Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gleeaikin
They may keep him at the embassy in Tripoli, which I hope is more secure, rather than traveling to Benghazi 500 miles away.

You know, after thinking about it a bit more, they might keep him at the embassy and make a big show of security around him. Then again, that might mean admitting that the security for Stevens wasn't sufficient; mind-bogglingly enough the administration is insisting that he had sufficient security when he was killed. My best guess now is that the new ambassador won't go to Libya at all in the near future. He'll stick around Washington for 'consultations' or some such nonsense (at least 18 holes a day).

What is going on in these people's heads? Clearly they're treating this as a political issue to be spun and manipulated, but I just can't see the angle they're playing on this on.

The administration tried to claim that the attack was a spontaneous escalation of a protest over a stupid youtube video. This is simply damage control to try and minimize the damage from the murder of an ambassador before the election. They've backtracked on this and admitted it was an attack, but only because they were forced to.

But now they're claiming that Stevens had sufficient security. What the hell is their motivation for doubling down on this asinine claim? It's transparently false- there are 4 dead US citizens and a burned out consulate with bloody handprints on the walls to prove it. So what are they trying for? Is this just terrible damage control?

WTF is going on here? We're missing something important. I can feel it. Not just an angle, but I bet they've repressed some pertinent facts too. Facts juicy enough that they're willing flounder in public to stop people from finding them.
38 posted on 10/11/2012 1:18:26 PM PDT by verum ago (Some people must truly be in love, for only love can be so blind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: verum ago; All

The last word I heard on the attackers is that there were about 135 heavily armed men. How can we maintain forces at all our potentially target embassies and consulates to fight back a force of that size? We would need a far greater budget for embassy security than we have now, and that had been cut back not too long ago.


40 posted on 10/12/2012 10:34:35 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson