What did Obama have against Ambassador Stevens?

It's always sad to see diplomats. Who dedicate their careers to the peaceful running of this world, be physically attacked and have their lives taken away by pure animals such as the one that attacked the embassy. Ambassador Stevens himself, as I see it, dedicated his career in the Middle East a very volatile and delicate area when it comes to transnational and domestic relations.

I do not doubt that his work was very important, whether that was Israel, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran or the Middle East in general where he served as a diplomatic representative assigned by one of the most influential nations. His work was important and cannot be degraded under any circumstances. He was experienced in the area and the local culture of the Arab world and their particularities.

We all know that the last 2 years have been most influential in the Arab community, and one of their most important times when it comes to shift in power to something different whether that is negative or positive. The Arab Spring shifted the balance in these countries, after a period of turmoil, violence, unrest and foreign interests as well as domestic ones running on the background. Libya was the forefront of these.

The fall of Colonel Gaddafi, as seen has not gguaranteedpeace in Libya, a country still trying to find balance between the victorious side and on top of that we have the royalists who seek to maintain a certain percentage of authority. Violence is still the case there on a regular basis as the country tries to settle itself on a new course. Libya was/is/will be crucial for the interests of the USA, due to its geographical location and natural resources(oil, natural gas etc) that have the possibility of affecting the market prices.

That was why everyone was so eager to drop in (NATO, Turkey etc.). Therefore I do not have any doubts that Ambassador Stevens was appointed to promote the interests of his country in the best possible manner, given his experience. I do not have any doubts that he lost his life serving his country as best as he could.

But let's examine the whole situation. It's not just Benghazi an Al Qaeda hotbed. Al Qaeda is powerful in a number of regions.

Yes Benghazi was a volatile case, but it's not the only one. And just because of this volatility a heavy US military presence n the area would not make it better in any case. It would provoke the rebels, cause a potential mistrust with the new administration of Libya (something that the States want to avoid at all times) and let's not forget that the USA largely played a role in the way this whole situation ended, something not achieved by a single ground force.

So you've got half Libya accusing you of manipulating the changes in their country and all this done without the presence of a single US ground force. What impression would this give if ground forces were introduced in a post-situation basis? Think about that.

The above events is also what make Benghazi a different situation than Baghdad or Kabul where we've got an actual military authorised presence. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton simply appointed their best man in their most important case in the region (given that Syria is a Russian influenced territory and therefore the US do not have much authority over there). Unfortunately the worst happened.

Al Qaeda stirred up the Arab Muslim world by causing fanaticism amongst this group with the excuse of a random video, created by a random person, 2 months ago before the whole "revolution" started. The effects of these were random. Few people could have thought that this whole go more wrong in Benghazi rather than in Cairo let's say or Mogadishu.

Ambassador Stevens must be appreciate by the US public for what he has done for his nation that unfortunately and quite sadly led to the loss of his life at this point. This not to be used for election purposes but for the US public to actually think of what's going on, and it's for the US public's interests to support their own nation whether it's Barack Obama or Mit Romney at the helm. Finally I must express my condolences to Ambassador Steven's family and friends.

They should always remain proud of him and his work. P. S: Over here we call such content a "video".

I'm not sure Hillary can stall her "internal investigation" until after the election. Rumors abound; everything from we sent a homosexual Ambassador (Stevens) to a Muslim country, to he was CIA looking for where the American weapons are which we gave the rebels. The other 3 guys killed there were Navy Seals (translation: CIA).

Everyone is lying. Sometimes in the interests of National Security one has to. Sometimes it's a coverup for political reasons.

Sometimes it's an evil plot. "All I got was a little dog...." -Nixon.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.