Tertius wrote:Stinger wrote:...
Someone set the so called protocol. I do not
believe it is customary for ambassadors to travel outside the embassy without security is such countries. I do not
believe it is customary to have consulates so ill protected. Someone set the protocol at the absurd level.
According to the poorly-informed expert. If the protocols were not set by the Sec. of State or President then they should say who and why.
Bureaucratic staffers, working in committee. One person has already testified that she refused the request.
You can twist this any way you like but Ambassador Stevens was set up.
You've already twisted it into the world's most intricate pretzel just to arrive at your ludicrous fairy tale.
Believe, believe, believe. Not the same as knowing the facts, is it?
You don't believe a lot of things. You've already proved that you don't believe in research, statistical analyses, common sense, and just plain facts. You've already proved that no amount of factual support and rational thought can put a dent in whatever myth you choose to JUST BELIEVE.
You probably don't believe in Obama's birth certificate.
Doesn't change reality.
Ambassadors often do travel without large security details because they have to meet and greet with people who don't like publicity and motorcades and notoriety.
If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you would know that diplomatic personnel, including ambassadors, chafe under the modern day restrictions and complain about the modern, secure fortresses they are forced to reside in. It impedes their work.
But, in your ignorance, you still posit your uninformed opinions as having some sort value. Why? I don't know. None of the rest of us do.