Categorized | Featured Articles

Libs, Do You Agree With Obama’s Foreign Policy Regarding Diplomatic Security?

That in areas where known terrorist activity is prevalent, we should put “Muslim Sensitivities” ahead of the safety of American Diplomats
“the administration’s plan was to deploy a modest American security force and then increasingly rely on trained Libyan personnel to protect American diplomats — a policy that reflected White House apprehensions about putting combat troops on the ground as well as Libyan sensitivities about an obtrusive American security presence.”
****** White House apprehensions about putting combat troops on the ground as well as Libyan sensitivities about an obtrusive American security presence****
“The State Dept maintained the number of security personnel members at the Benghazi compound around the minimum recommended level”
NY Times – Oct 2012…
Do you Agree with Left-Wing Maureen Dowd?
Maureen Dowd
New York Times
The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.
President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A…

No Responses to “Libs, Do You Agree With Obama’s Foreign Policy Regarding Diplomatic Security?”

  1. The Blunt Ugly Truth says:

    No. But shît happens.

  2. Randy says:

    no…. agree with him ^

  3. thє вluє wαndєrєr says:

    i don’t but i wouldn’t agree with a republitard’s foreign policy either as both parties are owned by the same oligarchs.

  4. Meredith says:

    Obama is the best. The most worthy adversary when it comes to foreign affairs. He has superseded the Republicans in all areas of national security to economics. That’s why you tie his hands. If the ignorant vote only knew what their lawmakers were really up to. I think even then theyd have enough brain matter to escape the clutches of the Republican Party.

  5. Ozzie says:

    You aren’t qualified to state what that policy is.

  6. titania_ says:

    There was not a lot that could be done after the Republicans had previously decimated the State Dept security fund for embassies.
    DO YOU agree with the REPUBLICAN LED committees decision to vote in favor of cutting the state departments worldwide embassy security budget by almost 150 million dollars before the attacks? Do you agree with the NO votes of Republicans (EVERY LAST ONE OF WHICH) which led the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform when the State Department came and asked for additional money for security for embassies because they did not have enough security to handle a crisis?
    Do you agree with Paul Ryan who says that security funding for embassies should be cut by ANOTHER 20%?

  7. Douglas S says:

    You’re editing the quote unfairly, and that is cause for alarm.
    Libyan sensitivities are not Muslim sensitivities as all Libyans are not Muslims.
    You correctly note that Libya was a country in transition, with a recent violent revolution.
    You seem to forget why diplomats were there at all.
    To conduct diplomacy, and to create a good image for the US in a fledgling nation that had been anti US for 40 years.
    That was their mission, and yes it came at high risk, and yes they volunteered to be there.
    To conduct that mission in those circumstances for the benefit of the USA.
    Yes hiring locals was a good idea. How better to be seen not as an enemy, but as a friend?
    Yes, keeping a lower profile and building relationships was a good idea for the majority of the millions of Libyans.
    Why do you think the assault occurred?
    Because someone wished that mission to fail!
    Your painting the picture that all Muslims are evil murderers aids and abets that cause, however indirectly.
    The only way to “win” is to reestablish that mission, and win over the hearts and minds of those whom we choose, freely, to have diplomatic relations with.
    To honor Ambassador Stevens and his sacrifice by finishing the job he began.
    Not by demonizing the same people he had reached out to.
    Best Wishes

  8. Mark F says:

    I agree that you copy and paste this same rant every chance you get.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Powered by Yahoo! Answers