"What difference does it make".......Hillary

[Chief Henry]

Only four dead Americans Hillary/Obama...

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

The Republican Party is broken. See: 51% popular vote for Obama.

It is broken. It has serious issues. That doesn't mean they're dead meat. Both parties have been "broken" before, but they weld themselves back together again to fight again another day.

Right now they're a mess, but 2016 is forever away in political terms.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

It is broken. It has serious issues. That doesn't mean they're dead meat. Both parties have been "broken" before, but they weld themselves back together again to fight again another day.

Right now they're a mess, but 2016 is forever away in political terms.

I have yet to see a leader in the group. There are fringe leads, but no "unifier". The party needs another Reagan...that's asking a lot.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I haven't been following the Benghazi issue especially closely. Here's the Pentagon's timeline. Where are the assets that weren't used that could've/should've been used?


http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/...ine/index.html

That theater is literally flooded with military assets that could have arrived on scene well within that seven hour timeline. As I recall, units were on standby in Sigonella but waited for a command to act. The command never came. There were also significant assets around Benghazi that could have been used for crowd control. An unarmed drone was sent in instead.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That theater is literally flooded with military assets that could have arrived on scene well within that seven hour timeline. As I recall, units were on standby in Sigonella but waited for a command to act. The command never came. There were also significant assets around Benghazi that could have been used for crowd control. An unarmed drone was sent in instead.

Looking it up, there appear to be unsourced reports/allegations which are denied by the CIA and Pentagon. I haven't seen anything concrete. SecDef Panetta said that they didn't send anyone in because they were trying to have a much better idea of what the heck was going on, rather than sending in a bunch of troops into an uncertain situation.

[stonedstooge]

Hillary accepts the blame but rejects any fault because she was 'not informed'

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Looking it up, there appear to be unsourced reports/allegations which are denied by the CIA and Pentagon. I haven't seen anything concrete. SecDef Panetta said that they didn't send anyone in because they were trying to have a much better idea of what the heck was going on, rather than sending in a bunch of troops into an uncertain situation.

There is a lot of info in one of the giant Benghazi threads. SecDef made that claim (by his words) on the advice of his direct subordinate, but his subordinate did not back him up on that. Some of the confusion arises because there are two issues with support. There was a discussion about whether the local CIA called for support from the State Dept, and whether that request was denied. There is another issue about whether State worked with Defense to coordinate support, and the discussion between State and Defense about the logistics of that support from Defense. From going over the reports, my opinion is that State was badly undermanned, outgunned and unprepared for the situation. There were multiple Defense assets readily available. One of the issues surrounding the lack of reaction by Defense is the adamant viewpoint expressed by State that this was a mob protest spurred on by a derogatory YouTube video rather than a continually escalating terrorist operation. This lie (it was admitted by State as an intentional lie) was used to downplay the State's responsibility to express the potentially dangerous nature of the situation, and to request aid from Defense both prior to and during the incident.

[listopencil]

Rand Paul is correct in calling this a failure of leadership.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by listopencil

There is a lot of info in one of the giant Benghazi threads. SecDef made that claim (by his words) on the advice of his direct subordinate, but his subordinate did not back him up on that. Some of the confusion arises because there are two issues with support. There was a discussion about whether the local CIA called for support from the State Dept, and whether that request was denied. There is another issue about whether State worked with Defense to coordinate support, and the discussion between State and Defense about the logistics of that support from Defense. From going over the reports, my opinion is that State was badly undermanned, outgunned and unprepared for the situation. There were multiple Defense assets readily available. One of the issues surrounding the lack of reaction by Defense is the adamant viewpoint expressed by State that this was a mob protest spurred on by a derogatory YouTube video rather than a continually escalating terrorist operation. This lie (it was admitted by State as an intentional lie) was used to downplay the State's responsibility to express the potentially dangerous nature of the situation, and to request aid from Defense both prior to and during the incident.

I paid somewhat more attention to the Rice statements and the causes of the riots than the ability to get better assets in place in a timely fashion to save lives. Don't think State has admitted it was an intentional lie, but rather a mistake based on insufficient information at the time. Maybe the story has changed there and I missed it, but I doubt it. I don't think any government official has ever admitted to lying anytime anywhere in the world, ever, so I doubt this would happen (whether it was a lie or not).

I remain confused as to what anyone thinks the Administration would get out of intentionally lying about the cause.

This seems to be more of a typical too many people involved, poor communications **** up than anything else. In other words, typical government mistakes which, unfortunately, can and do happen and can and do cost people their lives in worst case scenarios.

Obviously the Administration gets no credit, and in fact loses points on this for fumbling the whole thing, but the vitriolic outrage doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, I admit. Then again, it's probably just the typical vitriolic outrage over continuing to breathe the same air...

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Wow, that's pretty telling.

As for myself, I'm not outraged at any of them. We need to be vigilant and make sure we do the best to protect our diplomats abroad, but they're at risk in these high risk countries, it's a simple as that.

i'll bet you one thing, on 9/11 of next year, i bet there is heightened security at every foreign consulate. especially ones in jihadist country.
i think what this whole thing shows is that certain people in the admin might have been living in a self-created bubble, not taking their jobs seriously.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by nstygma

i'll bet you one thing, on 9/11 of next year, i bet there is heightened security at every foreign consulate. especially ones in jihadist country.
i think what this whole thing shows is that certain people in the admin might have been living in a self-created bubble, not taking their jobs seriously.

I would certainly think so.

As to your second paragraph -- no evidence of it that I'm aware of, and hard to understand where that conclusion comes from. Bad things do happen, and while perfection is the goal, it's not really achievable. Mistakes do get made.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I paid somewhat more attention to the Rice statements and the causes of the riots than the ability to get better assets in place in a timely fashion to save lives. Don't think State has admitted it was an intentional lie, but rather a mistake based on insufficient information at the time. Maybe the story has changed there and I missed it, but I doubt it. I don't think any government official has ever admitted to lying anytime anywhere in the world, ever, so I doubt this would happen (whether it was a lie or not).

I remain confused as to what anyone thinks the Administration would get out of intentionally lying about the cause.

This seems to be more of a typical too many people involved, poor communications **** up than anything else. In other words, typical government mistakes which, unfortunately, can and do happen and can and do cost people their lives in worst case scenarios.

Obviously the Administration gets no credit, and in fact loses points on this for fumbling the whole thing, but the vitriolic outrage doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, I admit. Then again, it's probably just the typical vitriolic outrage over continuing to breathe the same air...

Yeah, State admitted that it was an intentional lie. They said that they were trying not to give away their understanding of the situation. I found it disgusting as the entire incident played out like a horrible "comedy of errors" from the senior people in our government.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I would certainly think so.

As to your second paragraph -- no evidence of it that I'm aware of, and hard to understand where that conclusion comes from. Bad things do happen, and while perfection is the goal, it's not really achievable. Mistakes do get made.

i chose that instead of incompetence, which could certainly be the real reason. you do recall that there was pre-warning of the attack a few days in advance? the state dept said that intel was not actionable though. either way, i hope they learn from the mistakes

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

The level of butthurt on this forum if Hillary wins the presidency in 2016 will be unfathomable.

It's been a gold mine since November. Unreal the level of temper tantrums that go on here every day.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by nstygma

i chose that instead of incompetence, which could certainly be the real reason. you do recall that there was pre-warning of the attack a few days in advance? the state dept said that intel was not actionable though. either way, i hope they learn from the mistakes

Incompetence is generally the rule, though in reality there is no question that managing the massive behemoth that is the federal government is a gargantuan undertaking.

You would like to think, however, that in circumstances such as these, there would be clearcut lines of authority/communication.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by listopencil

There is a lot of info in one of the giant Benghazi threads. SecDef made that claim (by his words) on the advice of his direct subordinate, but his subordinate did not back him up on that. Some of the confusion arises because there are two issues with support. There was a discussion about whether the local CIA called for support from the State Dept, and whether that request was denied. There is another issue about whether State worked with Defense to coordinate support, and the discussion between State and Defense about the logistics of that support from Defense. From going over the reports, my opinion is that State was badly undermanned, outgunned and unprepared for the situation. There were multiple Defense assets readily available. One of the issues surrounding the lack of reaction by Defense is the adamant viewpoint expressed by State that this was a mob protest spurred on by a derogatory YouTube video rather than a continually escalating terrorist operation. This lie (it was admitted by State as an intentional lie) was used to downplay the State's responsibility to express the potentially dangerous nature of the situation, and to request aid from Defense both prior to and during the incident.

According to the investigation they found that the military didn't have assets close enough by to respond in a timely matter. Also as I have already posted the CIA was most likely to provide security.