What I hate about the Petraeus scandal

i'm going to ask you one question then i will leave it alone... do you think more security would have prevented death or lead to more dead "americans"

1. I don't get the quotes around "americans".
2. If two SEALs were able to hold off the attack for hours, a standard Marine embassy presence could have prevented this tragedy, whether by holding off the attack or discouraging it in the first place.

no matter how good your security is there is always someone on the other side plotting your demise.

What is your point? That we should give up? That we should not secure foreign installations at all if we're going to be attacked anyway? There are thieves in my town, and they will likely break in, so why even lock the door -- right?

it is tragic what happen to those people but wasting tax dollars trying to figure out why it happened is not going to bring them back...

No use is analyzing what went wrong, and learning lessons from it? No use is holding those people responsible to be accountable for their actions? Allow the same thing to happen again?

people are dying in a senseless war almost daily yet a faction of this country not only wanted to continue the was(s) they wanted to send more of our young people in action but those same people are outraged because of a security denial that they voted on.

There was indeed a vote in Congress to cut spending. The decision was made by the State Department, though, to cut security in Libya. At the same time, they chose to beef up security in Paris. This makes absolutely no sense. The State Department should be held accountable, as it was they made some poor decisions about where to cut back.

i'm going to ask you one question then i will leave it alone... do you think more security would have prevented death or lead to more dead "americans"

1. I don't get the quotes around "americans".
2. If two SEALs were able to hold off the attack for hours, a standard Marine embassy presence could have prevented this tragedy, whether by holding off the attack or discouraging it in the first place.

no matter how good your security is there is always someone on the other side plotting your demise.

What is your point? That we should give up? That we should not secure foreign installations at all if we're going to be attacked anyway? There are thieves in my town, and they will likely break in, so why even lock the door -- right?

it is tragic what happen to those people but wasting tax dollars trying to figure out why it happened is not going to bring them back...

No use is analyzing what went wrong, and learning lessons from it? No use is holding those people responsible to be accountable for their actions? Allow the same thing to happen again?

people are dying in a senseless war almost daily yet a faction of this country not only wanted to continue the was(s) they wanted to send more of our young people in action but those same people are outraged because of a security denial that they voted on.

There was indeed a vote in Congress to cut spending. The decision was made by the State Department, though, to cut security in Libya. At the same time, they chose to beef up security in Paris. This makes absolutely no sense. The State Department should be held accountable, as it was they made some poor decisions about where to cut back.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

is this the kind of stuff they talk about on faux news???????

Must be a slow news week. So what if he had an affair. Like all the kettles calling each other black. If we made everyone in our government retire if they have an affair, we'd be on our own.

No, I am simply trying to understand why there is outrage over Benghazi when our men and women have been dying for 10 years and people aren't outraged at that?

There is outrage about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many, though, believe that they are justifiable. The debate there is about our role in those wars. Deaths are inevitable -- and expected -- in war, unfortunately.

The difference with Benghazi and Fast & Furious is that we're looking at cases of negligence on the part of the government in a non-war situation. We had folks working peacefully in Libya and Mexico, but government negligence lead to deaths.

Were there evidence that the government supplied arms to the enemy (Fast & Furious) or denied support to Americans being attacked (Benghazi) in Afghanistan or Iraq, I would imagine that the rage and uproar would be similar.

Ok, I'll give you that.

My next question, Do people realize that this has been going on (arms trading and consulate deaths) for years and under multiple administrations? I guess I am just wondering is this outrage over the issues or because of who is in office?

I can't speak for others, but I find it outrageous, regardless of who is in office. If one has a series of beefs with a particular elected official, though, there could certainly be a compounding effect. It's like the person you can't stand at work. Each thing they do just makes you tolerate them less.