh the crowd to the gates.
they did not abandone or evacuate the consulate…
(that would have been reported as such)
the MSG, by their mission statement for more than 100 years have protected embassies and consulates and will continue to do so.
however.
my point and you keep missing it is. the military is not autonomous. it does not make choices as to what the state department wants in terms of MSG.
whatever happens – SOMEONE has to order it.
if on the bottom, then they did so illegally
if on the top, then the miamy herald and others are protecting them by causing many people to go “oh” and not think any more
but ultimately… someone made the choice to pull the protection there. not protect it, or tell those there not to.
even if there was 1 marine..
he would die rather than break his order and discrace the corps
my sister married a marine (and later they divorced amicably)… i spent a lot of time with them.
Semper fidelis!!!!!!!!
The most sympathy I can stir though, is that he seems to have recognized that things have spiraled out of control.
He’s a second rate politician, an inexperienced sophomoric hack, out of his depth. And totally overwhelmed.
I HALF agree with you davisbr
but i have a slightly different take…
the people who are used by the socialist system, think that they are selected for how great they are.
they tend to think that the soviet saw them, and is helping them and together they achieve something
but in truth, he is being used.
and when an incident like t his happens and his handlers and such didnt warn him, and he is left hanging and so on…
you get a sudden aching feeling that maybe your not so great, you have been used, and that things are not going to turn out the way you thought they would when you thought you were selected for…
at that point, you figure out that you are NOT in control.
in fact, you find out that your the post turtle.
when you drive down the road, and you see a turtle on a post. you know he didn’t get up their himself and he cant get off himself either.
all your seeing is the post turtle realizing that when they lifted him up from the mud to place him, where they were placing him, he would serve them and be helpless…
Artfldgr: wrong again about my position.
I have specifically said that they should have made the choice to guard the Benghazi consulate, and did not.
The only thing we are arguing over is whether a consulate ordinarily has Marine guards on duty there as a matter of course. They do not.
I’m not going to spend more time arguing about such a small point. We agree about the fundamental issue, which is that the consulate could have been guarded and should have been guarded, given the situation in a country such as Libya. It is a disgrace that it was not.
Artfldgr: I was using the word “evacuate” in the usual sense in which it is used in English, not the military one:
The personnel were withdrawn from the area for their protection, temporarily. It was vacated: temporarily. I think it is very clear I was referring to that, not to something more.
Since 9/11/01 we can not get on an airplane without being subjected to purposefully random (thus unfocused) and increasingly intrusive security checks via Obama’s TSA; yet on 9/11/12 the ambassador to Libya is unprotected in a consulate in Benghazi, relying upon the locals for security. This is a foolish, negligent, and incompetent administration of dilettantes. Rot begins in the head of the fish and the buck stops at the desk in the Oval Office.
Let’s not forget the abysmal treatment of our closest allies — not merely Israel, but also the UK, where
1) Their PM met with the president, so an exchange of gifts is protocol — The PM gives US/The PotUS a pen set from the sister ship of the one that the desk in the oval office is made from, and which was given to the USA over a century ago. We give HIM… a set of 200 movies on DVD… which, BTW, aren’t in the format used in the UK (called “PAL”), but American NTSC format, hence unplayable without a special player (not included) …
2) THEN, on a later visit TO the UK, there’s a similarly inanely incompetent gaffe (no, he actually STILL didn’t learn to pay attention to his protocol experts after the FIRST round of embarrassing idiocies!!) as The President gives the Queen an iPod filled with… yeah, just what everyone needed — HIS speeches.
3) To trump two stupidities at that level kind of takes real skill, but Michelle manages it when she touches The Queen. In case you didn’t know this, IT’S just NOT done…
So by no means should anyone forget what a totally stupid, incompetent hack he’s been on EVERY level of foreign policy…
It was vacated: temporarily.
if it was vacated then the ambassador would not be there… normally ambassadors are not in consuls, they are in embassies. so someone withdrew the guards while there was an official whose protection was the norm.
so it wasnt evacuated in any sense..
if so, all that would happen was property damage
AND They would have destroyed the records, and any machinery and equipment… (Thats protocol)
you keep wanting to turn it, but your not arguing from knowing protocol, your just stating stuff that ignores it.
your not understanding the different world that the miltary and state create as part of a consulate or embassy. it does not follow te rules of a business, or how YOU would do things.
it has 128 years of history and rule making and they back up those rules with a different court!!! ie. not even a civilian court…
even in the common sense evacutaion means everyone leaves. everyeond didnt leave.. two. decommission is when everyone leaves and so the MSG is the last out.
analysing a military situation using civilian ideas and imagination doesnt work. its what the left does and what we are conditioned to have.
in each case your refutations of my points were not refutations… in the first set you calimed that fox news and about.com had the answer… i said the MSG themselves and state department does and go there.
you been defending the positions of the left thorugh the press and such, and then playing games.
the compound was NOT evacuated in EITHER Sense… your boss tellign you not to come in the next day due to snow, is not evacuating the premises. is he? no one would get that call, and then call their friends and say the office was evactuated.. would they?
evacuated, whether military, civilian, or the medical bowel movement ALL mean EMPTY…
if something is left, its not evacuated, in all three definitions.
so that point was not valid either.
i have conceded before on points, but i dont conceded a debate when the debater hasnt made their case.
even if the compoind was owned by mcdonalds, someone has to make the choice or forget to make the choice as to what security is… duh.
in this setting they have reams and reams of paper protocols… just as pilots have check lists before take off… so they DONT forget…
meanwhile…
they attacked yemen compounds now.
ever read history of the sultans and Islam? doubt it, but i would recommend it as the tactics there would be culturally known by the people playing games, and you keep wanting your enemy to be like you…
ergo your statement i am not Machiavellian enough. great.. .then bow out on your assessments as your saying openly you cant think like them…
in THAT part of the world there are lots of stories and such that people grow up on, and many of them consist of assassinations and intrigue… and common to many of them is the sudden absence of guards or protection.
that situations were orchestrated by specific decisions to create weak situations.
ie. create a fertile atmosphere and nudge a bit to get what you want so you establish it passive aggressively and can pretend the role in it you need to work.
specifically this is why the Turks and such hired the Latvians to be guards, and so did the Czars!
they could not trust their own people, and hired men from outside were more trustworthy. so royals of these areas were generally protected not by their own, but by others who have no vested interest in the struggles of that state.
all this would be common to Asian history… as in japan and other places, assassinations were orchestrated not to just have outside work, but inside too…
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr: I really don’t understand why you are repeatedly misunderstanding my statements.
My “evacuated” statement (i.e. vacated) referred to the Cairo embassy, NOT the Benghazi consulate. I never said the Benghazi consulate had been evacuated or vacated or anything of the sort. The Benghazi consulate is where the ambassador to Libya (Stevens) was. The ambassador to Egypt was not in the Cairo embassy during the demonstration there, and that is the embassy that I said they had vacated (“evacuated”).
I thought that was clear.
Is my understanding that Stevens was at the Benghazi consulate for the opening of an “American cultural center” in that Libyan town still correct?