Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I'm assuming you say Libya was a 'proactive situation'. And in that case, as usual, you are wrong on the facts. The state department (Obama's state dept) decided to pull 2 full security teams out of Libya (12 men each, I believe). The guy in charge of security at the embassy asked the state dept to reconsider, and he pointed to all the recent, documented cases of violence and threats. The state dept (Obama's state dept) was not convinced. You can make a very strong case that 4 superb Americans paid for that stupidity with their lives.
|
No, the Embassy attack would be a reactive situation.
If you bothered to read my posts above I mentioned the restrictions on US security and the policy likely guiding the actions. We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it.
If this was stupidity or not I'm not sure we know, but if so it would look like a mid-level deputy made a bad call.
Quote:
|
Then, the reaction. Five days afetr the attack, the state dept, the ambassador to the UN, and Jay Carney (Obama's press secretary) said there was no evidence it was anything other than a spontaneous outburst. So I guess Obama believes that protesting students typically carry RPGs, mortars, and mortar tubes in their backpacks?
|
I'm not sure they really knew what the heck had happened to be honest. Look at how long it took the FBI to even get onsite. I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc...
-spence