ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on November 1, 2012

Shouldn't they loosen up a little bit for the sake of the nation?

For more than 200 embassies and consulates around the world, more security requests for some of them were made almost each day, and it would be magical for the United States government to approve all of them, due to limited resources.

Therefore, it was no surprise of a classified cable warning that the consulate could not withstand "coordinated attack" as Benghazi has become a hornet of armed insurgent gangs after the uprising that deposed Libya's dictator, Muammar Gadhafi.

The presence of al Qaeda was also noted in Benghazi, Libya; but so was Yemen and even Tunisia, as the Arab Spring left many countries in the Muslim world with so many remnant groups, the scope of which was impossible to control, even by their own governments, in terms of the number, for example, of training camps.

Budget cuts in the U.S. Congress to reduce government spending have a part to play with beefing up security, not just in Libya, but for all those embassies and missions in places that were considered as dangerous for diplomats and their personnel.

Security has been an undaunted task for the U.S. State Department, and it could only do so much to accommodate demands with what it had, as per all the Ambassadors being given the help they wanted to keep them safe. Nevertheless, much was being done by the U.S. government to prevent what happened in Benghazi from taking place anywhere else.

However, for politicians, who were aware of all the difficulties facing the Obama administration to make charges of inadequate or lack of protection for the mission there was preposterous.

Also, the accusation that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were hiding any vital information on the Benghazi attack from the American people was insane, as there was no proof of that.

They had spoken of the anti-Mohammad film or movie as the cause of the demonstration in Cairo, Egypt, and though the Benghazi attack was different in nature, as a purely terrorist assault, there could never be any rational to say that the two incidents were separately happening.

The intelligence community had first hand information to the White House, and it (WH) reflected that to the public by what the president said in the Rose Garden of what was going on, both in Benghazi and about the demonstrations against the despicable anti-Mohammad film or movie around the world.

Again, politicizing the Benghazi attack in the midst of a political campaign was outrageous, as Newt Gingrich was claiming that the president "was playing games" with the American public, and concealing information about the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three embassy officials, was deliberate.

How could anyone say that, as Obama was making every effort to get to the bottom of the Benghazi issue, and vowing that he would do all he could to bring those responsible for the attack to justice.

The Libyan authorities were helping out with the numerous investigations that were in progress, and their (investigations) outcome would determine what steps to take to bring the matter to a close.

So, the anxiety of some Republican politicians that the president was not handling the case properly was dubious, as their aim was that, if they stayed on the Benghazi attack repeatedly in the media, they could cause Obama's second term bid to fail.

With politics aside, voters were concerned with the arrest and eventual result of the perpetrators getting what was coming to them, in order to atone for the deaths of those four patriotic Americans, so that they might not have died needlessly.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      The problem with 30 folks ain't so much the money as the attention. If I had 30 direct employees, I would have to run them. If I had to spend the time running them, I would not have time above two children to minister to my husband. These folks act weird.

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago


      There is no need to get nasty with me. This is public domain, and you have to be very polite using it.

      The reason being that other people would not be open to any type of foul language; and so, you must be civil and tone down your rhetoric in a medium such as this.

      If the president's wife, Michelle, is the person you are referring to as "Banshee Face", then you may have a personal grudge against her, otherwise you will call her by name and register your complaint.

      I must agree with you, though, about her personal aides that are being paid by the U.S. government.

      What she is doing with 30 such help must be beyond anyone's comprehension; as it is a waste of the resources that the country needs at present.

      Something must be done to plug the leaks in government spending. Her hiring so many people on government payroll is one of them. It is despicable, as far as I am concerned.

      Thank you for the information contained in your comment; but I doubt it very much if it is factual.

    • profile image

      Sara 5 years ago

      So I just needed a quick vent about one of the myriad things that is wrong with Banshee Face Obama. My current bone to pick with her is that she has around 30 personal aides whose salaries are paid by the government. Their salaries range from around $75,000-$300,000. Laura Bush had 1 aide, and G.W. paid for that aide out of his own pocket. Two aides is the most any previous first lady has ever had. I cannot comment on how egregious and disgusting this is, because I will get very angry.

      I would like to say however, that Banshee Face should be ashamed. She lacks all grace and modesty. It's nice to know that she's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants. Fuck Banshee Face, and fuck her husband. He's just an empty suit the liberals place infront of a teleprompter. But that's a bitch rant for another day.

    • profile image

      Carl 5 years ago

      I am one of those people who has nothing good to say about the current president. This isn’t always the case, but at the moment, I have to say that Obama sucks. I am not sure that anything has really gotten better under him. I kind of appreciated the ambition of that whole healthcare system he was working on, but I think it was kind of naive and short-sighted. It’s almost as if the entire thing was just some sort of marketing piece. I consider the President of the United States to primarily be a mouthpiece and a representative, and as that, Obama is pretty good. After all, he is about as good of a public speaker as you can get.

      However, at the same time, the President of the United States needs to be able to get things done, and Obama hasn’t. Are you familiar with the promise that Obama made about helping out Darfur if he went into office? Darfur has a genocide going on, and has had one going on for years. Obama promised that if he got into office that he would do something about it, and the truth is, the United States could do something fairly easily. But at the end of the day, Obama hasn’t done anything about it. Why? I’m not sure, but at the moment I’m just going with the answer that Obama sucks.

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago

      Hi Ericdierker,

      I think we are at cross purposes; but that is another story.

      However, if the U.S. border is not secure, then border security or patrol officials are to blame and not the president.

      With respect to the Benghazi attack, nobody ever thought such an act would be directed against the U.S., because the people of Libya have just been freed by the U.S. and its NATO allies from a brutal dictator.

      However, any type of punishment would follow, when the terrorists would be caught.

      Though, attacking a U.S. diplomatic mission was an act of war; but a small group of people was responsible for it, and so, waging war on that country, as a result, would be improper.

      Several investigations are ongoing, and they will lead to those terrorists; and they will be given a dose of their own medicine, so to speak.

      The four American diplomats would not have died in vain.

      Presently, American citizens attacking the U.S. government would be counter productive.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.


      I can see the Mexican, Tijuana border of La Mesa area from my neighborhood. And am well aware of the great commerce that flows between our two great countries. I have lived and worked there and enjoy it immensely. But that border is not secure. People, drugs and all sorts of gang related activity are a common occurence. I do see how that is our fault, for having money.

      That embassy was not secure. It is a little different. Because when a unit of Americans are dispatched without the amount and quality of security they need -- they are in danger. Undermanning any armed group is a death sentence, for that group.

      Well maybe it is just the same as the border.

    • profile image

      Steve 5 years ago

      The Obama administration is obviously in damage control mode. They need to buy time and put as much distance between this event and the election so as not to negatively affect their campaign. They have clearly misrepresented the facts as they've been presented to them, and obfuscated the truth to the American people in the name of "the greater good". That's an end justifies the means type of approach. It's one thing to spin the interpretation of the facts, achievements, and failures in an election year, that's a given - it's quite another to lie about a national security failure of this magnitude. Our ambassador was under-protected, leading to his likely rape, torture, and ultimate murder at the hands of "looters". Subsequently, he was brought to the hospital which is under the "protection" of the same group hired to guard the mission on the fourth ring road. This extremely if not impossible to spin - the only avenue for Obama was to invent a false narrative that would endure at least until the election. Obama has desperately tried to stay ahead of the facts and sought to "criminalize" this event by handing investigative responsibility to the FBI. There is only so much that they can do from Tripoli where they were on hold due to security concerns while the "crime scene" was contaminated. At this point Hilary, Ann Rice and yes, even Jay Carney may need to take a good long look in the mirror and decide where their priorities and allegiance lie - to Obama's re-election or to the truth. They may not be able to have it both ways. And if Hilary ends up on the wrong side of this, her presumed 2016 presidential aspirations could be questionable.

    • profile image

      Perry 5 years ago

      Help me out, I was under the impression that if embassies and consulates were attacked and Americans killed it was an act of war? I also assumed our state department would not think people came to a protest with deisel fuel and hand held grenade launchers!!! I also think while 20+ anti American protests are taking place around the world that our President should not be on Late Night with David Letterman!!!

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago

      Hi Ericdierker,

      I guess your frame of mind is too elaborate and far gone into a high realm or level of intellectualism for me to comprehend your way of thinking.

      To you, securing a border is the same as securing an embassy compound.

      To me, though, they both come under the category of "security"; however, they involve two different issues.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      I really do not see the distinction. Security from forces within and without.

      (I think I did misread what you wrote before)

      Why would we think of the border around a building as different than a border around our country?

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago

      Hi Ericdierker,

      My first sentence was, "All embassy grounds and compounds belong to the country that occupies them", meaning that every embassy or consulate or mission was theoretically and practically American soil, where they were situated.

      So, we are on the same page; therefore, what are you talking about?

      What I said was that you should not mix apples with oranges; meaning that embassy security and border protection were two different categories.

      Of course, all embassies, etc., belonging to the U.S., are part of American soil.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Are you stating with a straight face and even pen. That American Embassies abroad are not American soil? This is total news to me, what is your source? I always thought they were. Jimmy Carter Iranians is where I learned that it was.

    • profile image

      owurakwasip 5 years ago

      Hi Ericdierker,

      All embassy grounds and compounds belong to the country that occupies them. However, each country has the responsibility to provide extra security for all its embassies, High Commissions, missions and consulates in any country that has diplomatic relations with the U.S.

      Whatever security that a country provided inside or outside the grounds of its diplomatic facilities was up to that country; and as anything else required for an embassy, the cost of additional security was expensive.

      Yet, you are mixing apples with oranges here, if you bring border protection into the conversation, for that is a completely different issue.

      President Barack Obama has provided enough border protection, where Mexico is concerned.

      The problem has always been that illegal immigrants would cross or come over the border seeking work and a better life for themselves and their families.

      Nobody could ever stop them from doing so, since they were seeking the same freedom that Americans enjoyed.

      To accuse him of "gross negligence" as you put it, or to say that he was not adequately protecting U.S. borders would be a lie. He has always done so.

      His position as President and Commander-in-Chief must always be respected by all patriotic Americans.

      Any political effusion from you would therefore be wrong.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 5 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      I am an American and I travel throughout the world and not always just to friendly countries. Not caring enough to protect the embassy in any country is downright wrong. No question the standard for an embassy in a high risk country is and should be: No less than a military attack should be allowed to breach the security. If you did not know, embassies are and always have been American soil. An attack on one is a direct attack against America. Not adequately protecting our borders is gross negligence of the Commander and Chief of our armed forces.

    • American View profile image

      American View 5 years ago from Plano, Texas

      No offense, but are you paying attention to this story? Charlene Lamb, Assistant Director at the State Department was asked point blank during her testimony was her problem fro not bringing the building up to codes and supplying adequate security dues to lack of money. Her answer was she had an abundance of funds to pay for all that and then some.

      Are you missing the part where 15 security forces were removed from the embassy?

      I am sorry, but you guys on the left are so reaching. Does the left have no shame in this?