This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
There are so many issues that it is hard to know where to start... First - An Ambassador is a representative not just of the Nation but also the person appointed by the President, thus a personal representative of the Head of State, as well. An attack on an Ambassador is an affair of State, and an assassination an act of war. Second - US Soil via the extra-territorial enclave was attacked, which is also an act of war. Third - INTEL was left unguarded, laying around for anyone, including the enemy, to find. If you can't rescue the Ambassador, then the sites must be sanitized. A specialized military team would be tasked for that and 'to make sure' there would be additional steps taken for anything that was buried (a number of methods are available for that). If a military team could not get there then there is sanitizing from the air. When an act of war has happened and involves valuable information to the US, the first job of the President is to ensure that nothing critical falls into the hands of the enemy. Not to do so is a dereliction of duty. With two acts of war having taken place, why wasn't (and why hasn't) the sites in question been sanitized? Especially if one of them was a CIA site. Fourth - Where was the concern by the President for his personal representative to Libya? Ambassador Stephens is appointed with consent of the Senate, so it requires a bit of input by the President to get that done. And just what were Stephens' qualifications, anyways? Who was this man? What awards did he get? What was his background? And just why was he meeting up with the Turks in Libya? Where is the personal outrage by the President? Or at least feigned outrage? Fifth - Leaving aside Stephens' implied CIA work (which goes with the territory) one of the stated goals of the US was to secure the MANPADs and WMD material in Libya. Some of the WMD materials were secured, but 3/4 of the MANPADs went walkabout. They are critical as any ground force without air cover needs a way to counter enemy air, and was the reason that NATO via the UN assisted the Libyan 'rebels'. Soviet SA MANPADs have since shown up in Syria in the hands of the 'rebels' there, via Turkey. Why is the US helping to shuttle MANPADs around the Middle East? Are we unconcerned with the presence of AQIM in Libya and Syria? AQIM has demonstrated capability to get arms from the Libyan debacle and move them to Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Burkina Faso and other places, so is that not a concern to the US that our activities are resulting in the spread of arms to al Qaeda? All of this before you can even get to the cover-up... and it appears there is a lot to distract the American people from and cover up. Neglect of duty at this level is not by accident, considering how al Qaeda is already fighting us wherever they can. Even if it is completely and utterly unintentional, the shift of arms to al Qaeda and the non-response to their provocative acts of war against the US is horrifying. al Qaeda has been consciously carrying out The Management of Savagery doctrine and it just taken at face value of what is going on with the so-called 'Arab Spring', Libya and now Syria, it is a successful utilization of a primitive doctrine aided and abetted by US negligence (at best) and complicity (at worse). This stinks, and the assassination of our Ambassador isn't even the worst of it.
1 reply is now following The Typepad Team
Nov 3, 2012