AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

How many Europeans have been to Asia or Africa?

Because I've been far enough from home and still within the US, that had I lived in Europe, I would have had to have left the continent.

iaazathot: Welcome to your October surprise, folks.

Don't know which is worse these days, the US foreign policy or the US energy policy. Common denominator is that we're farked by both.

I'd like to point out that while it did not have marines, it did have a Libyan security force. From the reports I've read they all stood their ground despite being outnumbered and outgunned, and ten of them laid down their lives to defend the US staff and the international diplomatic system. They aren't being mentioned very often in western media, but I think it's important to recognize their sacrifice. Without them, our death toll would almost certainly have been higher.

// It's also important to recognize that as agents of the democratically elected government, they have more claim to represent Libya than the random group of nutjob militants who stormed our embassy.

Maybe there would have been military personnel there in Libya if the Republicans did throw a shiat fit when we sent a few to help with reconstructing the damn place.

HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

Obama is incompetent and Americans are dead because of it.

Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

So he's a murderous kumbaya singing peacenik. Ok.

xtragrind: HotWingConspiracy: BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!

Are morons like you still calling them protestors? So far we know that they had heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and also launched a coordinated mortar attack.

Good point. That's why you wait until the facts are in before shooting your mouth off.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's Weeners was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
- Mitt Romney.

If Mitt hadn't tried to score a cheap political point by saying the president sympathized those who attacked the consulate (on 9/11, no less), then he wouldn't have fallen below Sarah Palin in the foreign policy category.

Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Only thing he could've done would have been to call Miss Cleo and evacuate the embassy under the cover of darkness, then boobytrap the place to greet the stormers.

Either that, or become omniscient...

AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.

Stefanwulf: I'd like to point out that while it did not have marines, it did have a Libyan security force. From the reports I've read they all stood their ground despite being outnumbered and outgunned, and ten of them laid down their lives to defend the US staff and the international diplomatic system. They aren't being mentioned very often in western media, but I think it's important to recognize their sacrifice. Without them, our death toll would almost certainly have been higher.

// It's also important to recognize that as agents of the democratically elected government, they have more claim to represent Libya than the random group of nutjob militants who stormed our embassy.

Seconded. I hadn't heard about this aspect of it until your post. I hate how people generalize enitre countries based on the actions of a tiny group of crazies.

Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

So, he's doing too much while he does nothing.

Cognitive dissonance isn't treated as a preexisting condition anymore. Please get help.

svenge: There's also much less of a need for passports for certain activities, considering the massive size and climactic diversity available in the United States. Want to go to a tropical island? Book a trip to Hawaii, no passport necessary. Want great skiing? Colorado. The list goes on and on. It's really quite different than Europe, as most of their countries are relatively small and don't have the varied climates within any single country that the US has.

You do realize that you don't need a passport to travel between most European countries, right? If you live in Berlin and want to go to a beach in southern Italy, it takes the same amount of effort that it would take someone from NYC flying to Florida.

fireclown: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.

Which goes back to the original point that most Americans don't really understand consulates or getting visas to travel.

Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

This text is now purple: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

How many Europeans have been to Asia or Africa?

Because I've been far enough from home and still within the US, that had I lived in Europe, I would have had to have left the continent.

But that's not really the point if we are discussing exposure to different cultures. Because as much as someone in San Angelo wants to say they are different than someone in Boston, it really isn't that different.

I don't understand. The Arab Spring that for which we bombed Libya was supposed to make them like us.

AverageAmericanGuy: I work near a handful of embassies here in Tokyo and none have the security that the American embassy has.

Indeed, I've seen the same thing. I live in Bern, Switzerland. The US embassy is an ugly office tower just outside downtown with a bunch of antennas on the roof. It has a ~8ft high fence around it, a few security cameras on posts, and a guard booth but otherwise does not seem to have any significant fortifications. Pretty low-key as far as US embassies go -- the one in Jordan was basically a fortified structure with Jordanian troops stationed in pickup trucks with mounted machine guns outside the walls.

Other embassies in town are much more laid back: those from relatively small countries rent some offices downtown and put their sign outside the door. The French embassy, for example, is a low-rise office building outside of the downtown area that doesn't have any visible external security.

The US is a (the?) major world power and, for legitimate reasons, there's a lot of people who disagree with what the US has done and how its acted. Protests are not uncommon, even in friendly countries, so putting up a fence and some other basic means of security (the US embassy in Paris has a similar fence to the one in Bern and some anti-vehicle bollards around it) seems pretty reasonable.

Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

dervish16108: maddogdelta: dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me

He was doing his job. Which probably is a foreign concept to you.

It was a most unnecessary risk. Responsibility is apparently an alien concept to you.

Says a guy who has no experience with international diplomacy, but still knows better than the State Department and the ambassador on the ground.

LesserEvil: PunGent: LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.

So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.

I hate that we pay off governments (which is basically what aid is), and there is definitely a failure of their obligations here. Cutting off aid is one step... I'm not a fan of the idiot in the Egyptian embassy who has continually posted the nonsense about the film, either. It certainly doesn't make the administration, our government, and particularly the state department look like anything but fools.

I'm sure there are options on the table; some not as palatable as others. What's the right choice? It depends a lot on doing something that won't keep digging the hole deeper. Getting Bush out of office was supposed to help our prestige. Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to oust more secular, but more totalitarian regimes out of power was supposed to earn us some credit in the middle east. Distancing ourselves from Israel was supposed to gain us some respect.

It's done none of that. Respect for the US has continued to erode, perhaps worse in the past year, than during the Bush administration, in the middle east.

Until people in the middle east stop volunteering to be slaves to their mythical sky lord and learn that words do not EVER cause mortal offense. It would help if the tribal mentality of that culture was eradicated, as well. Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon; so the US' response has to take their culture into consideration, as well as what hasn't worked so far (putting radical Islamists into power), and what has (supporting moderates, which we seem to be currently NOT doing in Syria).

So if I run up to a black man and yell "nig---" or up to an italian and call him a wop or a daygo or whatever, this doesn't cause moral offense? Jeeze, that beatdown I got in jr. High for telling a black guy not to get is knickers in a twist must not have happened then...

wejash: dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me.

An Ambassador is not like a king on a chess board that just sits behind walls like a monument. Our Syrian Ambassador was all over the place, sometimes being attacked on the streets. They're diplomats and they may...you know....do diplomacy with the public too. Especially this guy who loved Libya and its people and was very well known and popular. So State kept its local rock star out shaking hands and making friends...which sounds like exactly what they ought to be doing.

The center of power in Libya is still in flux. Benghazi was an ignored backwater under Qaddafi but it was the first city to rise up against him and the capitol of the revolution until Tripoli was taken. So the diplomatic corps is very active in both places.

beefoe: If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors. Remember how we spent $2 billion on the one in Baghdad? And it's not even just the ones in recent war zones. Visit the US embassies and consulates in countries that are friendly to the US and have no history of political violence and you'll see the same thing.

Taken a tour of all our consular facilities in the world, have you? Because this is wrong. They haven't made them all bunkers at all.

After the bombings of our African Embassies in 1998, they did studies of the vulnerabilities of our facilities and started bunkerizing those that were considered at risk for terrorist attack. THAT is a different analysis from whether the country is an enemy or not.

Bunkers in Qaddafi's police state Libya would not protect it from the government and Benghazi was not the center of power -- and locally it was far friendlier to the US all along (as it still is). So it was not likely upgraded. A consulate somewhere in France might get a b ...



Have visited at least a dozen US embassies and consulates and a couple dozen foreign consulates. In countries with not threat of terrorism like Singapore, China and friendly former soviet block (Poland, Bulgaria, etc) we have bunkers and if we don't have a bunker somewhere, we're in the process of building one.

If you really knew what you were talking about you'd understand that embassies and consulates are not built to be protected from attack by the host nation as this is something that is impossible to defend against and doesn't ever happen anyway. Attacking an embassy is perhaps the only thing that will get you universal comdemnation and I'm not sure there's a single instance where the existing government of a country has attacked an embassy.

Regardless, whether it's an embassy or consulate, it's an outpost of the US and having a basically unsecured location is bad enough, but in a country without a functioning government is disgraceful.

tereklusec: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.

I'm a former MSG and what oeneus said is more or less correct. The top of our list is "Destroy the following shiat in the event of an embassy breach". Moving beyond that our goal is to support the State Department in their goals long term diplomatic goals, not mow down crowds with .50 caliber fire. Mass killings tend to put a chill a diplomacy and create long term problems. Had Marine Security Guards been there they likely would have been busy destroying stuff, fighting fires, and moving staff to safe rooms. There really isn't an "empty the armory and kill hundreds of people" page in the security guard book. The State Department is pissed about the dead staff, they'd be even more pissed had the locals been massacred. Sometimes your the unit that gets to be the first ashore (read: 90% causality rate) and sometimes your the State Department worker who buys the farm for being in a hostile environment. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes a platoon or two of dead Americans are better than the alternative in the long run.

For that matter the 50 person team that is getting dropped off is likely laden down with LRADs, Tear Gas, and all kinds of fun non lethal toys. They'll likely sandbag in some weapons like 40mm grenade launchers or the like as kind of a visible do not fark with us symbol (and you can fire all kinds of fun nonlethal shiat from the 40mm). However the real security will be the Libyan military, paramilitary, or riot police units that get are setting up camp around an embassy. If the locals heads have to be cracked, you want locals doing the cracking, much less of a backlash that way. 10 Libyan security guards died defending the embassy. The real difference is today there are a shiatload more Libyan security guards out front. In general the Marines tend to lie low in hostile environments as American troops tend to upset the already hostile locals. It's much harder to incite the locals to kill a bunch of their neighbors who happen to guard the embassy gates for a job than it is to incite the locals some evil infidel Americans at the gates.

If say Saturday the Libyans come over the all, the Marines orders likely are to use nonlethal methods to buy time and either move everyone to safe rooms or evac them via APCs/helicopters/etc.

Honestly the Egyptian embassy was handled perfectly. People saw it coming and got the fark out of the way. The protesters tore down a flag, chanted a bit, and got it out of their system. No one died and al-Qaeda had no martyrs. All the staff were either in secure areas of the compound or out of there completely. Libya wasn't handled badly considering what a shiatty they hand were dealt. Reports are suggesting the ambassador suffocated to death and for that matter a second group of Libyans came in and tried to carry him to the hospital. It wasn't like security was so bad someone walked into his office and shot him in the head. Dead people is never good, but as far as bad situations go it wasn't made worse by American actions (based on reports so far). Had MSGs been there then maybe one of them might have dragged the Ambassador to safety, a medic might have saved him, but that's all just speculation. Basically the Libyan Embassy did have functional security in that the local security guards stood their ground and died for their loyalty. They didn't just bail and leave the doors open. Nothing short of parking a massive military force would have broken up that mob and if we'd done that from Day 1 it would have created bad blood and increased the odds of confrontation. You don't always want your embassy to be the massively secure compound that showcases American military might, that just tends to increase the odds someone tries to fark with you in an effort to create martyrs.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Seconded. I hadn't heard about this aspect of it until your post. I hate how people generalize enitre countries based on the actions of a tiny group of crazies.

seriously. That mob acted based on a crap video clip made in the basement of three guys out of a nation of 300,000,000 people. Assholes.

fireclown: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.

Exactly, You could probably pass through every country in Europe with 48 hours of straight driving.

Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Ricardo Klement: Cubicle Jockey: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


Yup.
Unless one believes that the US would allow the presence of numerous armed Chinese & Russian Marine-equivalent detachments located in every major US city with the legal right to fire on US citizens they consider "threatening".

We actually do allow an awful lot of that. As far as firing on US citizens, they have as much right to as we do. If a bunch of protesters started climbing their fence to get into the consulate, trust me, some countries would have fired upon us and gotten away with it. But the US is smart enough not to let that happen to begin with, and policed every protest, no matter how small.

see, that's one of the things that kind of pissed me off about the egypt embassy incident. In the US, if there was an ugly incident on embassy row in DC (as opposed to the hundreds of peaceful protests every year), there would be police, federal agents, and maybe military there pronto.

I think it's time we stopped pretending the movie had anything to do with this.
The protests were quite clearly astroturfed cover for pre-meditated attacks. Protests do not naturally escalate to coordinated mortar and rocket fire.

It's quite ingenious, really. You've got a populace you can rile up pretty easily and a target that will bend over backwards to not fire on that crowd.
My guess is that Egypt and Yemen didn't turn out like Libya only because they had proper security and defenses.

Which brings me to: it's completely farked up that we would send American functionaries into countries that are literally out of control and overflowing with military gear *without* having built a fortress-embassy and/or sent over a goddamm plane-load of marines *first*. If that would be politically uncouth in a country in chaos? Then don't farking go. Let the CIA do whatever business needs to be done.

The security of the area *around* an embassy or consulate is the responsibility of the host nation.

(just like a protest or incident in the streets of Washington DC or NYC.)

The security of people, information and facilities inside a US Embassy or Consulate is the responsibility of the State Department's law enforcement division, the Buearu of Diplomatic Security.

MSG's fall under DS' direction.

DS is nothing to shake a stick at and are a highly competent crew.

Link

what_now: "See, Romney- this is a legitimate criticism. Now, had you not shot yourself in the foot yesterday, you could be all over the airwaves asking about this today.

But it's too late now. You just had to rush in and make a fool out of yourself, so you anything you say about this situation now will be accompanied by the picture of your shiat eating grin when talking about dead Americans."

This. This is precisely why people don't shoot from the hip. And now not only has Romney rendered himself impotent, but his smug political bullshiat has undercut all his proxies too.

stevetherobot: Exactly, You could probably pass through every country in Europe with 48 hours of straight driving.

The joke is that Europeans are fools who believe that 100 miles is a long drive, and that Americans are fools who believe that 100 years is a long time.

And the American thing is even weirder in terms of language. Most of us only speak one language, because on this side of the world you can drive from pole to pole speaking only english, spanish, and some french if you go through that weird little part of Canada. Brazil is pretty good with the spanish, and I've never had more trouble being understood with my half assed spanish in Brazil than in Mexico. It's pretty awesome.

So, at what point do we stop pretending that this kind of action and the sentiment behind it are not par for the course with middle eastern muslims?

And don't they comprise the bulk of islam?

Seriously, educate me here.

Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?

Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.

ringersol: I think it's time we stopped pretending the movie had anything to do with this.
The protests were quite clearly astroturfed cover for pre-meditated attacks. Protests do not naturally escalate to coordinated mortar and rocket fire.

It's quite ingenious, really. You've got a populace you can rile up pretty easily and a target that will bend over backwards to not fire on that crowd.
My guess is that Egypt and Yemen didn't turn out like Libya only because they had proper security and defenses.

Which brings me to: it's completely farked up that we would send American functionaries into countries that are literally out of control and overflowing with military gear *without* having built a fortress-embassy and/or sent over a goddamm plane-load of marines *first*. If that would be politically uncouth in a country in chaos? Then don't farking go. Let the CIA do whatever business needs to be done.

if only Mitch Rapp were real, this would never have happened.

Seriously, though, I said the same thing yesterday. Everytthing related to the movie is coming up bogus, like it was a covert op type thing.

Now, you have staged protests in these countries, all of which are being used as cover for attacks. How is this NOT seen as a coordinated effort and just some tarded americans making a movie and a bunch of muslims acting like the savages they are (which is then used as fodder to prove the US has no respect of islam/muslims/people in those countries).

To kind of add on to the above, the State Department tends to give a fair amount of latitude to the guys on the ground in terms of security (at least they did back when I was in). There is a local security chief, the ambassador, and of course some folk who work for the CIA/NSA/etc. They tend to form the local brain trust on what they want. As an example, I was in one country that was not very friendly to America and the Ambassador wanted the Marines wearing dress shirts and khakis when we were publicly visible. Lead to a bunch of fights because of course that isn't how we are supposed to dress on duty. He want back to DC and had someone in the State Department lean on someone in the Pentagon and suddenly we had orders to follow the Ambassador's dress code. Actually the State Department bought me some nice designer suits and let me keep them. So we just looked like office drones.

In terms of playing the blame game, what we need to see are the memos from the security chief and the like at the embassy. If they say "You know what, we feel good about the local security guys and think the American military would just enrage the locals" then the lack of Marines is valid and hindsight proves the ambassador wrong. If there are dozens of memos where the Ambassador begs for more security, then whoever reject those requests needs to be starting a new career as a fry cook.

What the secret plans for the NEW mission building in Benghazi look like (artist rendering)

Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?

I don't see anyone saying the war is over, or withdrawing troops/ceasing military action against those groups who are still mounting attacks on military personnel. Congress didn't say "you have 30 days to get this specific group" or anything.

I don't like it, and fighting a war against a nebulous organization that exists because of the radicalization of particular beliefs is like trying to stop rain from falling. But, here we are: mired in a country that continues to cost lives and be seen as an active war zone, and facing military attacks on embassies and american personnel abroad.

Whether you want to agree or not, if we're sending military forces to fight a group of people and are actively engaged in military combat, that's war. Otherwise, we'd be sending in the fbi and conducting other types of non-military intervention.