How about an act of war by those engaged in and supportive of those involved in the attacks (if not the ineffectual transition government)?

Here's what those currently in charge in Libya have to say:


Doesn't sound like they are supporting these guys:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88B0EI20120912

I bet those involved will develop a healthy fear of remote controlled planes.

I don't think we should start bombing Libyan government buildings or anything but I think its relevant that they don't have any control over the forces there that actually matter. Who's really in charge, who's will is really being exercised? If a couple of government voices who have no real power over anything express disagreement with the greater trends and actions, is that just the end of it? The Libyan government seems irrelevant, though I defer to the people in charge who know a lot more about it than me.

Did they say they supported or endorsed the killings though? I haven't read anything about this, but, I would be surprised if the Libyan government says they do, as that would be splashed all over the headlines here.

EDIT:

Just read 3 different articles:

Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in rocket attack, served as envoy during revolution | The Lookout - Yahoo! News No mention of Libya supporting the attack in any way. Mentioned that a Marine counter terrorism unit is being deployed to Libya. I would think if Libya wanted to declare war on the US, it would deny that unit entry to the country.

American who risked life to stop Gadhafi killed in Libya - CNN.com
Libyan prime minister apologizes.

Obama vows to 'bring justice' to killers in US Embassy attack in Libya | Fox News
No mention of anything about the Libyan government supporting the attacks. The article mentions that some Libyans tried to help repel the attackers.

Still not convinced this is anything close to being an 'act of war'.

Right, that's what I meant, obviously the government of Libya didn't commit an act of war. But is the government of Libya relevant to anything? I was asking whether this is an act of war by the people carrying out these acts. Obviously it isn't as organized as traditional state action. I'm just saying our western perspective of "government" is kind of meaningless in a place with a brand new government that doesn't seem to have control over anything.

Invasion of an embassy and killing of personnel if initiated/condoned by country is an act of war.

The story/timeline is not out yet but there was a big demonstration, things happended, embassy was violated, 4 US officials were murdered. Was the demonstration initially peaceful and then agitators took over? Don't know.

Ah ok, I see where you're coming from now. I think the people who do things like that probably do consider themselves at war with America and have for decades.



From reading different articles, it definitely sounds like there was no support from the Libyan government in addition to an apology from the Lybian prime minister.

Umm, what else was he gonna say? I'm thinking that very few politicians - regardless of their actual feelings - were gonna look us in the eye & say "boy I sure wish they'd have killed several more".

Even the new government, such as it is, seems likely to realize that we've got some old targeting data lying around somewhere.

There is new info coming out now that the Al-Qaeda based group has had an attack planned for a while, and used the film protests as a convenient cover.

Might need to add a 4th news article to the reading list. This comes from that noted neo-con organization known as CBS News.

Assault on U.S. consulate in Benghazi leaves 4 dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens - CBS News

I kind of agree with you on that. It would be stupid for a government that can't metaphorically, wipe its own ass, start a war with the US. That's why I think claims that it is an act of war is rather stretching it.


And is that security team an official Libyan government team or a private 3rd party security team? The article doesn't specify.

More than that - nothing in the article claims that they were acting in an official capacity, even if they were members of a security team. So the Libyan "security team" had some terrorist sympathizers - is that really surprising?

That doesn't mean we ought to go starting ANOTHER war.

The Libyan government is saying all the right things. The silence of the Egyptian government is a much bigger problem.

"". This. Morsi's silence is deafening.

Yes, totally agree with this - Marc Lynch in his Foreign Policy blog has an interesting post on this interesting read.

Moments of Truth in Libya and Egypt | Marc Lynch

He compares the outpouring of condemnation for the killing, and support of the Americans, from Libyans of all stripes with the great silence coming from the Egyptian goverment after the attack on the US Embassy there.

Here's a timeline.

The attack on the Libyan consulate, as it happened - World News

I think we see the answer

More protests near U.S. Embassy in Cairo - CNN.com


The visceral reaction is a simple one: Um, eff you. I'm pretty sure trespassing is illegal in your country and I know it is on our native soil, which the embassy is. But we're cool with free speech, much as we hate some of it. So, no, we're not punishing anyone for this in our country because you don't like it.

Now, it's probably more complex than that. The "we will honor our obligation", while sounding lukewarm, could have been lost in translation a bit. We're relying on the White House to relay a message from a non-English speaking country.

That said, it sounds like the relationship is pretty frosty right now. Are we going to start pulling back funding for their military now that they are no longer in power and now that they're acting a lot less like an ally with Morsy in charge?

SI

This says a lot. From NYTimes:


edit: Going to be hard to pump another billion in aid to a country somewhere in between ally and enemy.

Well, according to Obama, Egypt is no longer our ally with the loss of Mubarak. The government, formed from revolt, does not inherit that relationship (and hopefully not the billions in American dollars) and needs to enlighten us on who's side they are on, first.

And now Yemen's American Embassy is on fire.

All over a terribly produced B-movie 99.9% would never have heard of if nobody brought it up?

Sometime in the future a history class will study the start of World War III and wonder how a film that slandered one society's fake God caused another society to go to war to try and "civilize" them. If a lot of us thought the events that started WWI were confusing imagine trying to explain this one.

"It's was a younger, more ignorant society. They didn't have the problems to worry about like we did prior to World War V, what with a set of war mongering profiteers who design military mobile suits, the emerging world power of the African Cyborg Republic agitating for more land and resources, and the threat of genetically engineered viruses that could destroy all life on earth a thousand times over possibly falling into the hands of the Randian Peoples Empowered Freedom Front from the crumbling failed government of Microsoft Nokia Coke District 2 of the North American Republic."

SI

Ok go on continue please ..... I'll go see the movie, read the book, whatever it takes ;)

The good news here is that nobody in Syria is protesting this. Clearly a model fascist society.

It took me a few minutes to string all of those together, but, c'mon- the concept was fish meet barrel.

SI

:)

I agree with Obama that Egypt is not an ally and probably never will be. Why don't we give the money to Libya, Jordan and hopefully Syria soon. With a northern and eastern Israeli border secured, is Egypt really that strategic to us?

Egypt, Hearing From Obama, Moves to Heal Rift From Protests - NYTimes.com

Obama caught stating he believes in "redistribution". I'm okay with it, that's what has been and is happening now anyway. Romney trying to play this as equivalent to what he said won't work.

Clip purports to show Obama embracing 'redistribution,' as Romney slams remarks | Fox News

A video from 1998? Presidential campaigns are going to be really different in 20 years when the Facebook generation hits politics. "Back in 2008, my opponent was in favor of, and I quote, 'getting drunk as f--- and screwing everything that moves '."

SI

+1

Why bother going back to 1998. They could just run the Joe the not plumber vid all day.

If he still believes in wealth distribution in 2012 he's doing a piss-poor job of it.

Well, that'll secure the youth vote.

In 1998, I was in college and I suspect I'd have spouted off whatever my sleep addled brain thought would get me a better grade: "You're damn right, I think the elderly should be turned into a slurry to feed the poo-" wait, that was another thread

I do remember taking a Poly Sci class where the assignment was to pick who was the best President since the end of WW2 and I went with Nixon because I thought he was easiest if you gloss over the whole Watergate thing.

SI

I like the analysis, hope it happens. Made my day.

http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/was...-win.html?si=1

At first glance, I'd put Wisconsin in the toss-up category.

But really, it's the same story. Romney needs to win pretty much every toss-up state to have a chance.

And not lose any of the ones that they gave to him...

I'd be surprised if Wisconsin is in play. We almost always go Blue, and Romney running as "not Obama" isn't going to help him.

Granted, I understand Ryan isn't exactly loved by all parties up there, but I'd think there'd be at least some play with a resident as Veep candidate.

From the list of states they gave him, pretty much no way in hell do any of those flip blue.

Looks like Chick-Fil-A has backed down.. wonder if all the folks who were saying they'd support it forever for their "principled stand" will now howl in outrage?

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blog...all#readerComm

I wonder if Christians are going to stand in line for them now ;)

I thought the issue was that the owner gave his opinion on gay marriage and that the funding came out only after the initial outrage.

I'm a Christian and I'd stand in line for their sandwiches any day ;)

I'm disappointed that Chick-Fil-A is doing this if it is in response to the recent uproar by a minority of people. The owner should be able to do anything he wants with his money (assuming it is legal). If people don't want to eat there because of that particular reason, they don't have to.

It's so ironic to me that many of the people who run around screaming "intolerance" are some of the most intolerant people I know.

We don't have any Chick-Fil-A's in my area but I love their chicken and would eat there no matter the guy's political stance because I like their food.

The issue is that he wasn't doing it with HIS money I thought, but with the corporation's money?

Either way - trying to argue that boycotting, or that someone changing their behavior because of boycotting is anti-capitalist. Boycotting is a pure capitalist activity.

Yeah, it's corporate money. The founder's family is still free to do whatever they want with their personal funds.

The bad publicity must be hurting the bottom line or I can't see them making this decision.

Who said he isn't allowed to do whatever he wants with his money? He's entitled to that, and I'm entitled to do whatever I want with my money.

And the whole "you're intolerant of intolerant people" argument is really lame.

I'm quite sure that the owner is doing what he wants with his money - in this case stop funding a few causes of his so he can rake in more dough from additional customers.

Never underestimate the "all mighty" dollar.