9/11 Attack on Benghazi, Libya Consulate Not the First. Or Last, Probably.

Eli Lake of The Daily Beast/Newsweek continues to push on the intelligence and security failures that led to the death of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans in Benghazi on September 11.

His latest story notes that the facility had been attacked several times before the September attack:

Obama administration officials have said there was no specific intelligence predicting the 9/11 anniversary assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. A senior State Department official acknowledged that there were five serious attacks on Western targets since the spring in the lead-up to the attack on the 9/11 anniversary. Speaking of the June 6 attack at the consulate’s perimeter gate, this official said, “The IED attack caused no loss of life and no injury. The wall acted as designed. It absorbed it.” This official said that compared with the 9/11 anniversary assault, the earlier attacks in Benghazi were mild. “We faced a coordinated, military-style assault. We’ve never seen that kind of attack before,” this official added.

Until Sept. 19, eight days after the consulate attack, senior administration officials had said it resulted spontaneously from riots at the U.S. embassy in Cairo against an Internet video denigrating the Muslim prophet. Spokesmen for the State Department and the National Security Council did not return emails late Monday evening.

Read the whole thing here.

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the head of the House Oversight Committee that has been pushing the Fast and Furious investigation among others, has requested information from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the failure to protect Amb. Stevens. From a Hot Air account:

Terrorists had posted pictures of Ambassador Stevens going for a routine morning jog and threatening to abduct or kill him.  The Libyan security guards in the Benghazi consulate had been receiving warnings for weeks before the attack to quit, as an attack was planned for the facility.  According to Issa, the embassy asked for heightened security for their diplomatic missions — and got nothing but static in response.

Issa wants a hearing on this matter on October 10th.  Don’t be surprised if Hillary stonewalls for at least another four weeks.

The official State line is that Stevens didn't communicate the worries that he expressed in his diary (uncovered and aired by CNN), but that may well turn out to be less than credible.

The Wash Post reports that the Obama administration has pulled all remaining personnel from Benghazi due to the deteriorating conditions; all non-essential personnel have also been yanked from Tripoli.

Hot Air's roundup on continuing coverage is very useful.

This surely is not what leading from behind looks like, is it? U.S. foreign policy arguably is in worse shape than even our economic situation. The absolute failure of the past dozen years or so should be a major issue in this election. The responsibility for this monumental failure is shared across parties (it is stunning still to think that the second Gulf War/invasion of Iraq was authorized by a larger and more bipartisan vote than the first!). Yet for precisely that reason - and the fact that Mitt Romney is probably even more befuddled on foreign policy than Obama - serious conversation about America's role in the world will have to wait for another time.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R C Dean||

    the Obama administration has pulled all remaining personnel from Benghazi due to the deteriorating conditions;

    So much for the FBI "investigating" the attack and bringing the perpetrators "to justice", I suppose.

  • Tman||

    "I'm sure that the FBI will be able to do a complete forensic analysis of the crime scene which they can then use to locate the suspects, and of course the local Libyan authorities will fully cooperate with them in apprehending the several hundred individuals that were responsible for the damage and deaths at the embassy and the safe house."

    "Also, I would like a pony, and for someone to bring back Jimi Hendrix from the dead so he can murder Justin Bieber with a guitar pick."

    I think the Hendrix thing has a better chance of happening.

  • WTF||


    I think the Hendrix thing has a better chance of happening.

    Plus, it would be super-awesome.

  • Killazontherun||

    Jimi always kept an acoustic around on his gigs, and those old strings had some real give and take to them. Perfect for the perfect crime.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I think he'd have a good chance of successfully pleading self defense. Besides, no jury in the country would convict; you generally have to be over 18 to serve, after all.

  • ||

    "The official State line is that Stevens didn't communicate the worries that he expressed in his diary (uncovered and aired by CNN), but that may well turn out to be less than credible."

    You're the fucking Department of State, you fucking yokels. It's your job to ensure the safety of the diplomatic corps.

    These retards are the sort of people the central government of history's greatest superpower is run by. We're so fucking doomed.

  • kinnath||

    1) Kill brown people indescriminately with drones
    2) Leave US embassies in hot-bed locations essentially unsecured
    3) ?
    4) Profit!!!!!

  • ||

    THE EPITOME OF MODERN GOVERNANCE!

  • ||

    This really should be the October Surprise Romney needs. I mean this kind of incompetence is the sort of thing the media used to bash Bush over, and yet I doubt it will be even mentioned at the debate unless Romney brings it up.

  • WTF||

    And if Romney brings it up he will be excoriated for trying to use this tragedy for political advantage, and the story will be what a bad person Romney is for saying such things.

  • ||

    And that's only because the media has a pathological hatred of Romney due to his supposed character flaws and lack of charisma. I wouldn't doubt that he would come off as tactless if he attempted to make legitimate criticism of the administration's horrendous handling on this issue.

  • Killazontherun||

    That he would actually criticize the president who killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands? On a matter of foreign policy, an area of expertise that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for his deft handling, and so immaculately well done he was awarded in his first year?!? What scum pool did Romney march out from?

  • Killazontherun||

    And if you ask me if that was sarcasm, I'll figuratively smack you.

  • Mike M.||

    Obama lied, and Ambassador Stevens died.

    In an earlier time something like this would have an impeachable offense. And I mean a real impeachable offense, not a B.S. one like the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" nonsense.

  • kinnath||

    Help me count up the impeachable offenses:

    1) Smuggling guns to drug lords in Mexico

    2) Ordering the execution of an American citizen without due process

    3) Launching a war in Libya without congressional approval

    and many, many more .....

  • ||

    And to the media and 47% of the country, none of those things are as important or heinous as Mitt's tax returns.

  • ||

    The fact of the matter is that politicians can get away with almost anything nowadays. The precedents have been set and they know it. It will continue to get more and more egregious. Count on it.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, It's hard to believe Nixon actually resigned over something as petty as participating in the coverup of a two-bit burglary, when nowadays there are no repercussions for much worse.

  • JW||

    That would require the Republicans to do something about these things, which would be very inconvenient, when they're in the White House and want to wield those same powers.

  • Randian||

    For a long time, I did not particularly buy into the notion of media bias complaints by conservatives, and I was politically hatched right around the time the whole right was publishing books and columns about it. I always thought there was a 'working the ref' angle.

    This Libya thing put paid to my blindness. I haven't seen such naked sycophancy from an entity in my life.

  • Gray Ghost||

    It was Journolist for me. The Libya coverage (and the total lack of mentioning the indignities done to Ambassador Stevens, hopefully post-mortem) hasn't changed my mind.

  • ||

    Firearms and nuclear energy coverage did it for me. Dating a few journalism students in college and being around their friends drove point in permanently.

    See also:

    “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” --Michael Crichton
  • ||

    Oh, and I can't forget to mention Walter Duranty.

  • Gray Ghost||

    SRC, their screwups there are idiocy. I agree with you; they've always been idiots on technical matters. And they've been willfully ignorant.

    OTOH, Journolist was a failure of ethics and of impartiality. They're supposed to give a shit about those. People are always biased. But journalists aren't supposed to wholly and overtly give into them.

    I'll take a well-meaning idiot over a purposeful asshole any day.

  • ||

    One has to give props to Mr Lake for showing some integrity on the hard left and actually pursuing something critical of the Obama admin, especially as we approach election.

    Thank you Eli for not towing the lion.

  • ||

    Look, Eli can't be blamed for Barden's pass interference call. Oh wait, wrong Eli.

  • ||

    Stop deflecting, Epi. So you've got a man-crush on Tim Tebow. We aren't here to judge, we just want to help. Show us on the doll where you want to get Tebowed.

  • ||

    How DARE you imply that I'd support the Jets over the Giants! That's like supporting the Mets over the Yankees!

    Of course, both the Seahawks and the Giants managed to lose this weekend. At least the Bears annihilated the Cowboys yesterday.

  • SugarFree||

    I remember when we used to bicker like this, Epi. What happened to us?

  • ||

    Life happened, NutraSweet. And herpes. Never forget the herpes.

  • SugarFree||

    You said you loved the look of the sores spreading across you. I'm not the one that said you had to go bareback rough trade until you caught it.

  • ||

    I changed my mind. I can do that!

  • ||

    When you are ready to come out of the closet we are here for you dude.

    No pressure.

  • Ted S.||

    Shouldn't all right-thinking Americans hate the Yankees, Mets, Giants, and Jets?

  • ||

    Show us on the doll where you want to get Tebowed.

    I can't believe I missed writing "Teboned" there.

  • SugarFree||

    "He touched my penis. My heart penis."

  • Lyle||

    Are libertarians for liberty and freedom, or more for peace and non-violence? Should libertarians support despotism to prevent disorder?

    The problem with the Middle East is that it is way more violent culturally and religiously than the rest of the world today. These people have their culture and their views. When not under the jackboot of despotism they're largely free to live their lives as they choose to do so. We're seeing this in Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria today. We also see it in the anarchy that is Afghanistan and in parts of Pakistan.

    What's the libertarian take on this? Support the despots to keep the radicals in check? Support despotism because it is the best solution to the crazies and their violence?

    Did no good ultimately come from the insanely violent French Revolution?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The problem with the Middle East is that it is way more violent culturally and religiously than the rest of the world today.

    Uh-oh, be prepared for a heller meltdown. Dude's been skipping his daily Haldol, so just a friendly warning.

  • Randian||

    What's the libertarian take on this?

    Let them alone to figure it out.

  • Lyle||

    Maybe, but that means we'd only be dealing with despots since that was the status quo before 9/11. What's libertarian about dealing with despots?

    Furthermore we live in a globalized world and can't just ignore regions of the world that are important to our economy trade wise. Ignorance can be perilous.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Trade with all; ally with none.

  • Lyle||

    If only this was possible in our anarchic world of nation-states.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    anarchic world of nation-states.

    Is that supposed to be a Zen koan or something?

    Mu.

  • Lyle||

    That's pretty much the standard description of world politics today? You don't know this or something?

  • GILMORE||

    Lyle| 10.2.12 @ 3:04PM |#

    That's pretty much the standard description of world politics today? You don't know this or something?

    You keep using these question marks. The problem is that the sentences in front of them are mostly meaningless gibberish.

  • Randian||

    It is possible, but people like you are part of the problem. You see a nation abroad with X problem, and you say "Government will fix it!"

    That's why neocons are nothing more than reformed liberals. Instead of Big Government at Home, they want Big Government Abroad.

  • Lyle||

    Was there some other way than government to deal with Hitler's occupation of France?

    You're making no sense man.

  • Randian||

    Was there some other way than government to deal with Hitler's occupation of France?

    If these United States had never been attacked, the occupation of France would not have been the U.S.'s business. I personally think the the war with Germany was not in the United States' best interests.

    Besides, toppling a dictator internal to a country is not the same thing as expelling an occupying power.

    And no, Little Neocon, not every war is WWII.

  • GILMORE||

    Lyle| 10.2.12 @ 3:03PM |#

    Was there some other way than government to deal with Hitler's occupation of France?

    GODWIN FTW!!! TEH HITLERS STOPPED BY TEH DMV!!! ELEVEN!!!

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Roadz

  • Randian||

    What's libertarian about dealing with despots?

    Libertarianism is a political theory about the relationship of a government to the people who live within the geographical area that is governed.

    Therefore your question makes no sense.

    Furthermore we live in a globalized world and can't just ignore regions of the world that are important to our economy trade wise. Ignorance can be perilous.

    So if we aren't intervening in internal disputes, we're "ignoring" those regions of the world. Is the nation of Luxemborg ignoring [random African nation], or is it merely minding its business?

  • Lyle||

    No Luxembourg is not ignoring them because their is a foreign policy element to the EU which does take a stance of other countries internal affairs.

    And no doubt Luxembourg provides some amount of aid to whichever African country.

  • R C Dean||

    Are libertarians for liberty and freedom, or more for peace and non-violence?

    We don't see that we have to make a choice, to tell you the truth.

    Should libertarians support despotism to prevent disorder?

    No.

    Support despotism because it is the best solution to the crazies and their violence?

    Funny that "leave them alone so long as they don't actually attack us" isn't on your list of options.

    Hope this helps.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Humph, you got there first.

  • Lyle||

    So how do you not support despotism, if you're only going to do something if the U.S. is attacked?

  • Randian||

    This is nothing more than Red Tonyism.

    You are saying that if we do not intervene, then we support despotism.

    Tony would say if you do not intervene on behalf of starving African children, then you are actively supporting the starvation of African children.

    In your world, as well as his, nonintervention = supporting what happens without intervention. That does not follow.

  • Lyle||

    "You are saying that if we do not intervene, then we support despotism."

    Yeah, totally. Isn't that one of the old criticisms of U.S. foreign policy in the region... that we supported all the despots in power in the region like Mubarak in Egpyt?

    How does supporting despotism comport with supporting liberty?

    Before the U.S.'s alleged failures in Egypt the U.S. supported the despot Mubarak. Are the libertarians saying U.S. policy has failed in Egypt because of the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood really saying that U.S. foreign policy was a success when Mubarak was in power?

  • R C Dean||

    I see you have a funny definition of "support", Lyle.

    Doing nothing is not supporting.

    There are dictionaries online, you know.

  • Lyle||

    How does one go about supporting liberty, anywhere on the planet, by doing nothing?

  • Randian||

    Who are you to forcibly extract the wages of an American worker to fund an overseas adventure to give some other country top-down imposed 'liberty'?

    That is no different than liberal interventionism in the market.

  • Lyle||

    You don't even support our Republic? ;)

    No friend of liberty you are.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Same way you win elections by losing. It's the Libertarian way

  • Lyle||

    Isn't that that truth.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    As best as I can formulate it, the libertarian position is to leave these people to their own destiny - so long as they do not harm US citizens and property.

    If you do hurt us, you should expect a very strong, but finite reaction.

    Build your nations/societies as you want.

  • Lyle||

    How do people freely build a society under despotism?

  • ChrisO||

    That's their business, not ours.

  • Lyle||

    So as a libertarian you're not really interested in liberty or freedom? You only care about it within the borders of the United States or something?

  • Randian||

    You must not really be interested in poor and sick people because you're against Obamacare.

    See how that works?

  • Lyle||

    What?

  • Randian||

    Government intervention : Occupation ::
    Government Intervention : Health Care.

  • GILMORE||

    Lyle| 10.2.12 @ 3:06PM |#

    So as a libertarian you're not really interested in liberty or freedom? You only care about it within the borders of the United States or something?

    Well, otherwise we might get caught up in trying to impose a one-dimensional notion of civil government on countries completely incapable of supporting the necessary institutions...

    I mean, you wouldn't want to get caught up in *nation building in Afghanistan*, or something as insanely stupid as that?

  • aelhues||

    You think we should be imposing our ideas of liberty and freedom on those in other countries. It's been pretty damn clear, in the past few months, that when we help middle eastern countries towards liberty and freedom, they elect themselves violent oppressive regimes.

    Or did you mean that we should just take over, and lead them, over the long years to being better citizens of the world?

  • GILMORE||

    Or did you mean that we should just take over, and lead them, over the long years to being better citizens of the world?

    ""We had to kill them in order to liberate them""

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre

  • Lyle||

    "When we help middle eastern countries towards liberty and freedom, they elect themselves violent oppressive regimes."

    That's more liberty than despotism though right? I mean the Muslim Brotherhood is what Egyptian self-determination has given us? Are libertarians really saying Mubarak, the despot, was preferable?

  • aelhues||

    No, swapping a country ruled by a despot, for an oppressive religious group, isn't greater liberty, in any real sense.

    Libertarians are saying that we should leave them to their own devices. We have our opinions of course, but that doesn't mean we feel entitled to interfere with their business.

    At this point in history, the benefit (pragmatism here) of intervention is minimal to non-existent.

    People and governments seem to believe that we can MAKE people better.

  • Lyle||

    "At this point in history, the benefit (pragmatism here) of intervention is minimal to non-existent."

    Egypt is an example of U.S non-intervention. So why are libertarians saying U.S foreign policy has failed in Egypt?

    Radical jihadists running around Egypt is just what liberty means in a Muslim Brotherhood governed Egypt.

  • tarran||

    Well, the English shortened a few kings along the way...

  • Lyle||

    Yeah, this is right. Non-violence seems to be naturally subordinate to liberty.

  • R C Dean||

    Non-violence seems to be naturally subordinate to liberty.

    I know of no libertarians who object to self-defense, so apparently, violence is not "naturally" subordinate to liberty.

    And, of course, a libertarian would not object in the slightest to you taking your own self over to some oppressed country and fighting in the revolution. Feel, as they say, free.

  • Lyle||

    The English Civil War was self-defense was it?

    The American Revolution was self-defense was it?

  • R C Dean||

    Did I say that these civil wars were self-defense? Personally, I think that would be stretching the definition.

    I do see a difference between a people rising up to throw off a despot and develop their own system of government, and one nation invading another in order to install a new ruler and a new system of government. Maybe I'm just picking nits, though.

  • R C Dean||

    You see no difference between the English developing and enforcing their own solution to despotism, and some foreign power deciding what that solution should be and how it should be enforced?

    Self-determination is a libertarian value, you know.

  • Lyle||

    No foreign power has forced its own solution to Egypitan self-determination. Yet libertarians are calling U.S. foreign policy in Egypt a failure, because now the really crazy violent types are out and about thanks to the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    England wasn't all that despotic in monarchy really. They did have the Magna Carta and such. Self-determination was already during the Middle Ages. Not so in other countries.

    ... and of course ancien regime France helped us with our self-determination.

  • GILMORE||

    Yet libertarians are calling U.S. foreign policy in Egypt a failure, because now the really crazy violent types are out and about thanks to the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood

    If we hadn't supported Mubarak's repressive regime for 30 years, perhaps the Mooslim Bruddahs wouldn't be so crazy-violent. If we'd not meddled in their internal politics for decades, I doubt Ayman al-Zawahiri would have a bone to pick with Teh Freedom-loving U.S.A. so much

  • Lyle||

    How was the U.S. supposed to "not support" Mubarak for three decades? Egypt controls the Suez Canal for crying out loud. How do we use the Suez Canal and deal with Egyptians for three decades without dealing with Mubarak? The only way to deal with Egypt for the last three decades was to deal with Mubarak.

  • tarran||

    There's a big difference between a shipping company paying user fees to go through a set of locks and a government shipping weapons and advisors to train a regime's secret police on how to use them on the vulgar masses.

  • Lyle||

    Shipping company still has to deal with Mubarak. They've got no other recourse against Mubarak other than what the U.S. government can do.

    Then there were all those Egypt-Israel wars. What can shipping company do about that?

  • GILMORE||

    tarran| 10.2.12 @ 4:00PM |#

    There's a big difference between a shipping company paying user fees to go through a set of locks and a government shipping weapons and advisors to train a regime's secret police on how to use them on the vulgar masses

    DERP!! NOT PLAYING ALONG WITH MY FALSE DICHOTOMY!! MAYBE ASK MORE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS?? WHY DO LIBERTARIANS HATE TEH FREEDOMS??

  • GILMORE||

    Lyle| 10.2.12 @ 3:47PM |#

    How was the U.S. supposed to "not support" Mubarak for three decades?

    You're not really the sharpest stick in the tiger-trap are you?

    http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/.....roup124714

    Alongside this domestic legacy of brutality, the U.S.-Mubarak alliance also played a significant role in stifling the aspirations of the Egyptian public. That alliance began with Mubarak’s rise to power in the aftermath of the 1981 assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat. In the years since, U.S. military aid to the Mubarak regime rose to some $1.3 billion a year, or 25 percent of the dictator’s military budget (Cook 2009). Even nonmilitary U.S. aid strengthened Mubarak’s regime by respecting the regime’s restrictions on which Egyptian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) could get U.S. funds (McInerney 2010). Though U.S. support often came with official calls for democratic reform, actual U.S. aid remained unaffected by Mubarak’s continued repression

    Funny how most other nations of the world managed to "keep using the Suez" without also propping up a brutal dictator.

    Your whole 'endless false dichotomy' gimmick is absurdly boring.

  • Lyle||

    Most other countries didn't spend foreign aid in Egypt? Really?

    Haha.

  • GILMORE||

    DERP- LETZ EQUIVOCATE 25% OF MILITARY BUDGET WITH SALLY STRUTHERS!! I SUCCESSFULLY REBUT THE POINTS NO ONE MAKES!!

    I take it back, if it were absurd, it might be amusing. Its just fucking boring.

  • MJGreen||

    How did western countries build a free society without outside help?

    The Middle East has the benefit of accumulated knowledge. Trade with the people there, and they will figure the rest out in time. Probably quicker than Europe did.

  • Spoonman.||

    The US government should have no dealings beyond pleasantries with the governments of the Middle East.

    Solved.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The US government should have no dealings beyond pleasantries with other governments

    I remember George Washington saying something about 'entangling alliances', but I can't remember what. I think it was they were totally rad to the max!!!

    Help me out guys.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, in his Farewell Address. He also said that we should totally put party politics ahead of everything else. Very wise man.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Farewell Address? Is that the letter he to Moses Seixas where he said that America is a Christian country, so fuck the Jews and the Turk?

    Because I seem to remember him writing, "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

    I could be wrong though.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Just in case everyone doesn't know the truth, Washington quite vehemently opposed partisan factions and foreign entanglements in his Farewell Address. Here's the whole thing.

  • R C Dean||

    Parsing that Washington quote, he seems to be saying that other nations could learn a lesson from our (then) limited government, which didn't engage in bigotry and persecution, but requires only that its citizens behave themselves.

    Seems pretty unexceptional to me.

  • The Last American Hero||

    The libertarian response is to follow the Prime Directive with respect to the Middle East.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You mean straighten everything out then sleep with their women? That Prime Directive?

  • johnl||

    """
    Did no good ultimately come from the insanely violent French Revolution?
    """
    Non.

  • R C Dean||

    On the whole? No.

    Recall that it ended, ultimately, in a campaign of European conquest and the elevation of an Emperor.

  • GILMORE||

    R C Dean| 10.2.12 @ 3:28PM |#

    On the whole? No.

    Recall that it ended, ultimately, in a campaign of European conquest and the elevation of an Emperor.

    I agree. The whole Star Wars prequel series really did suck.

  • Lyle||

    Actually, it all ended with the Congress of Vienna. Great lovers of liberty those guys were.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The French should've followed the American Revolution, which, after all, they paid for.

  • Lyle||

    I think that's what some French were trying to do... but France was not America and so their revolution was very different.

  • GILMORE||

    Pro Libertate| 10.2.12 @ 4:01PM |#

    The French should've followed the American Revolution, which, after all, they paid for

    You dont take the hooker home to meet mom, do you?

  • Pro Libertate||

    We weren't the hooker in that relationship. Not back then. We were the nice girl.

  • GILMORE||

    They used us to fuck the british; they didn't give a shit about funding 'Liberte'! in 1776. They were perfectly happy to blockade the brits and let them lose their control of North America and take pressure off french colonies in West Indies, etc.

    So, hooker, maybe no = but we were just the enemy of their enemy - not their sweetheart.

  • Paul.||

    Terrorists had posted pictures of Ambassador Stevens going for a routine morning jog and threatening to abduct or kill him.

    Whoa, wait what? What's the context here? Was Stevens, whose name was apparently known to be on an Al Qaeda hit list taking routine morning jobs through the streets of Benghazi?

    If so, Ambassador Stevens clearly wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Perhaps Ambassador Stevens should have spent a little more time at the firing range and a little less time reading Runner's World.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    The Admin line on this is that they can't comment on an ongoing FBI/State Dept. Investigation.

    This, after they commented like diarrhea in the first few days after the attack.

    Here's today's scathing indictment of the Admin. in the NY Times, buried deep in an article titled "Requests for Bolstered Security in Libya Were Denied, Republicans Say":

    "The administration, for its part, has varied its descriptions of the attack, first saying that it appeared to be a spontaneous or opportunistic escalation of a riotous protest, then saying that it seemed to be an act of deliberate terrorism."

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but I'm trying to find any criticism of Obama in the NY times today.

    This article, which mentions 3 times that Obama killed bin Laden, makes it sound like Obama is spending every waking hour going after the terrorists who did this.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10.....ck.html?hp

    This quote made me lol:

    "If Mr. Obama were to conduct an operation, it is not clear under what legal authorities he would do so."

  • Calidissident||

    Wow Lyle went full neocon retard in this thread. I thought he might be a sockpuppet of Tulpa, but foreign policy is actually the one area where Tulpa doesn't lick boots

  • Lyle||

    Haha... neo-conservatism put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt? When did this U.S. invasion happen?

  • Calidissident||

    When did I say that? Although you're assertion elsewhere that we've pursued a policy of non-intervention towards Egypt in recent years is absurd. We've been supplying Mubarak with money and weapons for decades. Intervention is not limited to war and occupation

  • Calidissident||

    *your

  • Lyle||

    Supplying someone with money and whatever else is not intervention. There has to be some physical effort on part, like with planes and drones... like in the case of Libya.

    The U.S. did not intervene in Egypt and help the Muslim Brotherhood get elected.

    You don't know what has happened if you think this has been a neo-conservative intervention.

  • Calidissident||

    Yes it is. It's not military intervention, but it's intervention nonetheless. Supporting a dictator with money and arms is intervening into the affair of other countries. Non-interventionism includes opposition to foreign aid and other non-military meddling. I'm not saying we went full blown neocon intervention when Mubarak was eventually overthrown. I'm saying that our policy towards Egypt, and the Middle East in general, has been very far from non-intervention over the past few decades

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement