The Libyan People take things in their own hands

[Francie26]

You'll need to confirm the government rules of an Embassy. Do you have a link regarding Embassy protection and whether the residents carry live ammo or not? Do you have a link stating live ammo under any administration? You are aware the Embassies are protected by hosting country, right? You're making the assumption Clinton and Obama change some law over the pass 3.5 years.

No, I was not aware that we put the lives of our embassy personnel in the hands of "host" countries, especially with the mid-eastern propensity to just step away when the embassy is attacked by local people. As to the law being in place for the past 3.5 years, it seems then that it has been in place only through Obama's tenure. So it appears that embassies were more closely guarded before Obama came into office and put Hillarious in charge of our embassies. I have posted a couple links below (or somewhere here haha) addressing the situation in Egypt and what happened in Libya, et al. I freely admit that I was at least partially in error, but my mistake doesn't change the fact that there was still a serious lack of protection for our embassies in both Egypt and Libya.

[simple]

OK, TPSprayduster, I was partially wrong, and I sincerely apologize. The Marines were not at the Libyan embassy because a British firm got a bid on it after they agreed to Hillarious's and Obama's terms of carrying no live ammunition. But Ambassador Ann Rice, herself, refused to allow American Marines to carry live ammo in their weapons at our Egyptian embassy. Thus, I was wrong, but there was still a lack of security at both embassies, the one in Egypt and the one in Libya. And I still believe that no American embassy should ever be unguarded or guarded by unarmed people, and never protected only by locals, especially in the most dangerous regions in the world. This is why we have our brave U.S. Marines.

Here are a couple of articles I found about this. I hope they correct my comments and answer your questions. Again, I apologize. Fran

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/State-Department-Rules-of-Engagement-Kept-Marines-Out-of-Tripoli-as-Well-as-Benghazi-in-Libya

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ambassador-to-egypt-anne-patterson-did-not-permit-u-s-marine

Fran, these still aren't authenticated sources. As a matter of fact, they are biased articles floating these stories. Another site to be considered is here:

Update, Thursday, September 13, 2:30 p.m. PDT: Mother Jones has obtained a memorandum from the Marine Corps' congressional liaison confirming that the Marine guards at the embassy in Egypt were in fact armed with live ammunition, contrary to the anti-Obama conspiracy theory du jour:

The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.

[cris]

OK, TPSprayduster, I was partially wrong, and I sincerely apologize. The Marines were not at the Libyan embassy because a British firm got a bid on it after they agreed to Hillarious's and Obama's terms of carrying no live ammunition. But Ambassador Ann Rice, herself, refused to allow American Marines to carry live ammo in their weapons at our Egyptian embassy. Thus, I was wrong, but there was still a lack of security at both embassies, the one in Egypt and the one in Libya. And I still believe that no American embassy should ever be unguarded or guarded by unarmed people, and never protected only by locals, especially in the most dangerous regions in the world. This is why we have our brave U.S. Marines.

Here are a couple of articles I found about this. I hope they correct my comments and answer your questions. Again, I apologize. Fran

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/State-Department-Rules-of-Engagement-Kept-Marines-Out-of-Tripoli-as-Well-as-Benghazi-in-Libya

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ambassador-to-egypt-anne-patterson-did-not-permit-u-s-marine

Thanks for the clarification Francie

Heres what I got from the Dept of State.....Hilllary & Obama are

directly responsible for the outcome of lax security, and Libyans

killing our Ambassador.

Securing Our Embassies Overseas

The Secretary of State (Hilllary) and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad. This mission is executed through the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). Personal and facility protection are the most critical elements of the DS mission abroad as they directly impact upon the Department’s ability to carry out its foreign policy. With terrorist organizations and coalitions operating across international borders, the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests remains great. Therefore, any U.S. mission overseas can be a target even if identified as being in a low-threat environment.

http://www.state.gov...rview/c9004.htm

Read more:

[simple]

No, I was not aware that we put the lives of our embassy personnel in the hands of "host" countries, especially with the mid-eastern propensity to just step away when the embassy is attacked by local people. As to the law being in place for the past 3.5 years, it seems then that it has been in place only through Obama's tenure. So it appears that embassies were more closely guarded before Obama came into office and put Hillarious in charge of our embassies. I have posted a couple links below (or somewhere here haha) addressing the situation in Egypt and what happened in Libya, et al. I freely admit that I was at least partially in error, but my mistake doesn't change the fact that there was still a serious lack of protection for our embassies in both Egypt and Libya.

There's nothing supporting the statement I highlighted Fran. But I can understand your frustrations regarding protection and we all know it's a risky job.

In May 2011 U.S. President Obama nominated Patterson to be the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt.

Thanks for the clarification Francie

Heres what I got from the Dept of State.....Hilllary & Obama are

directly responsible for the outcome of lax security, and Libyans

killing our Ambassador.

Securing Our Embassies Overseas

The Secretary of State (Hilllary) and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad. This mission is executed through the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). Personal and facility protection are the most critical elements of the DS mission abroad as they directly impact upon the Department’s ability to carry out its foreign policy. With terrorist organizations and coalitions operating across international borders, the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests remains great. Therefore, any U.S. mission overseas can be a target even if identified as being in a low-threat environment.

http://www.state.gov...rview/c9004.htm

Read more:

Cris that's commonsense. The dynamics have to be established between countries. Libya did not live up to their obligations. It's not the first time a US Embassy has been attacked; there are more than 12 attacks over the last 12 years.

[Francie26]

OK, TPSprayduster, I was partially wrong, and I sincerely apologize. The Marines were not at the Libyan embassy because a British firm got a bid on it after they agreed to Hillarious's and Obama's terms of carrying no live ammunition. But Ambassador Ann Rice, herself, refused to allow American Marines to carry live ammo in their weapons at our Egyptian embassy. Thus, I was wrong, but there was still a lack of security at both embassies, the one in Egypt and the one in Libya. And I still believe that no American embassy should ever be unguarded or guarded by unarmed people, and never protected only by locals, especially in the most dangerous regions in the world. This is why we have our brave U.S. Marines.

Here are a couple of articles I found about this. I hope they correct my comments and answer your questions. Again, I apologize. Fran

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/State-Department-Rules-of-Engagement-Kept-Marines-Out-of-Tripoli-as-Well-as-Benghazi-in-Libya

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ambassador-to-egypt-anne-patterson-did-not-permit-u-s-marine

Here is another article about our embassy in Egypt. It confirms the prior informaton.

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_12000175.aspx

[TPSprayduster]

The MSG's are for internal security only, the external security are not always american. If you stop by the Embassy in Baghdad you will find SOC guards from Peru who guard the exterior. Again all of these stories should be fact checked before posting Fran. These person who put this stuff out about how unprotected the embassy are don't know their heads from a hole in the fence. Remember i was a watch stander and i met some watchstanders in Baghdad so please don't try to correct me when i am here and see it everyday. Now as for incident in Libya well Marines were not there and private security was tasked. Amb Rice did not disarm the Marines remember they are internal security. Not outside shooting people off the walls. Don't always believe these wild speculator stories. Thanks

[cris]

There's nothing supporting the statement I highlighted Fran. But I can understand your frustrations regarding protection and we all know it's a risky job.

In May 2011 U.S. President Obama nominated Patterson to be the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt.

Cris that's commonsense. The dynamics have to be established between countries. Libya did not live up to their obligations. It's not the first time a US Embassy has been attacked; there are more than 12 attacks over the last 12 years.

Really?....When was the last time a US Ambassador was killed?

Thats right.....During the Carter Admin....Because that group had the same

type of apologetic diplomacy that O'blah uses.

Adolph Dubs, Afghanistan, 1979 — Carter Admin

[Peace]

Thanks for the article.

[sxsess]

Apparently Ambassador Stevens was very good at doing his job and the Libyans knew and appreciated him for this; it's just that our administration wasn't good at doing its job. Stevens earned, deserved, and expected their protection, and it wasn't there when he needed it. Who was so wise that they denied the Marines guarding our Consulate the right to keep their guns loaded? When these Marines guarding our Consulate and our ambassador were denied bullets for their guns, someone had a screwy idea of what is even right, let alone what is safe. (Who in the world could be more trusted with bullets than a U. S. Marine, for pity's sakes??!!) These are not Barney Fifes. They are United States Marines!!! . I consider this to be a brazen idealogue-based, dumb-As*ed failure of both Hillarious Clinton and her ne'er-do-well, TV star, worthless boss, Obama. Neither of them is worth wiping the feet of any of the people who died in this attack.

Hopefully those two buffoons will be on the same plane that hopefully nose dives into the ground.

[simple]

Really?....When was the last time a US Ambassador was killed?

Thats right.....During the Carter Admin....Because that group had the same

type of apologetic diplomacy that O'blah uses.

Adolph Dubs, Afghanistan, 1979 — Carter Admin

You think the Embassy was attacked over leadership? Do you think Al Queda targeted Bush on 9/11 because he was weak? There were attacks on all of the President's watch. Weak is the conclusions? You can't make those blanket assumptions. Your thoughts are political driven and prejudice.

The MSG's are for internal security only, the external security are not always american. If you stop by the Embassy in Baghdad you will find SOC guards from Peru who guard the exterior. Again all of these stories should be fact checked before posting Fran. These person who put this stuff out about how unprotected the embassy are don't know their heads from a hole in the fence. Remember i was a watch stander and i met some watchstanders in Baghdad so please don't try to correct me when i am here and see it everyday. Now as for incident in Libya well Marines were not there and private security was tasked. Amb Rice did not disarm the Marines remember they are internal security. Not outside shooting people off the walls. Don't always believe these wild speculator stories. Thanks

Well stated TP.

Edited September 23, 2012 by simple

[Francie26]

You think the Embassy was attacked over leadership? Do you think Al Queda targeted Bush on 9/11 because he was weak? There were attacks on all of the President's watch. Weak is the conclusions? You can't make those blanket assumptions. Your thoughts are political driven and prejudice.

Well stated TP.

simple, I can make any assumptions, come to any conclusions, and believe any information I choose. Actually, I don't have to think like you to be a profound or even a decently deep thinker. I don't know where you live, but I'm an American, and those free choices are part of what being an American is all about. Now if you have sensible discussions regarding my posts, you might enlighten me or even change my mind. But you won't do it by attacking me and stating that my thinking ability is amiss. Nor will I entertain the possibility that you may be right if you are simply claiming that my reasoned thoughts are mere blanket assumptions or poltically driven prejudice. And why on earth did you throw prejudice into the mix? How do you know what my personal situation is? You don't. Do you know what color I am? What religion? What background? My personal history up to now? Anything at all so you could get a real grip on accusing me of prejudice? This sounds like the same ole' democratic cr^p with nothing to back it up that many democrats run to hide behind when they have nothing more to shore up a better argument than their own. Sheesh!! Sorry, Bucko!! Your cheap shots, unfounded accusations, and denigrating comments just won't fly.

Oh, and by the way, a little common courtesy would go a long way in convincing others to even take a look at your point of view---that is if you have one.

[desimo]

Glad someone is doing something. It is clear our government is not going to do anything. The white house is still trying to figure out how they can get out of calling it a terrorist action.