Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

[AUIH1 1,515]

Granada was invaded by marines in early 1980's to rescue American citizens being held hostage at a medical school. Reagan was president and I was serving in South Korea 2nd ID. The reason I ask if you served was because most veterans would know what Granada was. The fact that you didn't told me you have probably never suited up for anything.

+10000 Point made.

wde

[alexava 6,974]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

And how many military commanders have come forward and stated that you never give that order? That you don't give a 'go' to send your troops into that situation? Here's a hint: It's more than one. The problem with Benghazi is everyone attacking the administration claimed executive cover up. Then when facts disprove that, they rush to the incompetence of the State Department and executive branch. Two problems I have with that. 1) Military commanders don't agree with that assessment and 2) People complain that Obama has his hands on everything and then complain about 'why he was so hands off'. Freaking make up your minds.

^^^^

[homersapien 12,172]

Granada was invaded by marines in early 1980's to rescue American citizens being held hostage at a medical school. Reagan was president and I was serving in South Korea 2nd ID. The reason I ask if you served was because most veterans would know what Granada was. The fact that you didn't told me you have probably never suited up for anything.

I know what happened at Grenada. :-\

What I was asking was how it related to the discussion at hand.

But since you brought up Reagan in the context of being relevant to Benghazi, it reminds me of Beirut in 1983. Makes Benghazi look kind of trivial, huh?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Granada was invaded by marines in early 1980's to rescue American citizens being held hostage at a medical school. Reagan was president and I was serving in South Korea 2nd ID. The reason I ask if you served was because most veterans would know what Granada was. The fact that you didn't told me you have probably never suited up for anything.

I know what happened at Grenada. :-\

What I was asking was how it related to the discussion at hand.

But since you brought up Reagan in the context of being relevant to Benghazi, it reminds me of Beirut in 1983. Makes Benghazi look kind of trivial, huh?

Well, Grenada was invaded only 2 days after the debacle in Beirut, I believe.

We've never invaded Granada, however.

[homersapien 12,172]

Granada was invaded by marines in early 1980's to rescue American citizens being held hostage at a medical school. Reagan was president and I was serving in South Korea 2nd ID. The reason I ask if you served was because most veterans would know what Granada was. The fact that you didn't told me you have probably never suited up for anything.

I know what happened at Grenada. :-\

What I was asking was how it related to the discussion at hand.

But since you brought up Reagan in the context of being relevant to Benghazi, it reminds me of Beirut in 1983. Makes Benghazi look kind of trivial, huh?

Well, Grenada was invaded only 2 days after the debacle in Beirut, I believe.

We've never invaded Granada, however.

;D

Damn. I hate it when I overlook such an opportunity, especially when dealing with the self-righteous.

[autigeremt 7,133]

Ok...so now they comitted suicide.

How convenient.

And the "drive-by" poster strikes again! :clap:/>

Yep! Best in the business! It's high times for the drive by poster business. Clear away the clouds and tell me why this surfaced so long afterwards? Are you not the least bit skeptical, or do you live in a bubble? ;)/>

I have no idea. :dunno:/>

Perhaps it was because so much focus was being put on the wording in official statements issued by the State Department an the President, that they are only now starting to get into the what and why? I'd say at this point, no one knows.

Now, tell us what your drive-by was implying?

You have four Americans under fire for several hours. You have a team capable of responding in the same country at the ready. Instead of making an executive decision (whether it's Clinton making the 3am phone call or the President being in the loop) the four Americans were left to die. Since that time not one single person has been brought in as a suspect. Heck, who knows if we are still looking at this time?

This administration is inept. President Obama is never in a position to make a decision. He never has been. Yet, we are supposed to accept their narrative and turn away. I won't vote present on this one!

And how many military commanders have come forward and stated that you never give that order? That you don't give a 'go' to send your troops into that situation? Here's a hint: It's more than one. The problem with Benghazi is everyone attacking the administration claimed executive cover up. Then when facts disprove that, they rush to the incompetence of the State Department and executive branch. Two problems I have with that. 1) Military commanders don't agree with that assessment and 2) People complain that Obama has his hands on everything and then complain about 'why he was so hands off'. Freaking make up your minds.

^^^^

Lt. General Hal Moore wouldn't have left them there to die! I know of hundreds who would agree with him. Are you saying our military isn't capable of getting the job done?

[autigeremt 7,133]

Granada was invaded by marines in early 1980's to rescue American citizens being held hostage at a medical school. Reagan was president and I was serving in South Korea 2nd ID. The reason I ask if you served was because most veterans would know what Granada was. The fact that you didn't told me you have probably never suited up for anything.

I know what happened at Grenada. :-\/>

What I was asking was how it related to the discussion at hand.

But since you brought up Reagan in the context of being relevant to Benghazi, it reminds me of Beirut in 1983. Makes Benghazi look kind of trivial, huh?

Well, Grenada was invaded only 2 days after the debacle in Beirut, I believe.

We've never invaded Granada, however.

;D/> ;D/> ;D/>

Damn. I hate it when I overlook such an opportunity, especially when dealing with the self-righteous.

The mirror must be a b#%*!

[AUGradinTX 0]

Despite the title of the article, this tidbit comes directly from it...

“The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

"Only partially granted" seems to be the key phrase here. I'm not familiar with the site this article is from, but it seems they are either leaving out part of the story, or do not know the entire story.

If what was offered was deemed insufficient by Stevens, is it really surprising that it was turned down? Without question the answer is no. The only way to get the security you really need is to stick to your guns and fight until you get it. The last thing you would do is accept something you know would be insufficient. If you did, the negotiations are over; along with your chances of getting what you actually need.

What is clear is that there were numerous attacks on westerners in the months leading up to this attack. These attacks are what led to Ambassador Stevens asking for more security. What is also clear is that Ambassador Stevens did not feel safe and relayed that sentiment to Washington several times. IMO, this article is attempting to persuade people who have not read all the facts to side with our current administration's failure to protect Stevens.

It is a fact that Stevens made several requests for additional security. An article saying he denied security is obviously not not being completely truthful.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchy...8#storylink=cpy

Perhaps the CIA didn't want extra security.

http://www.businessi...benghazi-2013-5

That would be a problem then. I'm not sure how the CIA trumps the Sec. of State in determining the security needs of a diplomat over seas, though.