U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack: Should America Have Gotten Involved in Libya?

by AdriHead Posted 2012/09/12 18:08:31

Related Topics: Chris Stevens, U.S. Embassador, Obama, Barack Obama, Ambassador, Libya, Revolution, Benghazi, Rocket, New York, United States, CNN, New York Times, Time, Media, Video, Photos, President Barack Obama, The New York Times

Read More

987 votes
Read all 1,142 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	295 votes	30%
	No	692 votes	70%

Chris Stevens, who was the U.S. ambassador to Libya and an envoy during the revolution in the country, was killed, along with three others, in a rocket attack outside the American Consulate in Benghazi. U.S. officials have told The New York Times and CNN that the attack may have been planned by a group that "had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack."

In a statement Wednesday morning condemning the attack, President Barack Obama referred to Stevens as "a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States." Stevens, 52, was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.

NEWS.YAHOO.COM reports:
Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya killed along with three others in a rocket attack outside the American Consulate in Benghazi was "a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States," President Barack Obama said in his initial statement Wednesday condemning the attack.

obama initial statement wednesday condemning attack initial reports slain embassy

+19

Add a comment above

Heisenberg 2012/09/12 18:23:45 (edited)

No

+37
I think some people forgot we already went to war in Libya when Obama violated the war powers act and sent the Navy to install the Muslim Brotherhood and kill Qadafi without congressional approval.

How is Obama's bow-and-scrape foreign policy working out for us?
>> See Replies

More polls by AdriHead

RG to Lucy 2012/09/12 21:40:53

+3
Correction - Usurper

reply
Wake Th... to Lucy 2012/09/12 21:54:30

+3
Who cares about the Constitution when your part is in power right? More and more it seems that there is no difference between the two parties.

reply
EdDarrell to Wake Th... 2012/09/13 14:47:02

When our interests are at risk, when our allies and treaty partners go in, the Constitution requires action. Remember your high school history, for America's sake. Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates? You oppose all action to support democracy, freedom, America's interests and the American flag, or only those run with brilliant success by Obama? Where in world were you in 2001 and 2003?

reply
Wake Th... to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 14:51:38

+1
In 2001 I was just out of high school and "too young to understand" why we had to part with Liberty and the Constitution in the name of safety, or so the 'adults' said. The Constitution must never be ignored otherwise the liberty of every man, woman, and child in this nation can also be ignored.

reply
knothead to Wake Th... 2012/09/13 15:55:08

+1
Well said. Way to many people have forgotten this.

reply
Wake Th... to knothead 2012/09/13 17:21:31

+1
You know that I was conveying that the Patriot Act was one of the most tyrannical pieces of legislation to be perpetrated against the American people since our nation's founding, right? And Obama's NDAA 2012 (which Romney agrees with him on) takes it one step further by allowing the Executive branch to say when the Constitution does & does not apply based on his/her whim.

reply
to Wake Th... 2012/09/13 17:54:59

+1
My God, what have we let out Country come to...............?

reply
Matt Sj... to 2012/09/15 22:59:56

What have you? There's no "we" in this hombre...

reply
to Wake Th... 2012/09/13 17:53:39

+1
Young man, thanks for a great comment. And I agree with everything that you said.

reply
to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 17:50:28

+1
What exactly did obama run with such brilliant success?

reply
to Wake Th... 2012/09/13 17:48:43

+1
It seems that you are exactly right........it seems that they are all in this together.

reply
knothead to Lucy 2012/09/13 15:52:21

+2
They are gutless and have no backbone. Afraid of their political careers. Probably afraid to be called racist, or bigots if the rule against a black president.

reply
Frank to knothead 2012/09/14 17:50:08

It's all about the racist part....

reply
to Lucy 2012/09/13 17:47:41

EXACTLY....

reply
Thane36425 to Lucy 2012/09/13 20:27:41

+1
In part because the Presidents are doing things Congress approves of because it means more power for them without sharing in the blame. Why else to you think certain highly unpopular bills were passed these last few years in the dead of night and signed the same way? Congress wants the power, and the ability to sneak in riders to make themselves rich, while letting the president take the heat.

reply
Matt Sj... to Lucy 2012/09/15 22:58:44

+1
They didn't have the power to - The President, as dictated by the Constitution of the United States, has the ability to deploy troops and military forces in general irregardless of circumstance for up to half a year - after that the President would have to make his/her case to Congress to continue a given military effort. This was the case with Afghanistan/Iraq, congress has just been saying "Yea" every so often since 2001.

reply
Heisenberg to Wake Th... 2012/09/12 21:09:50

+5
Nope, only one side is violating the constitution but nice try and equivalency.

reply
Wake Th... to Heisenberg 2012/09/12 21:53:03

+4
Perhaps you should look up the clip of Romney saying that he doesn't need Congressional approval to go to war, he only needs his lawyers'. It was during the debates that I first heard this and it immediately made me sick to my stomach.

reply
Heisenberg to Wake Th... 2012/09/12 22:19:03

+3
Perhaps you should do your own homework instead of handing out assignments.

reply
Wake Th... to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 14:22:42

+1
I told you exactly how to find it, you are the one wanting to stay in the dark on Obomney.

reply
EdDarrell to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 14:50:57

+2
Doing your homework for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You're welcome.

reply
Heisenberg to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 14:54:54

Your video is not on topic and irrelevant.

If you are a Ron Paul idiot then I invite you to bugger off.

reply
Wake Th... to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 17:22:38

+1
Yes it is!

reply
to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 17:56:19

How about holding it down a little.

reply
Kenneth... to Heisenberg 2012/09/18 03:04:47

How is the video irrelevant? You seem to be against Obama having gone to war in Libya without Congressional approval. Romney is essentially implying he would be okay with doing the same; he would've checked with his lawyers to be sure he could legally do so, but the implication is that he would go ahead without Congressional approval if it were legal. Yes, we can argue about that since in the video his position isn't 100 percent clear. What is clear is that Ron Paul would not go to war without Congressional approval, or maybe even without a declaration of war. That's your position, right? And yet you refer to Ron Paul supporters as "idiot"s.

reply
Heisenberg to Kenneth... 2012/09/19 16:45:46

"essentially implying"

Now here is a genius sentence.

reply
knothead to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 16:10:57

Strange I must be getting a different video of that than you. I listened to it 3 times and at no time did I hear Romney say he could go to war without Congress approval. Unlike our currant so called President who doesnt know his oath of office, or his bill of rights. Let alone how many states are in the United States of America. Answer is 50 NOT 57. Romney has a backbone andthe intelligence to turn our country around. Isnt that what this is all about? Romney and Ryan have a superior plan to make our country great. Where is the Hope and Change of Obama? There is no hope and very little change left. We are headed to be a third world country like Kenya where Obama came from.

reply
michael to knothead 2012/09/14 01:04:57

It's spelt "current" romney doesn't have a plan. Ryan does but it's a 40 year long plan and a little illogical and obama is from Hawaii. I don't particularly support either of them but if you're against a candidate don't use far fetched accusations based off of inaccurate information.

reply
Kenneth... to knothead 2012/09/18 02:49:36

Romney said he'd have to check with his lawyers. That's neither a no or a yes - it's a maybe.

reply
Wake Th... to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 17:46:02

Thanks Ed!

reply
knothead to Wake Th... 2012/09/13 16:00:27

Must have been on selected radios or tvs Sure wasnt on mine. Are you by chance one of those who think and beleive that you should sit on your butt and get mail box money and all the rest of the handout for nothing? I for one sure as hell dont want this administration in for one day more than their first term.Where did you find this? Sounds like you are afraid of a real president getting into office. The current President has violated his oath of office and raped the Constitution and Bill of rights. what dio you say to that FACT?

reply
Wake Th... to knothead 2012/09/13 17:24:18

reply
Wake Th... to knothead 2012/09/13 17:28:30 (edited)

Knothead, you have tools available to you like profile pages to see what people believe, I'd strongly suggest you use those tools before you go making accusations. I will not be voting for Romney or Obama and for the same exact reason, both are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution of our great nation.

reply
Connor ... to Heisenberg 2012/09/12 22:02:12

Oh really? So why can right wing states not accept marriage licences from other states for Homosexual couples? Does this "not apply" to your beliefs even though there is the full faith and credit law?

reply
Heisenberg to Connor ... 2012/09/12 22:19:36

+3
Are you really this dense? Yes you are.

I won't bother to explain.

reply
Connor ... to Heisenberg 2012/09/12 22:28:46

+1
No, please explain, no one bothers to, they just say that Obama lies, spew some cusses, then move on. Please, explain why Texan Republicans can ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause.

reply
Heisenberg to Connor ... 2012/09/12 22:31:11

+4
1. The clause does not apply

The FFandC refers to interstate commerce, not marriage.

2. Almost all 'gay marriage' laws exist from constitutional violations themselves as they were not passed by legislatures but by activist left-wing judges.

The homo-activists attempting to sneak in gay marriage through the back-door (so to speak) means you will get people to push back.

You can't demand others follow the constitution while you violate it.

reply
Connor ... to Heisenberg 2012/09/12 22:34:00

How do I do so? Also, give me this, I'm in AP government, and we are taught that it applies to all licences and documents.

reply
Heisenberg to Connor ... 2012/09/12 23:41:44

+4
Sorry son but it looks like your teachers have a left-wing bent and are teaching you government from this biased point of view.

Ask your teacher which states have redefined marriage to include homosexual monogamy through the voting ballot or through legislatures.

Then ask if judges can pass laws.

if her/his answer is yes, then I want right-wing judges to pass laws that I want and force it down the throat of voters.

reply
Connor ... to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 01:46:40

+1
Actually, from my AP textbook, from our copy of the constitution, it says "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records and judicial Proceedings of every other state." Also, Vermont did so through legislation.

reply