Well technically we did invade Libya, or at they least bombed them enough so the insurgents could take over. The Libya war and removal of Qaddafi was ever much as a mistake as the Iraq war.
All well and good. That wasnt my question to my intelligent friend on the right. It was " Should the Military invade a country to protect one ambassador?" as his premise alluded.
I donât think Mueller factors that. If he were as politically driven as you have been brainwashed to believe, he would have been leaking info left and right.
When it is all said and done, we will have the facts.
In August of 2012, three months after Stevens returned to Libya as the newly confirmed Ambassador, the Principal Officer in Benghazi was nearing the end of his assignment. There would be a two-week gap between the Principal Officerâs departure date and the arrival of the next Principal Officer. No one was scheduled to fill this vacancy until September 15, 2012, so Ambassador Stevens chose to send Principal Officer, to cover the vacancy during the first week in September. Stevens chose himself to cover the second week.
The timing of Stevensâ visit to Benghazi was important for another reason as well. He was spearheading an effort to make Benghazi a permanent post, Hicks testified:
One of the things he [Stevens] said to me was that, in his exit interview with Secretary Clinton, she expressed the hope that we could make the special mission in Benghazi a permanent constituent post. And Chris said that one of the first things he intended to do after his arrival was de-velop a proposal to move forward on that project.A trip to Benghazi would allow Stevens to personally assess the political and security situation and make a recommendation re-garding whether the U.S. should have a permanent presence there. Discussions were already under way in Washington D.C. on how to fund a permanent post.