oh kind of how the Iranian embassy being taken over in London was the fault of the Queen?

Damn queen.

I mean quelling amok Persians has been the gold standard of a good monarch since the time of the Moors.  Can't call yourself a good king if Persians run amok in the streets on your watch.

Holland has a queen
don't see any persian takeovers there, do ya? She got her shit together

Yell,

Actually, since the Macedonian Empire. And in a weird way, you're right.

> Genesis wrote:

> 1. Actually I didn't, because there is no comparison. If you want to talk about major intelligence and operational blunder, 9/11 was it. A president who has been on the job for nearly an year and is caught totally with his pants down is your idea of a good president?

Then explain:
"> Genesis wrote:

> So when something bad happens during a Republican mandate, it's the Democrats fault. When something bad happens during a Democrat term, it's the Democrats fault too.

I think I can see your point."

In reply to Flint explaining why the failure to prevent 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton.  Any sensible person would draw this as a comparison of the two.

Additionally, exactly when did I say "Bush was not to blame?"  Putting blame on Clinton does not necessarily mean Bush is not to blame.  All I was doing was explaining the logic that you can't simply timestamp blame based on the day of the attack, but have to extend it to include the entirety of the operation.

> 2. The embassy itself is not, but the thousands and thousands of kilometers surrounding it are. Are you implying the attack came from inside the embassy?

Considering the mortar attacks were focused on the embassy safehouse (which is kept secret for just such an occasion), and considering that a good portion of local security forces fled the emassy during the attack, I would suggest you not rule out the possibility that someone on the inside was complicit.

But that aside, the US has defensive mechanisms which could have been used, even if it's something as simple as "increase security."  Remember, the OP link, which you are not questioning the truth of, claims that the US ambassador actually told the government about his worries.  Once those fears were tipped off, it becomes the perogative of the government to either heed or ignore those worries.  At that point, it doesn't matter if the attack originated outside the embassy if there is something that could be done within the embassy.  This wasn't a random American tourist killed on the street.  This was an attack at a location which any government would use resources to secure against this very type of thing.

3. The distinction is you have alot more control and possibility to prevent an attack on your own soil, rather than an embassy on some forsaken place in the middle of a muslim state. Unless you wanted the US army to occupy all the surrounding areas of every US embassy in the Middle East. Do you?

Add US soldiers to protect the embassy, and possibly replace the foreign security officials with US security forces.  Done.  Better defenses against the attack, and I don't need to acknowledge your strawman attack.

> I suppose those embassies which got bombed to hell years ago were also Obama's fault.

Idiots

Seriously, Gen, stop it!  You're a former mod.  There's no reason you need to resort to either personal attacks or making strawman arguments.  You should know better.  Try to show some civility.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > Genesis wrote:

> 1. Actually I didn't, because there is no comparison. If you want to talk about major intelligence and operational blunder, 9/11 was it. A president who has been on the job for nearly an year and is caught totally with his pants down is your idea of a good president?

Then explain:
"> Genesis wrote:

> So when something bad happens during a Republican mandate, it's the Democrats fault. When something bad happens during a Democrat term, it's the Democrats fault too.

I think I can see your point."

In reply to Flint explaining why the failure to prevent 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton.  Any sensible person would draw this as a comparison of the two.

Additionally, exactly when did I say "Bush was not to blame?"  Putting blame on Clinton does not necessarily mean Bush is not to blame.  All I was doing was explaining the logic that you can't simply timestamp blame based on the day of the attack, but have to extend it to include the entirety of the operation.

Thank you, tha's what I was trying to get at. It's never one man's fault, like they're trying to pin down on Obama.

> 2. The embassy itself is not, but the thousands and thousands of kilometers surrounding it are. Are you implying the attack came from inside the embassy?

Considering the mortar attacks were focused on the embassy safehouse (which is kept secret for just such an occasion), and considering that a good portion of local security forces fled the emassy during the attack, I would suggest you not rule out the possibility that someone on the inside was complicit.

But that aside, the US has defensive mechanisms which could have been used, even if it's something as simple as "increase security."  Remember, the OP link, which you are not questioning the truth of, claims that the US ambassador actually told the government about his worries.  Once those fears were tipped off, it becomes the perogative of the government to either heed or ignore those worries.  At that point, it doesn't matter if the attack originated outside the embassy if there is something that could be done within the embassy.  This wasn't a random American tourist killed on the street.  This was an attack at a location which any government would use resources to secure against this very type of thing.

I don't know what the security forces were, I don't know what exactly the ambassador told his superiors, I will assume neither the ambassador is a martyr who doesn't mind dying for his country not the central government is happy to see officials die. I do not think trying to pin yet another thing on Obama is a valid argument in this case.

3. The distinction is you have alot more control and possibility to prevent an attack on your own soil, rather than an embassy on some forsaken place in the middle of a muslim state. Unless you wanted the US army to occupy all the surrounding areas of every US embassy in the Middle East. Do you?

Add US soldiers to protect the embassy, and possibly replace the foreign security officials with US security forces.  Done.  Better defenses against the attack, and I don't need to acknowledge your strawman attack.

Better defended against mortars?

> I suppose those embassies which got bombed to hell years ago were also Obama's fault.

Idiots

Seriously, Gen, stop it!  You're a former mod.  There's no reason you need to resort to either personal attacks or making strawman arguments.  You should know better.  Try to show some civility.

This has nothing to do with being a mod or not, it's a matter of common sense. Alot of people in this forum have a serious case of hatred towards Obama, and they make poor arguments, at best, to attack him. Half of them are spam. Most of them are based on idiocy, prejudice and party bias. It's a matter of fact.

Nooooooooooooow, if you excuse me, I will no longer reply to you as I will keep to my word and run! Good day!

Yes against Mortars. A proper embassy is made in cement and/or stone.

A detachment of marines could have held the interior for hours.

There were no marines.

The President:

A) Knows Muslim Extremists want to do harm on the 9-11 anniversary

B) Know Libya has 'issues' and is not so safe.

C) Clearly got reports from the Ambassador who felt he was not safe

D) Did not remove the ambassador or add a marine detachment to the embassy

E) Tried to cover it as spontaneous attack by upset people so he would not take blame for the first successful major attack upon the United States since 9-11-01

And you should know Ambassadors are considered untouchables and are afforded a lot of protections which proves your either trolling or being a hack for the President.

You should never have gotten modded. I remember when you caused the first problems in political forums during 2008 election by closing dozens of threads cause you disagreed with them.

and wtf would you have marines in the building, I want them across the street flanking the attackers not doing a Alamo inside the target

I mean I know they keep screwing that up on TV because they want to use 1 camera for everything but security is guys who come running from somewhere else to interrupt the ambush

Chris:

A flanking attack can be construed as a war action.

Turtle works better than you think since there is so many good kill zones inside those structures.

I was wondering what the Ambassador was doing at the consulate instead of the Embassy and why no one heard about or from the Consul

we can have a consulate without a consul

in fact we're likely to have that one vacant for some time

unless Mitt uses it to solve unemployment

"I been out of work 5 years"
"Congrats, you just got a job through me! You're consul in Benghazi"
"The hell!? I'll just take my benefits in the mail"
"Not an option my man"