I'm saying

by TONI H - 11/27/12 3:33 AM

In Reply to: It sounds like you don't fault Bush because by Diana Moderator

that those attacks that Josh listed aren't the only attacks on US interests and he should have included those all the way back to Carter days. They had BEEN happening but Presidents past were doing nothing about them and thought they were 'isolated incidents' when they were actually 'tests' to see if and how we would respond. When the Beirut attack happened during Reagan's term, he had the leader of Hezbollah in gun sights from ships he deployed off the coast and instead of firing, he listened to an old friend and advisory and held off....a big mistake. There were quite a few attacks during Clinton's terms and although he had OBL in his gun sights three times, he held off.......another big mistake. When Bush the younger was President, we had no attacks overseas until after 9-11, went to war in two places, and depended on other pretty stable countries who were considered to be our allies to protect our interests because that is part of our agreements with them, and many failed to do it effectively; however, they did manage to protect them effectively enough that we didn't lose any of our Ambassadors. Plus during that period of time, ALL of our representatives knew they would be in danger and had beefed up their own security. NONE had to beg and plead for that extra security and be ignored or denied. There is also the real possibility since I can't find the actual info about them to know for sure that some may have actually LEFT those facilities and were in safe areas by the time the attacks took place and 'only' security (ours or the host country's) or local civilians were the casualties.

The 'war on terror' was a whole new type of war.......they didn't wear uniforms, they didn't fight according to all conventional war methods. There was a lot about this type of terrorist that we didn't know and all conventional thinking had to be thrown out and started over. Because we have had other instances of attacks on 'special' anniversary dates (Josh's post only lists the years and not the actual dates of those attacks), there was plenty of intel that BO SHOULD have known about after all these years (he WAS a Senator prior to Prez, remember), he had plenty of warnings from his own appointed Ambassador in Libya, he had plenty of emails from that compound begging for more security that his State Dept ignored or denied, PLUS there were emails telling State that the local Libyan security was suspected of spying on the consulate and could be part of AQ and not to be trusted to protect anything.

Yes......I blame him and his Administration for ALLOWING four people to die, including the first Ambassador in 40 years, because NONE of it had to happen. AQ may have burned down the consulate, and they may have gone after the Annex.......but all that intel AND the people could have been cleared out ahead of time or beefed up security of our own could have been moved in closer and on stand-by in order to protect them.