Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: t4texas who wrote (507946)	9/13/2012 1:25:42 AM
From: LindyBill	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793806

We have a Marine base in Spain loaded with troops. We just dropped a platoon of them into Tripoli now that the horse has been stolen. We STILL don't have any at our office in Benghazi. What it boils down to is that State would rather risk losing some people and be humiliated than risk killing rioting locals. We had a couple of State Dept people killed a couple of decades ago in North Africa by Palestinians that State basically covered up. I can't pull up the details. lindybill@getout.com

To: t4texas who wrote (507946)	9/13/2012 2:04:01 AM
From: simplicity	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793806

surely it's been asked here before, but how could obama and his state department not have troops present and even beefed up at consulates and embassies in those muslim countries that just went through revolutions, aka arab spring, on september 11th. it is not even a stretch to ponder this on this key al quaeda anniversary date. That is the question that is on the minds of most thinking Americans. According to reliable news reports, there were threats that something was afoot in both Libya and Egypt over the past few days. Those threats were virtually ignored by the administration and the State Department. Can you even begin to imagine where the mainstream media would be right now if a republican were living in the White House and this circumstance existed? Our television screens, and our newspaper headlines, would be screaming about how inept in foreign policy and the war on terror the president and his State Department are -- not to mention the fact that the media would constantly (and justifiably) be pointing out that the American president seems much more interested in campaigning for re-election than he is in protecting our diplomats and their staffs from Muslim fanatics when it appears that they are intent on exhibiting their inherent barbarism. But their guy is in the White House so all we hear is criticism of his political opponent who has the courage to point to the tragic, potentially deadly, flaws of this administration and its policies of appeasement.