U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi

[Auburn85 425]

http://www.reuters.c...E89815N20121009

A U.S. security officer twice asked his State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response.

The officer, Eric Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until about two months before the September attack, said a State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low," according to a memo summarizing his comments that was obtained by Reuters.

Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya earlier this year by listing 230 different security incidents in Libya which occurred between June 2011 and July 2012, according to another document.

Nordstrom's actions and those of his superiors are likely to figure prominently in a House committee hearing on Wednesday that will be Congress' first public examination of what went wrong at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.

The State Department, which has defended security procedures in Libya and has convened its own independent review board, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Nordstrom's statements.

Debate over whether the Americans were caught unprepared for the assault by militants on the diplomatic mission in Libya's relatively lawless eastern section has put the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, on the defensive in the run-up to the November presidential election.

A leading Republican on the committee probing the attack, Representative Jason Chaffetz, told Reuters Tuesday he thought security decisions U.S. officials made for the Benghazi mission had turned out to be "deadly" ones.

The top U.S. intelligence authority, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, says the four Americans were killed in an organized terrorist assault, but the attackers have not been identified.

A brief summary of Nordstrom's interview with the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was contained in a memo prepared by the committee's minority Democratic staff.

Separately, a U.S. official confirmed to Reuters that in addition to the four Americans who were killed in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, three more Americans were injured. Only one of those remains in hospital, the official said.

MEMO CALLED FOR FIVE US AGENTS AT BENGHAZI

Nordstrom, a State Department regional security officer, told lawmakers that Patrick Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, issued a "decision memo" in December 2011 requiring that the Benghazi post be manned with five diplomatic security agents, but that it usually had only three or four.

"He (Nordstrom) stated that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses," the memo said.

At some point, however, it appears Nordstrom learned the views of Lamb because he told the committee she "wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low," the memo said.

"He said that Deputy Assistant Secretary Lamb believed the Benghazi post did not need any Diplomatic Security Special Agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency, but that she thought the best course of action was to assign three agents," the memo said.

It is unclear who made the final decision about how many agents were stationed in Benghazi.

"Sadly, that was a deadly decision," Representative Chaffetz said of leaving the mission with just a few security agents.

"Look at the result -- the first (U.S.) ambassador killed since the 1970s," Chaffetz said in an interview.

The Oversight and Government Reform committee has been investigating the handling of security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before the attack. House Republican aides also confirmed the account of the Nordstrom interview as presented in the Democratic memo.

Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya earlier this year by compiling a dossier of 230 different security incidents in Libya, from militia gunfights to an explosive device thrown over the wall of the U.S. mission, which occurred between June 2011 and July 2012.

The dossier was released by committee aides along with an email written by Nordstrom about it after the Benghazi attack in which he said the list of incidents "underscored" the Libyan government's "inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions."

The Libyan government was "overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection. Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi," Nordstrom wrote.

Nordstrom is expected to testify at a hearing of the committee on Wednesday, along with Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, and Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed a security support team at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

The Democratic memo said that Kennedy was also invited to testify.

Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped alone inside the burning building in Benghazi in an attack that began on the evening of September 11.

The Democratic memo said that since gaining the House majority in 2010 elections, Republicans have voted to reduce embassy security funding by about half a billion dollars below the amount requested by the Obama administration. The Democratic-led Senate had been able to restore "a small portion" of these funds, it said.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria. Editing by Warren Strobel and Cynthia Osterman)

[Auburn85 425]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz has been bringing up how there are 15,000 private security personnel in Baghdad, but can't get a handful of people to help in Libya, to counter the Democrats saying Republicans have cut embassy security.

[AURaptor 1,114]

Is it too late for the Dems to select another candidate ?

This could get ugly.

[AUMed 0]

I am confused on how this is an issue. The attacks were sporadic and dying of smoke inhalation wouldn't have been prevented by 5 or 10 more security officers (a 100-200% increase in force according to the story). Unfortunately, many of our embassies depend on the security provided by the host country.

I specifically don't understand how a mundane, day-to-day operational line-item is somehow the direct responsibility of the President.

It isn't like he used known, faulty intelligence to demand the invasion of a country only to falsely claim victory 8 years before troops withdrew which resulted in the deaths of thousand of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians... that would have been bad... especially if some future presidential candidate chose the exact same foreign policy advisors as the former president.

[Auburn85 425]

Even if you take out the "mundane, day-to-day operational line-item is somehow the direct responsibility of the President"

The blaming of a youtube video.

They also told us there was a protest. Turns out there wasn't a protest (Why tell us there was a protest when there wasn't one).

Why have we just recently heard of prior attacks in the area? They killed four this time. This wasn't the first attempt. They actually blew a hole in the wall. Never heard of this story til recently. Plus, I there was an assassination attempt on the British embassy in Libya. Never heard about that on the news either.

They knew it was a terrorist attack within 24 to 48 hours of it happening, yet Susan Rice was still saying otherwise (Not fully condemning her because there could have been communications problems, which should be another story).

Jay Carney blamed the youtube video for the attack. Then, about a week later, said that it was clearly a terrorist attack.

But the administration is on the freakin ball about Big Bird.

[Auburn85 425]

http://dailycaller.c...pport-for-vote/

Dems accuse GOP of cutting security funding in Libya despite majority Dem support for vote

House Democrats opened Wednesday’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing by attacking Republicans for cuts to embassy security funding — cuts that only happened thanks to overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking

Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings. In fact, more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them.

“We have to examine the funding,” Cummings said in

. “The fact is, since 2011, the House has cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars below the amounts requested by the president. The House has done that. The Senate restored some of these funds but the final amounts were still far below the administration’s requests and they were far below the levels we enacted in 2010.”

Democratic staff on the Oversight Committee circulated a memo to Democratic members on Tuesday evening, too, that also attacks Republicans along the same line of reasoning.

“Since gaining the majority in 2011, House Republicans have voted to reduce embassy security funding by approximately half a billion dollars below the amounts requested by the Obama Administration,” the memo reads. “Although the Senate has been able to restore a small portion of these funds, the final appropriations enacted by Congress in the previous two Fiscal Years have been far below the amounts requested by the Administration for embassy security, and far below the levels enacted in Fiscal Year 2010, the last year Democrats controlled the House.”

What Cummings and the Democratic Oversight Committee staff are referring to is the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the programs – $567.5 million less than the Obama administration’s request.

Cummings and the Democratic staff memo don’t mention that Democrats made those cuts into embassy security funding possible.

A spokeswoman for Cummings has not returned a request for comment on the matter.

[BPI 0]

I am confused on how this is an issue. The attacks were sporadic and dying of smoke inhalation wouldn't have been prevented by 5 or 10 more security officers (a 100-200% increase in force according to the story). Unfortunately, many of our embassies depend on the security provided by the host country.

I specifically don't understand how a mundane, day-to-day operational line-item is somehow the direct responsibility of the President.

It isn't like he used known, faulty intelligence to demand the invasion of a country only to falsely claim victory 8 years before troops withdrew which resulted in the deaths of thousand of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians... that would have been bad... especially if some future presidential candidate chose the exact same foreign policy advisors as the former president.

It's an issue because that particular embassy is in a war zone and thought it necessary to ask for security that they never recieved. The "smoke inhalation" was caused by rocket propelled grenades from an organized attack from Al-Quida, so appearantly their concerns were warranted.This makes it an issue.

Or do you think it was a marshmellow roast gone bad ?

[AURaptor 1,114]

Cummings and the Democratic staff memo don’t mention that Democrats made those cuts into embassy security funding possible.

A spokeswoman for Cummings has not returned a request for comment on the matter.

Sheer incompetence, bordering on treason, imo. The Dems have used this treacherous , vile tactic before, time and time again. From the war in Iraq, to demagogging the Federal aid to New Orleans after Katrina, to stealing $ from Medicare, and then blaming the GOP for doing exactly what they themselves have done.

[AUMed 0]

I am confused on how this is an issue. The attacks were sporadic and dying of smoke inhalation wouldn't have been prevented by 5 or 10 more security officers (a 100-200% increase in force according to the story). Unfortunately, many of our embassies depend on the security provided by the host country.

I specifically don't understand how a mundane, day-to-day operational line-item is somehow the direct responsibility of the President.

It isn't like he used known, faulty intelligence to demand the invasion of a country only to falsely claim victory 8 years before troops withdrew which resulted in the deaths of thousand of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians... that would have been bad... especially if some future presidential candidate chose the exact same foreign policy advisors as the former president.

It's an issue because that particular embassy is in a war zone and thought it necessary to ask for security that they never recieved. The "smoke inhalation" was caused by rocket propelled grenades from an organized attack from Al-Quida, so appearantly their concerns were warranted.This makes it an issue.

Or do you think it was a marshmellow roast gone bad ?

Since that isn't what happened at all I would suppose that your entire opinion is complete BS.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-reveals-details-benghazi-attack-062900114.html

There is the actual account. A mob of angry Lybians penetrated the compound and set the place on fire with diesel fuel.

[AUMed 0]

Cummings and the Democratic staff memo don’t mention that Democrats made those cuts into embassy security funding possible.

A spokeswoman for Cummings has not returned a request for comment on the matter.

Sheer incompetence, bordering on treason, imo. The Dems have used this treacherous , vile tactic before, time and time again. From the war in Iraq, to demagogging the Federal aid to New Orleans after Katrina, to stealing $ from Medicare, and then blaming the GOP for doing exactly what they themselves have done.

The Omnibus bill was the bill that was passed by both houses of Congress to prevent a federal default on it's debt. It was a huge concession by the democrats to the GOP and the vast, VAST majority of the spending cuts that were in the bill were from the Republicans. The fact that the democrats voted for the bill doesn't make them complicit. The GOP pushed for the cuts, the democrats voted to keep the US from defaulting on it's debt. The White House and the House Democrats wanted to fund the State Department at a higher level (and thanks the the Democratic Senate the compromise bill contained a higher amount of funding for the State Department) but they had to back down to GOP demands for cuts.

[AURaptor 1,114]

AUMed - this is the bull s*** I;m talking about. This has ZERO to do w/ the damn omnibus bill, and everything to do w/ the Obama administration completely ignoring repeated requests by a US ambassador, who ends up DEAD.

You really want to explain this 'Omnibus bill ' story to the family of Amb Stevens, as well as the 3 other US citizens who died during that terrorist attack ?

You're frelling pathetic.

It was never about a damn video, and this admin KNEW that, from day 1. And yet it lied, and continues to lie.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

We have no business over there to begin with.

[AURaptor 1,114]

We have no business over there to begin with.

So, no embassies in any middle east countries, at all ? Or just in Libya ?

[cptau 145]

We are at the point of impeachment on this. We have an administration that did not properly secure an American embassy, denied requests for additional security, and then floated a false cover story to explain the attack and deaths. If this president knew what had happened and pushed this video cover story, there should be impeachment hearings. Of course that takes months and the election will be a much faster way to remove him from office.

Clinton's career is over. She as the Secretary of State is responsible for US embassy security and participated in the video story cover up and may be aware of the decision to deny requests for additional security in Libya. She should resign or be removed from office, which Obama cannot ever afford to force her to do. So she is there until Obama leaves. I never though Clinton took the State job seriously. It was just a way to stay in an important position and not have to support or comment on Obama's domestic policies, which she would have had do in the Senate. The Secretary of State job is not what it use to be, but it is much more that running around making speeches threatening foreign countries with sanctions, etc.

Why they trotted the US ambassador to the UN out to comment on something that she has no control over and is not responsible of is amazing. She is the fall guy for Clinton, but it make no sense to ever send her out with that cover story. Now she has to go too,

Like Oktoberfest, October surprises happen in September.

[AURaptor 1,114]

The media will fawn and gush all over Obama, up until the point where he ( and his admin ) openly and shamelessly lies to their face, and expects them to buy it, hook / line / sinker.

For well over a week, Jay Carney got into it w/ journalists over this video crap, and now the WH is saying " What video ? We never said it was a video ! ".

[AUMed 0]

AUMed - this is the bull s*** I;m talking about. This has ZERO to do w/ the damn omnibus bill, and everything to do w/ the Obama administration completely ignoring repeated requests by a US ambassador, who ends up DEAD.

You really want to explain this 'Omnibus bill ' story to the family of Amb Stevens, as well as the 3 other US citizens who died during that terrorist attack ?

You're frelling pathetic.

It was never about a damn video, and this admin KNEW that, from day 1. And yet it lied, and continues to lie.

Actually the requests were made TWICE by a person who worked at the embassy and they were made a year before the attacks.

And the Omnibus bill has everything to do with it. The GOP has held this country hostage multiple times over the past 2 years by proposing draconian cuts to spending and refusing to hold stand alone votes on things like raising the debt ceiling in order to force the hands of the Democrats. Cuts to the State Department pushed through by the GOP have resulted in a huge budget squeeze. Is that why Amv Stevens is dead? Probably not but it may have contributed. Ignoring that fact is ignorant.

And I'd rather not make a political circus out of a tragedy which is precisely what the GOP is doing by holding yet another congressional hearing on a matter that is intended to do nothing but provide political firepower for the GOP against the President.

Also, stop pretending that you know anything about the situation, how it developed, and what was known or not known. You have a very obvious political agenda and you will bend, distort, and fabricate whatever you need to convince yourself of your own hatred for this President. THAT is pathetic.

[AURaptor 1,114]

You're lying again, and it's really f-ing sad.

Multiple requests, months leading up to 9/11 and Stevens himself stated in his own diary that he feared for his life. The Omnibus bill is less than meaningless. There were no cuts, draconian or otherwise, made to the security forces in Libya. Just flat out refusals by this admin to send in more security, because they didn't want to perpetuate the image that things were worse off than they truly were.

Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August

The committee chairman, Darrel Issa, then released state department cables not previously made public containing the requests for more security including one from the then ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz.

Another official, Eric Nordstrom, who was responsible for protecting US diplomats in Libya, said that he too sought additional resources. But he said he was told over the phone by a senior state department official responsible for handling the request, Charlene Lamb, not to make any more because "there would be too much political cost".

Take your own g-damn advice. Stop pretending you have a clue of what Maddow and Mathews are shoveling down your throat.

[AUMed 0]

You're lying again, and it's really f-ing sad.

Multiple requests, months leading up to 9/11 and Stevens himself stated in his own diary that he feared for his life. The Omnibus bill is less than meaningless. There were no cuts, draconian or otherwise, made to the security forces in Libya. Just flat out refusals by this admin to send in more security, because they didn't want to perpetuate the image that things were worse off than they truly were.

Take your own g-damn advice. Stop pretending you have a clue of what Maddow and Mathews are shoveling down your throat.

Oh well if Stevens put it in his diary then obviously Obama should have known about it.

And there were cuts, millions of dollars requested by the State Dept. Funds that could have been used on security.

[AURaptor 1,114]

You're lying again, and it's really f-ing sad.

Multiple requests, months leading up to 9/11 and Stevens himself stated in his own diary that he feared for his life. The Omnibus bill is less than meaningless. There were no cuts, draconian or otherwise, made to the security forces in Libya. Just flat out refusals by this admin to send in more security, because they didn't want to perpetuate the image that things were worse off than they truly were.

Take your own g-damn advice. Stop pretending you have a clue of what Maddow and Mathews are shoveling down your throat.

Oh well if Stevens put it in his diary then obviously Obama should have known about it.

And there were cuts, millions of dollars requested by the State Dept. Funds that could have been used on security.

Seriously, just how far will you shove your head into the sand to ignore reality, as you cover for this incompetent administration ?

They lied, for over a week, on this b.s. about ' THE VIDEO ' as the cause of all this, it wasn't.

They said the attacks were spontaneous. They weren't.

And now, you're pimping this ABSOLUTE LIE that it was the cuts by the GOP ( there weren't any ) that caused this to happen.

[AUMed 0]

WASHINGTON (AP) — State Department officials said Wednesday that security levels at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were adequate for the threat level on the anniversary of 9/11 but that the compound was overrun by an "unprecedented attack" by dozens of heavily armed extremists.

The officials testified before an election-season congressional hearing on accusations of security failures at the consulate that led or contributed to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. The officials said the number of U.S. and local security guards at the compound was consistent with what had been requested by the post.

"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11," said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state fordiplomatic security in charge of protecting American embassies and consulates around the world.

But White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday that in hindsight "there is no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening."

"There were four Americans killed," he said.

Lamb noted that there were five diplomatic security agents at the consulate at the time of the attack, along with additional Libyan guards and a rapid response team at a nearby annex.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has criticized the administration's early response to the attack and has made it a campaign issue, saying Monday that President Barack Obama has led a weak foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer in Libya, said he had requested more security but that request was blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." Under questioning, though, he said he had sought mainly to prevent any reduction in staff, rather than have a big increase.

"I'm confident that the committee will conclude that Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service and Mission Libya officers conducted themselves professionally and with careful attention to managing people and budgets in a way that reflects the gravity of their task," Nordstrom said.

Lamb rejected allegations from Republican lawmakers, supported by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli, that an extension of Wood's mission could have made a difference during the attack.

"It would not have made any difference in Benghazi," Lamb said, pointing out that Wood's team was based in Tripoli and spent nearly all of its time there.

Wood, a member of the Utah National Guard who left Libya in August, told the committee that the security in Benghazi "was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there."

In testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he said that U.S. security was so weak that in April, only one diplomatic security agent was stationed in Benghazi.

However, Lamb and Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy stressed that the regional security officer's requests for personnel had been met.

"The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security, a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available," said Kennedy, a four-decade veteran of the foreign service.

"The assault that occurred on the evening of Sept. 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," he said.

The attack on the consulate and the Obama administration's evolving explanations of what happened have become a political football in the run-up to November's presidential election with Democrats saying that Republicans are trying to use a tragedy to score partisan points.

In statements immediately after the attack, neither President Barack Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton mentioned terrorism. And both gave credence to the notion that the attack was related to protests about an anti-Islam video.

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said on the night of the attack. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

The hearing opened with a blunt partisan exchange between the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland who accused Republican members of withholding documents and witnesses and keeping Democrats out of the loop on a fact-finding trip to Libya last week.

Issa denied any wrongdoing.

Republican committee members sought to take the witnesses to task for a shifting explanation of what happened in Benghazi

The committee hearing followed assertions late Tuesday by the State Department that it never concluded that the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests over a privately made video ridiculing Islam. That had been the initial explanation offered by some in the administration, including U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, before officials said it had been a planned terrorist attack.

Some Republicans have focused on the shift, suggesting that the administration was trying to cover up that it was unprepared for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In Wednesday's hearing, Kennedy said officials, including Rice, relied on the assessments of intelligence officials in offering public explanations for the attack.

Check out the bolded, underlined, italicized portions where Nordstrom says he wanted to maintain levels, not increase them. Further down you notice that Nordstrom says that he believes the State Dept acted professionally and appropriately. Even further you see the statement from Clinton about the attack soon after where she clearly says that "some have sought to justify..." What you won't notice is Sect Clinton making any official statement on causation for the attacks.

Keep on using misinformation and propaganda to further your attacks on this administration.

[AUMed 0]

And another bit of evidence that the GOP has a role in the security shortcomings:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the

State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program

— well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “

detrimental to America’s national security

” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under

Ryan’s budget

, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed

nearly 20 percent in 2014

, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

[autigeremt 6,117]

Obama is God and does no wrong.......fact is, the Ambassador should have had better security regardless! Period! The State Dept. decided to use local security, which by the way tipped off the terrorists as to the location of the safe house.this reeks of incompetence and there is no other way to spin it!

[AURaptor 1,114]

Check out the bolded, underlined, italicized portions where Nordstrom says he wanted to maintain levels, not increase them. Further down you notice that Nordstrom says that he believes the State Dept acted professionally and appropriately. Even further you see the statement from Clinton about the attack soon after where she clearly says that "some have sought to justify..." What you won't notice is Sect Clinton making any official statement on causation for the attacks.

Keep on using misinformation and propaganda to further your attacks on this administration.

Not using any misinformation here. That's what Obama and company have done. Incredibly, you're STILL trying to cover for them, even as the rest of the Left wing are beginning to see the light.

After Wasserman-Schultz twice tried to criticize the Republicans for politicizing the attacks, Morgan told her she was wasting time on the wrong issue entirely.

“ You’re flogging the wrong dead horse! It isn’t about what Mitt Romney or Republicans did. The really… important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who were in positions of responsibility and, we would assume, knowledge, and it’s pretty un-American… to put out completely false statements before you know the facts, isn’t it? ”

- Piers Morgan, to Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

[BPI 0]

AU med......Really.

There is no reasoning with a lib people....None. He will tow the party line straight into the pits of hell if they told him to.

Just another drone.

I'm sure if you were in Libya you would have an entirely different point of view. ........Then again , YOU probably wouldn't.