Type to search

Ambassador Is A Dangerous Job

Featured Post Memo Pad Middle East Top News

Ambassador Is A Dangerous Job


When Thomas E. McNamara arrived in Colombia as U.S. ambassador in 1988, he encountered a hit list issued by narco-terrorist Pablo Escobar. “I was No. 1,” he recalls. “Ambassadors tend to get that kind of attention.”

On a different mission to confer with Lebanese government officials, McNamara was greeted with “a welcome-to-Beirut mortar and artillery barrage,” which landed in the parking lot outside the building. “We picked up papers and went to the basement, where there was a secure bunker,” McNamara, later named ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, told me.

No, being a professional foreign service officer is not all about cocktails in Paris, London and Rome. In fact, little of it is. Most members of the U.S. foreign service serve in harsh parts of the world. And much of their job centers on going into dangerous countryside where they’re exposed to some who would do them harm.

Since World War II, at least eight ambassadors have died from hostile action, as opposed to three flag officers — that is, generals and admirals. From 1979 to 2009, some 96 American foreign service members died in attacks.

Which brings us to the Sept. 11, 2012, murders of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The attacks on our diplomatic compound in Benghazi were a tragedy for everyone, but to professional foreign service officers, the politicization of them was a disgrace.

Blaming then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for security lapses in Benghazi is outrageous, McNamara said, emphasizing that he never worked for her. The secretary of state is not personally involved in such matters.

“Those congressmen wouldn’t give a damn about the death of Americans in Benghazi if they didn’t think they could make political capital out of it,” McNamara angrily added.

Many Americans still regard formal diplomacy as a frilly European thing. That’s partly a hangover from the 18th and 19th centuries, when only the wealthy were sent to foreign posts because the pay was so low. Since then, the foreign service has become a meritocracy, dependent on tough entrance exams.

A new PBS documentary, “America’s Diplomats,” tries to explain the history and mission of the foreign service.

“It’s easy to understand the 101st Airborne when they go out and they win a big battle for America,” former Secretary of State James Baker says in the film. “It’s not as easy to understand the battles that are won every day in the field by America’s diplomats abroad.”

Thousands of those battles involve helping Americans do business abroad. Example: Some years ago, the European Union issued new rules governing the size of motorcycle engines. Purportedly intended to make motorcycling safer, the regulations had the effect of freezing out one U.S. manufacturer, Harley-Davidson. American diplomats who had developed relationships with European officials negotiated for some minor technical changes in the rules. Harley was in.

And there were major humanitarian breakthroughs. As a special envoy, the late Richard Holbrooke led a tireless campaign to end the bloodshed in Bosnia. When Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic wouldn’t let Holbrooke and his team securely land in Sarajevo, the group drove a perilous mountain road to get there. One vehicle transporting team members rolled down a mountainside. All aboard died.

But American diplomacy eventually won out. The 1995 Dayton Accords ended Europe’s worst human calamity since World War II.

Many worry that the political circus around Benghazi will deter American officials from taking risks in the name of diplomacy. That would deny America its first line of defense. The best way to honor Stevens would be as a patriot-diplomat who accepted risk in service to his country.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.


Photo: In this Monday, April 11, 2011 file photo, U.S. envoy Chris Stevens speaks to local media at the Tibesty Hotel where an African Union delegation was meeting with opposition leaders in Benghazi, Libya. Libyan officials say the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans have been killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. The officials say Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff. The protesters were firing gunshots and rocket propelled grenades. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis, File)

Froma Harrop

Froma Harrop’s nationally syndicated column appears in over 150 newspapers. Media Matters ranks her column 20th nationally in total readership and 14th in large newspaper concentration. Harrop has been a guest on PBS, MSNBC, Fox News and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and is a frequent voice on NPR and talk radio stations in every time zone as well.

A Loeb Award finalist for economic commentary in 2004 and again in 2011, Harrop was also a Scripps Howard Award finalist for commentary in 2010. She has been honored by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists and the New England Associated Press News Executives Association has given her five awards.

  • 1


  1. Independent1 January 14, 2016

    And Froma could have pointed out the absolute hypocrisy of today’s Republicans – the fact that despite the GOP’s self-serving ‘clown circus’ surrounding Benghazi, the past 7 years under Obama have been BY FAR THE SAFEST for America’s overseas diplomats: with 4 recorded fatalities in those 7 years associated with embassy and consulate attacks – compared to an average of more than70 fatalities in embassy and consulate attacks under each of the last 3 GOP presidents. And more than 60 of them occurred in just 4 years under G.H.W. Bush!!!

    1. mike January 14, 2016

      But yet Obama has doubled the deaths of American diplomats/civilians than Bush 43. This doesn’t include the young diplomat Smeinghoff killed in 2013 while in Afghanistan. Only two Americans were killed during attacks on embassies/consulates during Bush’s presidency. but that would be another inconvenient truth for you on the left.

      1. johninPCFL January 14, 2016

        Seems like your Google is broken. Let me help:
        2002 5 killed in Pakistan
        2002 17 killed in India
        2003 2 killed in Pakistan
        2004 2 killed in Uzbekistan
        2006 4 killed in Pakistan
        2006 4 killed in Syria
        2008 6 killed in Turkey
        2008 19 killed in Yemen
        Total = 59 killed in service to the United States

        2010 6 killed in Pakistan
        2012 4 killed in Libya
        2013 2 killed in Turkey
        2013 2 killed in Afghanistan
        2015 1 wounded in Turkey
        Total = 14 killed in service to the United States

        1. mike January 14, 2016

          But good old independent said “Diplomats were more safe under Obama”, record shows 4 killed under Obama, actually only one under Bush, even though I counted a civilian killed in Yemen.
          No cigar for you!!

          1. Independent1 January 14, 2016

            I didn’t mean to use the word diplomat – I meant overseas personnel!!

          2. mike January 14, 2016

            OMG!!! “Overseas personnel” are Americans working for Federal Govt. overseas not foreign nationals under contract.
            Don’t even try to equate the two. You said 4 dead diplomats and then tried to compare deaths and attacks which is trying to compare apples to oranges.
            There were more stacks under Bush but not American diplomatic deaths. What you can’t comprehend is Obama’s lead from behind has made the US much weaker and less trusted in the world. They know he is a paper tiger! Bergdahl was asked if obama was gay, that pretty much summons up how the Middle East
            views him.

          3. Independent1 January 14, 2016

            More of your ridiculous nonsense. Go pound sand somewhere in your own little sandbox!!!

          4. mike January 14, 2016

            I see you are still posting and acting like a mental midget. ?

          5. Independent1 January 14, 2016

            You’re going to post me a link to the right-wing biased NY post rag as proof of something?????

          6. mike January 14, 2016

            Gee, another source> Not surprised you didn’t knowing your head is always where the sun doesn’t shine.


          7. Independent1 January 14, 2016

            And let’s get one thing straight lowlife!! When I used the term diplomat in my initial post, I was referring to any personnel involved in providing foreign (diplomatic) relations and services to Americans overseas. I was not referring specifically to ‘a diplomat’.

            And John who responded to you clearly missed a number of attacks where people died in his list above (there were more than 8 attacks with 59 dying) – there were more than 17 attacks during Bush 2’s disastrous 8 years with at least 13 deadly attacks.. And any moron aside from yourself would have realized that when I said 4 diplomats died under Obama that I was referring to Benghazi that you and your ilk have been making a -clown show over where 4 diplomatic personnel were killed.

            And clearly, 4 actual diplomats did not die at Benghazi. Unlike you and your moronic ilk, I do not put any higher value on the life of Ambassador Stevens than I do on any of the others who lost their life in the Benghazi attack. Just because Stevens was an ambassador doesn’t make his life worth any more than anyone else who died there.

            And all that considered, there were more than 13 deadly attacks during Bush 2s presidency with more than 70 people being killed; a number of them not Americans BUT THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE – MORE THAN 70 PEOPLE DIED because of the Bush Administrations FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY LEVEL OF SECURITY WHATSOEVER for many overseas offices.

            In fact, in 3 attacks on the Karachi Pakistan consulate over a 4 year period, 18 people died because the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing to improve security in that consulate after a deadly attack in 2003. And on top of that, despite the ongoing high casualty rates a our overseas offices during those disastrous 8 years – many of today’s GOP hypocrites never raised the issue of lack of security for our overseas offices under Bush!!!

          8. Independent1 January 14, 2016

            And if you factor in the 241 Marines that Reagan put in harms way who ended up dying when terrorists blew up their barracks, and the near 3,000 that died on 9/11 because Bush and Cheney refused to let the CIA try and stop the attack; almost 3,500 Americans and other overseas personnel were killed during the last 3 GOP presidencies!! Something totally unprecedented in American history!!!!!!

          9. mike January 14, 2016

            LOL!!! Keep trying!! You’re looking more desperate.each post.

      2. Independent1 January 14, 2016

        Flat out LIES!! And I’m not even going to waste my time refuting your absolute BS!! The 17 plus attacks on our consulates and embassies during Bush’s disastrous 8 years included a diplomat just like Stevens being killed in a 2006 Karachi Pakistan attack!! Go stuff your lies somewhere!!l

        1. mike January 14, 2016

          Thanks for proving my point. BTW the diplomat name was David Foy, which you could care less, and he was killed in a motorcade.
          Again, twice as many Diplomats have been killed under Obama than Bush. Prove me wrong!!!
          Remember we are talking about Americans from the American Diplomatic Corp. all under Clinton, not foreign nationals.

          1. Sand_Cat January 17, 2016

            How much do you really care? Aren’t most of these arguments just using them as props?
            Whatever Obama’s totals vs Bush’s, very little was said at the time about the latter, especially by the pious hypocrites whining about Benghazi.

          2. David January 18, 2016

            You are so right!!! We now know that it was a movie that caused the attack in Benghazi.

          3. Sand_Cat January 18, 2016

            I am certainly right about the “pious hypocrites” part. Thanks for providing a perfect example.

          4. David January 18, 2016

            You’re the type that actually believes Hildebeast!

          5. Sand_Cat January 18, 2016

            That’s the pathetic best you have? Your claims about Mrs. Clinton vie with one another in triviality and pettiness. Thanks again for providing the perfect example of a pious hypocrite.

          6. David January 18, 2016

            Maybe like when she “was under sniper fire” in Bosnia?

          7. Sand_Cat January 19, 2016

            Yes, just like that. Pretty much as petty, stupid, and irrelevant as your other attributions of “lies” and “crimes” to her.
            You really don’t learn very fast, do you?
            How many hearings were held to investigate ALL of the embassy attacks that occurred during the Bush Administration?
            How many people participating in such hearings – assuming there were any – pretty much openly admitted they were calculated political smears?
            You may well have legitimate criticisms of Mrs. Clinton – I have a few myself – but they were long ago lost in the lies, exaggerations, pettiness, and malice of the GOP smear machine. Calling her names only shows how little real criticism you have.

          8. David January 19, 2016

            You’re right, “after all what difference does it make?”.

          9. mike January 19, 2016

            Ask independent1 trying to make a silly point.
            Keep believing what you want on Benghazi but they died unnecessarily and were abandoned by Hillary. Jeremy Bash’s email with troops “spinning”, trying to call her, exposes how little she cared. The hypocrites are those you think are so great.
            “How much do I care”? As much as you care about “Black lives matter”

          10. Sand_Cat January 19, 2016

            Obviously you plan to keep believing the GOP lies and speculations; sorry we can’t even agree on the facts, and the malice and political opportunism behind all the “investigations.”
            How many “investigations” were there about Bush’s 12 or 13 embassy attacks and the deaths that resulted? How long did they last, if there were any?

          11. mike January 19, 2016

            No, I believe the facts as they have been presented so far. It is you on the left that believe the attack was because of video, a huge lie by Obama.
            What you don’t get is U.S. Embassies have been attacked for decades. Yes there were more after 9/11 but we were at war at that time. So why investigate?? All was there to see.
            Benghazi is different, consulate/annex was attacked for hours people died and Hillary went tto bed. They were abandoned that is quite clear.
            Don’t put words in my mouth, I never used “despised”.

          12. Sand_Cat January 19, 2016

            We “on the left” – despite your wishes – are not stupid. Don’t put thoughts in my mind; no one believes the video was the cause. And I said I don’t think they’re “so great,” though the GOP – and especially its presidential aspirants – works tirelessly to make them look better and better by comparison.
            Yes, of course Benghazi was different: it was during a Democratic administration with a black president and a female Secretary of State with presidential aspirations, with a Congress determined to destroy both of them by any means necessary, without regard to damage done to anything or suffering caused to anyone. You’re damned right it was different. During the Bush Administration, Congress was controlled by sane and at least somewhat responsible people, if a bit timid; during the Obama Administration, the House at least has been controlled by a bunch of hate-filled, irrational right-wing lunatics since the first mid-term election.
            Sorry, but it is quite clear that you are caught up in the lunacy. I don’t know who you consider “so great,” so I won’t try to make you look foolish and stupid the way you seem to have attempted to do to me.

          13. mike January 19, 2016

            So Obama and Hillary did lie to win an election but it is hunky-dorylied with you. But you still love Obama because of color and you would vote him again because of color like the rest of the black community. Under Obama blacks have suffered more than any administration but you love him.Pretty pathetic and despicable.
            No, they are destroying themselves without the help from the right. Hillary and her lies about her server and emails, clinton foundation, etc.. Obamahis constant lies and trying to act like emperor. How many time has the courts knocked down his attempts at legislating? EVERY ONE of them! You being the rascist that you are will continue to bring up color but the majority of Americans know better because his actions have shown him to weak and untrustworthy. Look at his numbers all negative, we all know that he is a dogmatic ideologue. He has failed domestically and has a absolutely dismal/disastrous foreign affair policies.
            As to lunacy/foolishness it is all yours and frankly it fits you.
            Keep playing the race card it fits your delusional thinking.

          14. Sand_Cat January 20, 2016

            If you want to make it personal, all of Hillary’s and Obama’s purported “lies” put together don’t come close to just ONE of the many, many told by the previous administration that YOU steadfastly refuse to recognize, and they vie in triviality with the lies and malice exhibited by the GOP candidates and the actions of the GOP Congress (George W. Bush alone probably told more lies “to get elected” in 2000 than Hillary, Bill and Obama told in their lives combined). And the “lie” you accuse both of is mainly a failure to use the insane language the GOP would have and did to describe the Benghazi incident. Virtually ALL of the top officials of the previous administration used personal email and erased it – probably to avoid legitimate use of it in the prosecutions they richly deserved but were spared by a merciful (or just patriotic) Obama, who probably realized the Right would have precipitated a civil war had he given them what they deserve.
            The ONLY GOP candidate not likely to be an international embarrassment (they would be national as well, but most GOP hacks are clearly too dim to see it) is Kasich, and he’s clearly drunk the ultra-rightist Kool Aid. All of them threaten destruction of what liberty we have left, what civil rights progress has been made, the preservation of the US and global environments, and pretty much everything else I believe in.
            And again you persist in accusing me of being a great admirer of Hillary and Obama.
            I’d rather NOT have Hillary, but she looks like a saint sent from heaven compared to a pathetic creep like Cruz, and obnoxious blowhard like Trump, a religious fanatic like Huckabee, and incoherent nut like Carson, a dishonest and gutless child like Rubio, a dedicated supporter of war crimes and crimes against humanity (well, ALL of them fall into those categories) like Bush, a pathological liar like Fiorina, and all their fellow delusional, mendacious, and malicious competitors.
            As for Obama, he has to be a saint just for not telling the whole country to go *** themselves after the kind of slander (racist, political, and personal) to which he has been subjected. He tried to change the tone and ease the divisions, and all the racists and kool-aid drinkers had the monstrous gall to blame their own racism, political fanatic hatred, and obstruction on him, claiming HE divided the country,” something you seem to believe as well.
            Yeah, I don’t like a lot of what he did: mainly catering to right-wing insanity in trying to bring the haters and bigots of the GOP to the table and heal the divisions. It took him WAY too long to realize they would oppose EVERYTHING he proposed, even their own ideas. Despite all the whining about “the far left” and “liberalism,” neither Obama nor Hillary is even close to being a liberal: both could easily have been Republicans in the 70s or even the 80s. when there were still some sane people left in that party.
            The “emperor” charge is absolutely the most hypocritical and laughable charge brought, a title to which Reagan, both Bushes, and even Nixon were closer than Obama EVER got. But then Nixon would be drummed out of today’s party as a “liberal,” if not redeemed in “conservative” eyes by his criminal activity.
            “Dogmatic ideologue” is another contemptible lie. Your post says far, far more about how many GOP lies you’ve swallowed whole than about Obama, Clinton, or me. You accused me of being “hate-filled.” Try looking in the moirror.

          15. mike January 20, 2016

            No, you made it personal.
            You accusing all people who didn’t vote for him or complain about Obama as racist. You will not accept that good people that did not vote for Obama voted against him on policies not color.
            I will not let you try and get away with the lie that this is just about a private email address. This whole investigation is Hillary having her own UNSECURED SERVER AND NOTHING TO DO WITH EMAILS. No other cabinet member has ever had their own SERVER, yes they did have private email address.
            Yesterday we learn from Intelligence Inspector General Hillary had SAP’s which are more sensitive that Top Secret on her server which she claimed she never had any classified material.
            Country divided, look at the polls, even blackes say it’s worse.
            Hillary calls herself a “progressive democrat”. Wake up!
            Emperor, so how many times did Obama lose to the courts when he tried to by-pass congress and constitution?
            I haven’t swallowed any lies, actually it is you that lives in Fantasy land.

            Obama is a DOGMATIC IDEOLOGUE, plain and simple.
            Sad to see all that anger against all whites consuming your life.

          16. Sand_Cat January 21, 2016

            Once again, you impute things to me without justification.
            Dogmatic Idealogue is simply a projection of the GOP Dogmatic Idealogues – which apparently include you – of their own failings on the president.
            The stuff on Hillary’s server was not classified at the time, plus – once again – a number of people from previous administrations also used personal email. I’m told it is required by law that government officials have a separate server for their political and personal emails, so we can possibly add that to the long, long list of lawbreaking by Bush officials, which of course you justify, ignore, or pretend didn’t happen. You’re right: it has NOTHING to do with the emails, and everything to do with obsessive, pathological hatred of Hillary.
            George W. Bush called himself a “uniter, not a divider”; I’m talking about what Hillary IS, not what she calls herself. Lest you call that another “lie,” she most definitely is when compared to the Neanderthal morons of the GOP. The only reason she seems a “leftist” to you and the rest of the GOP is that you and have all completely run off the rails and gone so far to the lunatic right that you can’t even see the center or the left. Same goes for Obama.
            Your irrational hatred for Hillary is showing repeatedly.

            Obama made fewer attempts to “bypass the law and the Constitution” than anmy of his recent GOP (or Democratic) predecessors, I believe by a substantial margin.
            Yes, blacks bear the brunt of the savage division of the nation caused by the GOP dogmatic idealogues. Shall I spell that DOGMATIC IDEALOGUES? Your claim that the division is Obama’s fault is no different from a criminal who blames his victim for his own actions: “she was asking for it.”
            Once again, the crap about “the Emperor” is the most idiotic and hypocritical of all the idiotic and hypocritical claims of the GOP. He couldn’t begin to come close to Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr. and Cheney.

            But perhaps I should qualify that; when talking about the evil that is the modern GOP, one quickly runs out of superlatives. The largest projection of the GOP and its very large contingent of racists (all the racist Democrats from the south joined up after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, even if every norther Republican is pure as the driven snow) is the claim that those who are sick and tired of the murder, unjust imprisonment, and a host of other discriminatory practices that the GOP either openly encourages, passively ignores, or heatedly denies in the face of overwhelming evidence are anti-white racists. I could laugh hysterically except that it pains me to see that you, after all, echo and amplify every one of the GOP’s scurrilous lies, just like the most bigoted right-wing idiots who troll here.
            DOGMATIC IDEALOGUE? I can’t think of a better non-obscene characterization of the GOP leadership and “base.”

            Fantasyland? Who lives there? Mainly those who accuse the rational people who reason that Hillary – whatever BS or even real accusations you fling – is far less likely to do irreparable damage to the nation than ANY of the malevolent morons running against her from the right. I’d rather have Bernie Sanders, but it’s hard to even imagine the lies and hatred that would greet him. At least he’s white and male.

          17. mike January 21, 2016

            I can’t decide it you are disingenuous, ignorant or just a liar.

            On January 21, 2009 Obama sent out a directive to the executive branch and govt. offices that all will use govt. email addresses to conduct govt. business. That’s a fact. All govt. employess would follow the 2009 NARA directive that all documents must be kept on govt. servers to meet FOIA. With one caveat, if one did use a personal email address to conduct govt. business they must be preserved on the govt. system. Hillary not only didn’t preserve the documents but she didn’t even use the govt. system but her own PERSONAL SERVER. NARA states that ALL DOCUMENTS ARE PROPERTY OF FEDERAL GOVT. until deemed private by their department. She deleted thousands of emails which was a Violation of NARA regulations. She spit in Obama’s face and directive.

            As to classified documents, 2 top secret documents stated they were top secrets, another 1000 have been found to be classified to highly classified to SAP’s. So stop that Bull Sh*t.

            “I’m told it is required by law that government officials have a separate server for their political and personal emails,” what a crock of dung. Whoever told you that is a damn liar.

            As to the rest of your post more diarrhea from the irrational left.
            Obama is a dogmatic ideologue and you are a racist to the nth degree as you so racially stated with your “white” remark.

            Take your racist remarks and stick them up where the sun doesn’t shine. .

          18. Sand_Cat January 22, 2016

            Just can’t concede anything, can you?
            “Dogmatic Ideologue” fits you and the GOP better than ANY member of its opposition.
            “Been found” to be “top secret” by whom?
            Thought you didn’t recognize “the Emperor’s” orders? Oh, I get it: just the ones you can use to get Hillary.
            Hillary is no saint, I admit, and I am unhappy at the prospect of having her in the Whte House compared to what the nation needs. Wish we had a viable alternative. But even if she’s a serial killer, she’s a lot less dangerous to the nation than the GOP, your irrational right diarrhea notwithstanding.
            Once again, you proclaim concern about racism and its effects on the politics and government of the nation as racism, the perfect Orwellian BS for which the GOP is famous (e.g., the “Clear Skies Initiative”).
            Feel free to rant and rave all you like to defend the indefensible with crude language and false personal accusations, since you made it personal, despite your lie to the contrary, but I shall not bother to “dignify” your screeds with further replies.

          19. mike January 22, 2016

            “Can’t concede” OMG! that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. In your mind “anyone” that voted against Obama was a racists.
            “By whom”? The Inspector General of Intelligence, appointed by Obama, you disingenuous piece of dung.
            Bye Bye little baby boy!

  2. 1Zoe55 January 14, 2016

    The one statement that is true is McNamara’s: “Those congressmen wouldn’t give a damn about the deaths of Americans in Benghazi if they didn’t think they could make political capital out of it.” Whenever I see that Trey Gowdy, I want to send him and his cronies to that part of the world. Let’s see if they can master Magrebian Arabic and deal with the constant lack of security funding, orchestrated by Republican/TeaParty members. Gowdy’s committee should also be investigating all those CIA operatives who were there instead of the focus on the Secretary of State. If the host country to which you’re assigned does not protect you, no contingent of Marines can do so. Gowdy’s investigation and the money spent on this political circus is the attempt to blame Hillary Clinton for this, forgetting all those murdered American diplomats and Marines (killed in their sleep) under Bush and Reagan’s tenure.

  3. David Root January 14, 2016

    You want to know what is an even more dangerous job? Making sure that being an Ambassador ISN’T a dangerous job. Three “non-Ambassadors” were also killed and other security professionals were severely injured that night. I don’t mind a little politicization of a topic if it means we don’t make mistakes in the future that caused the deaths of Ambassadors (and other just as important others) in the past. So, let’s discuss why the CIA were in Benghazi and why the State Department was in Benghazi (when our counterparts were folding tents) but let’s not politicize (because it works both ways) when someone dares to ask those and the other relevant questions that have yet to be answered.

  4. danaugust68 January 14, 2016

    What about those killed in Vietnam? They are not ambassador and they are not draft dodger, either.

  5. oldtack January 14, 2016

    The job of Ambassador is not pomp and circumstance and meetings. It is a tough and dangerous job and it’s requirements call for someone well trained in all aspects for the Country to which they are going including knowing the Language and customs and the ability to handle a diversity of problems. Ambassadors and their staff are always subject to danger. Contrary to popular belief all Embassies are not surrounded by armed American Troops. and surprise, the the troops assigned have a primary duty to destroy papers in case of an overthrow rather than grab a weapon and go on an attack. Check their job description. Diplomatic Security Service is a different gender all together.

    After the overthrow of the Libyan Government the interim Government barred armed private Security firms- foreign and domestic-from operating anywhere in the Country.

    For some reason, probably to score points our dip-shits in congress (Rep., Dem, Ind., Lib) decided to under fund the State Department and other civilian agencies that play a vital role in our National Security. In lieu of building up cadres of skilled diplomatic security guards we have opted to purchase that security from the lowest bidder on Contract.. In the case of Security at Benghazi it was a British Security Firm and in accordance with Interim government directives these were primarily native Libyans and they were not armed and by admission were very poorly trained..

    The Ambassador was at the Embassy where there was some security by CIA operatives but he made a choice to go in harms way to Benghazi as befitting an Ambassador’s duty He under estimated the seriousness of the situation but went to try and alleviate the problem taking with him a small group of CIA and other security personnel. The rest is history. The area was over run and he and three others Americans were killed.

    We have far too many career sleaze bag politicians in our Government. They have zero interest in the Safety of our Nation or the welfare of it’s Citizens. Their main focus is to sell themselves, like prostitutes, to the “highest bidder” to ensure support for reelection. They are a disgrace to humanity. We don’t need sleaze bags nor do we need a plethora of shyster Lawyers in those positions. We need people with proven management skills and knowledge. People that understand Foreign Nations and Foreign policy. People that understand economics and the effect it has on the Middle Class. People with cognition, inductive reasoning and common sense. We have far too many intellectual idiot bimbos from Harvard and Yale and way the hell too many lawyers.

  6. joeham1 January 14, 2016

    It’s even more dangerous if hillary is secretary of state and does nothing to protect you! Then you die!

    1. Sand_Cat January 17, 2016

      The whole country is endangered by ignorant chickenhawks and irrational haters like you.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.