Just think of the military posture that Obama's Administration has set up in the operation of these Embassies in Islamic countries. The Marines assigned to certain of these embassies, at least the one in Cairo, Egypt, were under standing order to not have ammunition for their weapons. That is a total derogation of duty and responsibility by the person issuing such orders. And that person, being an Ambassador chosen by Obama, is the person who gave that order in Cairo. The excuse for Obama was that the Ambassadors are free to give such orders if they choose. That goes right back to the Commander in Chief and his increasingly obvious disdain for and distrust of the U. S. Military personnel.
When, in Vietnam, I located Viet Cong carrying rockets into position to shoot at us during the night, and was forbidden to put air strikes in on them, "for political reasons," I considered the ones who gave those orders from Washington to be either inept or traitors. There I sat, looking down on the enemy, setting up an attack on me and my comrades, but helpless to react with force. Later, during the inevitable rocket attacks that night by the VC, I faulted the traitors who gave that order. Therefore, I fault Barack Obama, for failure in his duty as Commander in Chief. This is not the first such event of similar nature. His rules of engagement for the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are equally traitorous. No Commander in Chief should be allowed to force those under his command to be unarmed and therefore, unable to respond to attacks upon themselves and those they are charged to protect. I'm convinced that the reason they are not allowed to defend themselves is that Obama fears some cowardly Islamic Terrorist might be hurt or killed, and he would then have to apologize to the Islamists for the death of one of the Brotherhood.
Is Obama so unaware of what is happening about him that he doesn't understand that these are attacks on United States soil? Our Embassies are sovereign. An attack upon them should be treated as the act of war that it is. Those terrorists, who scale the walls of the Embassies, tear down the American Flag and burn it, set our embassies afire and damage the property, might as well be doing that same thing at the White House, the Pentagon or the United States Capitol. But, our Commander in Chief cannot recognize them as acts of war. Those aren't riots. They are planned military operations against the United States of America. He has not even been able to bring himself to even say the word, "terrorist," in describing those who maimed and murdered his Ambassador in Libya. It took a week for his Secretary of State Clinton to admit it was terror. Then she came out with a real gem, despite the fact that her Ambassador had been killed along with members of his staff. She said "We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be." Distasteful? Oh, my! Now they are "distasteful bumps in the road." It would also help if Madame Secretary understood that those are "terrorists," not individual citizens.
The next time there are people killed in the line of duty, serving and protecting the United States, I will advise that our Commander in Chief Obama refer to them as "heroes" or "heroines" or "patriots," not "bumps in the road." The President is not on such a high, unapproachable unquestionable plane that the deaths of American public servants at the hands of terrorists are merely a presidential inconvenience. Yet, this President has taken unto himself just such a role. But then he reacted to the attack on the USS Cole in the same way. Why should I expect otherwise?
© Colonel Curtis D. Dale, PhD USAF (Ret), SEPTEMBER 2012, Parker, Colorado