Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles
The difference would be that no one expected a bomb in Beirut, and once it went off the party was over.
In Benghazi, there is evidence that the State Department knew beforehand that they were dealing with a security risk, and no aid was sent to assist those in the compound once the fight started. It's not like they couldn't get there in time, it's more like they never even tried in the first place.
Then again, what exactly was going on at that compound to start with?
Chas
|
The Beirut embassy was bombed with 63 fatalities on April 18, 1983 and then the Marine Barracks was bombed with 299 fatalities on October 23 of the same year. It seems to me that they had 6 months of advance warning for the barracks bombing. Moreover, they moved the embassy after the first bombing and the relocated embassy was bombed again in September of 1983 with 22 fatalities.
Nobody thought then (or thinks today) that Beirut is a secure city, even before the first attack. The Benghazi "scandal" is nothing but a bunch of rabid Teabaggers trying to take advantage of an unfortunate occurrence that was far less costly than any of the three bombings in Beirut in 1983 while Reagan was President. In retrospect, we deposed Gaddafi at the expense of 4 American lives. When compared to lives and treasures expended in Iraq to depose Saddam, I'd say we did OK.