Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

According to Report, Benghazi was preventable.


ABQCOWBOY

Recommended Posts

But who really cares right?

 

Also according to the report, there was no cover up at all, there was no way an air strike could have helped, its still unclear if it was al qaeda or a spontaneous attack, meaning what Susan Rice said on the talk shows might still turn out to be right, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with any of this, Larry Stevens twice turned down offerings of military personnel, and other important facts.

 

Yes, a very sad and unfortunate thing happened, and in hindsight it could have been prevented.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very skeptical about the report myself.  I have a hard time believing that there was no responsibility on the part of Hillary as she was the head of the State Department at the time.  Regardless, I agree with your last statement.  Indeed it was, very unfortunate and in hindsight, I think we all need to reevaluate how this Country treats such matters in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very skeptical about the report myself.  I have a hard time believing that there was no responsibility on the part of Hillary as she was the head of the State Department at the time.  Regardless, I agree with your last statement.  Indeed it was, very unfortunate and in hindsight, I think we all need to reevaluate how this Country treats such matters in future.

 

Holy ****, really?

 

So, the whole bipartisan report is crap, but you posted a link to it so you could blame Hillary a little more?  Jeebus man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy ****, really?

 

So, the whole bipartisan report is crap, but you posted a link to it so you could blame Hillary a little more?  Jeebus man.

 

No, not at all.  It is no secret that I have held to the fact that I do believe the State Department held a great deal of responsibility for this but having said that, I think the report came to some conclusions that I personally don't agree with.

 

I posted the report because, well, the thread is about the report but if you wish to view it in the light you have, that is OK with me.  I imagine every person will evaluate the events and come to their own conclusions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked at it and some summaries online. Appears that even in a bipartisan report, they still debunked a lot of the stuff that was flying around out there. No stand down order, The role (or no role) that Clinton played, what's going on, who asked for what when, and who turned down what when. 

 

Basically the moral seems to be that there was no cover up. It was a crappy situation that should be studied and used to avoid letting it happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked at it and some summaries online. Appears that even in a bipartisan report, they still debunked a lot of the stuff that was flying around out there. No stand down order, The role (or no role) that Clinton played, what's going on, who asked for what when, and who turned down what when. 

 

Basically the moral seems to be that there was no cover up. It was a crappy situation that should be studied and used to avoid letting it happen again.

 

And I think from that conclusion, you'll realize what Benghazi was truly all about: a political stunt by the right to bash the democrats over the head with and milk for as much fabricated outrage as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think from that conclusion, you'll realize what Benghazi was truly all about: a political stunt by the right to bash the democrats over the head with and milk for as much fabricated outrage as possible. 

 

I think that the Right did use this as a political tool, but then again, I think that the Left also used this politically.  The Left flat out lied about this not being a terrorist attack during the election, claiming that it was due to an Anti Muslim Film.  It was known within hours of the attack that it was a Terrorist attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the Right did use this as a political tool, but then again, I think that the Left also used this politically.  The Left flat out lied about this not being a terrorist attack during the election, claiming that it was due to an Anti Muslim Film.  It was known within hours of the attack that it was a Terrorist attack.

 

As I stated above, the report finds that the intelligence community still has conflicted information on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated above, the report finds that the intelligence community still has conflicted information on this.

 

 

Part of the reason I'm skeptical about the report is the statement that says the Ambassador refused help.  I believe that ABC had e-mail (s) that specifically outlined the refusal, from the State Department, to provide additional security help to the security detail in Benghazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the Right did use this as a political tool, but then again, I think that the Left also used this politically.  The Left flat out lied about this not being a terrorist attack during the election, claiming that it was due to an Anti Muslim Film.  It was known within hours of the attack that it was a Terrorist attack.

 

You are still sticking with that even though the report says nothing of the sort.

 

Why am I not surprised?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a clip on TV today showed from the Senate people like McCain and Graham asking who's going to take the blame. I'm sitting here thinking.....why aren't they asking "What are we doing to prevent this from happening again?". Maybe that's just me...but seems like common sense. The folks who refuse to take blame for getting nothing done on a insane salary are the same people who want to hunt for a trophy and mount it on their wall? Brutal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the reason I'm skeptical about the report is the statement that says the Ambassador refused help.  I believe that ABC had e-mail (s) that specifically outlined the refusal, from the State Department, to provide additional security help to the security detail in Benghazi.

 

If you were a friend of the ambassador who had spoken to him in the relevant time frame, your willful refusal to accept the findings of fact might make sense.  Actually, if you can demonstrate any personal knowledge of what happened that night at all, I might give the trolling wanderings of your mind some degree of credibility.  But since you have absolutely no reason to disagree with the investigative committee's report, I'm just going to stop bothering with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still sticking with that even though the report says nothing of the sort.

 

Why am I not surprised?  

 

I think it would depend on a couple of things.  One, when did the offer for additional troops come?  Two, who had authority at the time.  It would seem that the proper chain of command in such a situation would be to request aid from the State Department and not from a Military Commander.  Also, depending on when the offers were made.  Had the situation deteriorated to the point of accepting aid from somebody outside the State Department?

 

I don't know the answers to those questions.

If you were a friend of the ambassador who had spoken to him in the relevant time frame, your willful refusal to accept the findings of fact might make sense.  Actually, if you can demonstrate any personal knowledge of what happened that night at all, I might give the trolling wanderings of your mind some degree of credibility.  But since you have absolutely no reason to disagree with the investigative committee's report, I'm just going to stop bothering with this.

 

Fortunately for me, I do not require your approval.   Its much the same as you, not accepting my opinion on this matter.   The world will still continue to spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a "I've got things handled here" type of thing. That's a good question. If you felt the environment there was getting worse, you would want more support. Right?

Correct me if I'm wrong (who am I kidding, this is ES, I don't even have to be wrong), but he had ZERO security on hand in Benghazi, right? I think it's different when you're in say, Munich Germany and Libya. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong (who am I kidding, this is ES, I don't even have to be wrong), but he had ZERO security on hand in Benghazi, right? I think it's different when you're in say, Munich Germany and Libya. 

 

I just went and scanned a few sites and don't see that. I see requests for MORE. But not that there was zero. That seems unlikely. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong (who am I kidding, this is ES, I don't even have to be wrong), but he had ZERO security on hand in Benghazi, right? I think it's different when you're in say, Munich Germany and Libya.

There's a line from one of Tom Clancey's books. (No idea which one.). Mr. Clark is surveiling the Bad Guy's lair. And he observes very little security at all.

"He was thinking like a spy, for whom security means concealment and the appearance of harmlessness, rather than thinking like a soldier, for whom security means lots of people with guns, pointing outward."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...