I wonder if this article from March 29, 2011 has anything to do with the terrorist attack in Libya:
Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country.
As Libya’s opposition leaders called for the international community to arm them, the secretary of state indicated that the US was considering whether to meet their demands when she talked of a “work in progress”.
The US indicated on Monday night that it had not ruled out arming the rebels, though it was assumed this would take some time because of a UN arms embargo which applies to all sides in Libya.
But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: “It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time.”
It’s like Fast and Furious all over again.
Dead on. My thought exactly. A whole lot more to this nasty business
There is a lot more to this story that Obama doesn’t want to come out until after November 6th.
Sure! why not arm the rebels so they can kill us later. I fear we are already making the same mistake in Syria; although Obama and Hilary won’t admit it. Stories are floating that Ambassado Stebens, in Libya was involved in moving arms to Syria via Turkey. Plausable, in my opinion.
Yep. We are arming terrorists in Libya and Syria. We are arming drug kingpins in Mexico. Yet, if you ask Obama or Clinton about the 2nd Amendment, they say ‘it depends’ or “you don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.”