the issue to this point has been "why did obama stand down the troops?"
the obama administration has said, "we didn't tell anyone to stand down."
with the advancement of this one piece of information about the "cross border authority" being required from the president of the united states before american troops have "authority" to go into a country, the issue is defined properly, and defined as it should have been in the first place.
and that is, knowing what he knew when he knew it, ... , e.g., knowing that our embassy, embassy staff and ambassador were taking incoming small arms fire, ... , why did he not send the marines in instantly?
the consular grounds are american territory under international law. our ambassador, the embassy staff, and those few security personnel who were there were no different than troops manning a radar station on adak island, in the aleutians.
when attacked, they should have been defended with overwhelming force.
instantly. there should have been absolutely no hesitation ordering troops in.
now, instead of arguing over a "stand down" order or orders that never came, we can argue over the proper point, and that is, the failure of an american president to defend america, american lives, and american soil.
the failure to do so is inexcusable.
the issue is squarely where it belongs. the president now has to defend, instead of hiding behind semantics.
john jay @ 11.02.1948