If my memory serves me correctly, the U.S. marines in Lebanon under Ronald Reagan weren't allowed to have their weapons loaded while guarding the marine barracks. This allowed the truck bomber the ability to get past the guards and detonate the explosives at the barracks, with the resultant loss of life.
My questions are: 1. What were the marines doing in Lebanon in the first place? and, 2. What are we doing in Libya and Egypt in the first place?
H. Clinton is said to have been taken aback by the Libyan attack on the U.S. embassy and the murder of the four U.S. citizens. How could those people do this to US after all the United States has done for them to free them from a brutal, dictatorial regime? How naive!
It should be well-known from our experience in Afghanistan over the decades that Islamic loyalty is opportunistic and not set in stone. When the U.S. helped the Afghanis fight off the Soviet Union, the Afghanis were willing to embrace the U.S. as an ally to defeat and expel the Soviets. Just as soon as that was accomplished, the Afghanis and Islamic world turned on the U.S.
The same thing has happened in Egypt and Libya that happened in Afghanistan. U.S. support was accepted to accomplish Caliphate Islam's objective to overthrow Mubarak and Khaddafi. Just as soon as those U.S.-backed dictators were removed as obstacles, the revolutionaries had no further use for the U.S., and have now turned on their useful idiot ally in the next phase of their plan: expel the U.S. presence from the Middle East.
Using an enemy as an ally and then turning on that enemy-ally once a common objective has been accomplished is an historic Islamic practice. That is what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets were expelled, and that is what is happening in Egypt and Libya now. That H. Clinton was shocked and couldn't foresee what would happen once the U.S. had helped the Islamists remove Mubarak and Khadaffi is evidence enough of her incompetence and ignorance about the Middle East. She should resign at once.