Route to the sea.

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Obama could have responded to a direct request for increased security in the Benghazi consulate with increased security.

I am curious where this 'direct request' is. It certainly doesn't appear to be in the documents released to the public. Perhaps you can point to the specific 'direct request' you are referring to. I doubt you will be able to do so but if you want us to believe that such a 'direct request for increased security in Benghazi' exists then certainly you can point to it.

I'll bet you have less evidence of this direct request that should have been responded to before the attack than there is evidence that Obama called it an act of terrorism the day after it happened.

1 Reply

@parados,

http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi-gate/2012/10/02/bombshell-obama-denied-requests-increased-security-benghazi-911
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-has-no-comment-on-house-gopers-assertions-that-libyan-mission-requested-security-prior-to-91112-attack/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/
Google the issue and you'll find more.

2 Replies

This is completely assign.. What I find ironic is that you expect the president to micro-manage security detail in Libya. Really?
I'm sure at the end of the week he pours over the CIA's overtime records too.
9/11 was a wee bit more than putting a few more security guards on night watch.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Hey, it was the president who said that no one cares more about his diplomatic corp than him.

If that's true wouldn't you expect him to have a standing request for info about those diplomats in the most dangerous of places?

And wouldn't you expect that info to include that the diplomats there have been asking for increased security, that the consulate had taken a major attack (before 9/11) that the Brits withdrew their people because their ambassador was a target of an assassination attempt, and the Red Cross withdrew because of overwhelming danger in that city?

But I guess you see that is among the weeds for a president who is focused 100% on his re-election.

Surely you would agree that Libya fell within the category of very dangerous places despite the Administration's desire to paint it as a stable land made stable by Obama leading from behind.

In fact this is precisely why the requests for increased security were denied. The State Department wanted to advance the silly ass notion that all was well and good in Libya.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

Love to see Iran try to march though those countries on some military mission. One of whom (Iraq), lost millions at the hands of Iran in a senseless war that dragged on for years.

Romney's not the only one who has very little understanding of the situation in the Middle East. First of all the Iran/Iraq war was started by Sadam Hussein, not Iran. Second, the majority population in Iraq are Shia Moslems, just like the Iranians. Iran is the most influential outside power in Iraq. You can thank Bush for that.

Quote:

Today, Iraq is to Iran as Lebanon was to Syria," intoned an Iraqi politician during a recent off-the-record briefing in Washington. The sentiment is commonly expressed by Iraqis, the US's Arab allies and by many American diplomats and soldiers: that the United States removed Iran's most inveterate opponent - Saddam Hussein's regime - and then allowed Tehran to become the most influential outside power in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/iran-influence-iraq-tehran

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

It's totally irrelvant as to who started that war. The point was that Iran wouldn't be granted any air or land access to have access to the ocean by a nation with whom they'd been engaged in a long and bitter war.

Furthermore, Romney embarrassed himself with his lack of geopolitical knowledge. His lack of knowledge about world politics could be dangerous.

Whether or not Bush was responsible for any of the dynamics in the region I see no relevance. You might want to consider directing your focus towards someone else who was discussing that topic because it wasn't me.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I have read the documents Finn. I asked you for the specific one that includes the direct request for more security in Benghazi.

Obviously you can't present one. Just because the GOP asserted they requested extra security doesn't make it true. It only means they are extrapolating wildly about the meaning of some of the documents. You stated

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obama could have responded to a direct request for increased security in the Benghazi consulate with increased security.

I asked you for the document with the direct request. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "direct request" but you certainly made the claim without evidence and with no way of supporting your claim.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I love the 13 security threats in Benghazi outlined in the letter that the GOP claimed prove the consulate asked for and needed more security.

1. Workers at a cement factory went on strike
2. Libyan military police targeted by thrown grenade
3. Libyan government officials shot at while at airport
4. A peaceful demonstration was held at Libyan government offices
5. Red Crescent offices were hit with RPG round
6. Motorcade of UK embassy personnel attacked while driving
7. single individual killed by car bomb in marketplace
8. Former military prosecutor killed
9. British citizen was robbed at gun point
10. Libyan Border security officer was killed
11. Office for National election was stormed, 100 ballots burned
12. Libyan Airforce helicopter was struck by gunfire
13. Benghazi government planning office closed by protests over salary

2 Replies

@Ragman,

And you think Israel would be granted access to attack Iran?

Israel is the country threatening pre-emtive strikes, not Iran.

I agree that Romney's ignorance in Woprld affairs is worrying. In the same way Bush's invasion of Iraq made Iran are more influential player in the region, any attack on Iran would make Saudi Arabia a lot more powerful. That would give them contol of most of the oil in the region, and the Wahhabism practiced there is cause for concern. At the moment the West's influence is dependent on the whim of an autocratic monarchy. Things could change very quickly.

0 Replies

@parados,

The Libyan embassy was clearly concerned about security as Stevens' diary made clear. I don't think there is a lot of debate about that. I think the more important point is what we would expect the additional security to do? Let's say there were 20 additional armed marines inside the compound. How do they control the mob? How does that stop a rocket from outside the compound from doing the damage it did? Maybe they die there, maybe they save the ambassador, but those marines aren't going to stop the attack. This may be a useful argument to go after the President, but no one would have done anything significantly different. It's just one of those distractions that allow the candidates not to talk about real policy issues.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Let's say there were 20 additional armed marines inside the compound. How do they control the mob? How does that stop a rocket from outside the compound from doing the damage it did?

The mere presence of Marines armed with loaded weapons
and radios that can call up air support is a real deterrence.

The lack of any Marines is an open invitation to evil doers.

3 Replies

@parados,

The security request was for Libya in general and focused more on Tripoli. Even had the request been granted, the increase would have went to Tripoli so it would not have stopped the deaths or the attack even if the additional security personnel would have been able to stop the attack which as already been testified it would not have.

Focus Was on Tripoli in Requests for Security in Libya

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

The presence of marines didn't work in Beirut in 83. It made them a target.

Beirut barracks Bombing

Rap

0 Replies

Wait a minute, is this like Sherman? Does the Rhomboid plan to invade Georgia? (Don't tell him about the one in the Caucasus!)

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The mere presence of Marines armed with loaded weapons
and radios that can call up air support is a real deterrence.

AIR SUPPORT??

Joe(tell us more about how many aircraft we have based in or around Benghazi.)Nation

0 Replies

@engineer,

Tripoli isn't Benghazi. The embassy is in Tripoli. The argument is being made that there was a clear request for security in Benghazi. I don't see it in any of the documents.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The mere presence of Marines armed with loaded weapons
and radios that can call up air support is a real deterrence.

Spurt, do you really think the US keeps air support close to all our embassies that can be called up over foreign air space at a moment's notice? And you think that would make other nations happy with the US?

1 Reply

@parados,

Don't we keep black helicopters everywhere?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Don't we keep black helicopters everywhere?

Probably not in the white bits.

0 Replies

@revelette,

Back to the title topic:

What ally in the Arab world does Iran have other than Syria?

The closest thing to another ally is, ironically, Iraq, but that can't be because it would mean that Obama screwed up his ending of the Iraqi War.

As for Syria being Iran's only route to the sea he probably should have said that Syria is Iran's only route to the sea than the US can't shut down in a moment's notice, because this was the point he was trying to make.

Should Iran act up to a point that it pisses off even Obama, the US can very quickly shut down Iran's access to the sea, which is one of the reasons having Syria as a vassal state is strategically important to Iran.

In any case it is quite amusing to see supporters of the guy who said he was visiting 57 states criticize his opponent on the subject of geography.

1 Reply

Route to the sea.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know