Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Here's one problem comparing this with the Beirut attack on the marine barracks, imo:
We armed AQ-linked jihadis and some of those arms and jihadis went into Syria. The ambassador who was killed was reportedly CIA and coordinated arming them. I also heard they were really in a CIA compound too. Something is very strange about us even working with these kind of people. It makes me wonder if AQ, originally created by the CIA, may be on the payroll. Ya' know the way MEK is in Iran. I know we have to work with undesirables at time, but we're supposed to be in a WoT right now. Some of these things do not add up.
The other thing is Reagan took full responsibility for what happened in Beirut admitting it was a big mistake to put our troops in the middle of that conflict. He didn't cover it up. If you read his autobio he says he feels it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Really though, that was a peacekeeping mission, not workin' with the enemy.
Plus the Democrats went after RR for Iran-Contra.
Good points, but I think you are confusing whether I think there should have been extensive criticism or assumptions of treachery and deception when Reagan was CINC. Yes, they eventually went after him for Iran-Contra, but long after those attacks occurred. I don't remember any outcry or even any mention of criticism regarding security during that time. Do you really think if our embassy was struck twice (and a military barracks in between that time) over a period of less that two years now that the response from Republicans would be similar?
I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate, something happened that shouldn't have happened. This shouldn't be a political witch hunt at this point.