If I remember correctly, the Ambassador had sent warnings in August 2012 to the
State Department warning of pending problems with security. His was shoved
aside, it appears as he went to the weakest defensive position in Benghazi
instead of staying in Tripoli on a very significant day, 9/11. That nation and
surrounding nations were celebrating the fall of our citizens from the attack in
2001 against our people in the United States of America. The
Ambassador's warning wasn't heeded in August and for some reason went
to Benghazi that fateful day. The election campaigning for the President and
his high level staff's jobs was going on in August to November. The
President is in charge of the Department of State and the Intelligence
communities, including the CIA. These Departments and Agency
communities are run by people who are accountable for their and our people.It is quite telling when the Democratic run Senate puts out this kind of
report. However, there are political leanings in the report and protection for
those in power. David Petreaus made his own investigation and sort of fell out
of power due to his long held position of a couple of months.
But what difference does it make? --Hillary ClintonAfter
all, criminal incompetence on the part of the State Department on her watch
doesn't matter, right?
She has to live with that comment during her run for the Presidency in 2016. To
show indifference to her Ambassador and employees in the Department of State
sends a message to the people about her 3 a.m. call processes. People
don't hold our diplomats and elected officials to answer for their
decisions. The last election came too soon as the political processes will
always protect the ones in power. There would have been significant changes if
President Obama had been honest in his responses. Instead, he let other people
do the talking for him and Hillary. Mrs. Rice got her improved status but at
what cost?We are not in a better position today in our country or
with the relationships with other countries around the world. We even sent our
Vice-President to Israel for PM and General Sharon's funeral. The
President is still keeping the current PM of Israel in the waiting room. That
is not a warm feeling for one of our allies but they are used to that kind of
isn't barry over the state department? he guy is really the teflon man
And just who was the head of the State Department when this occurred? What
hypocrisy for Democrats to get all inflamed about a delay crossing a bridge and
when people are killed overseas due to incompetence, it's no big deal.
"What does it matter now, anyway?"
criticize BUSH and blame BUSH all you want but if BUSH were President (today or
during Benghazi)there would be four Americans that would still be alive today!!
This has got to be the death knell for Hilary's run for the Presidency in
2016. If voters ignore this then we again have a nation of uninformed voters
who ignore what is taking place.
The Democrat majority in senate investigates and concludes that Hillary is
responsible and that it DOES matter.
CougarBlueWe had an uninformed majority of voters in the last election.
Could be the same next time.
Nothing new in this report and what BO and his administration have concurred
with for months. The State Department, Intelligence and the embassy itself all
played a role in the tragedy. Will this report finally quiet the conservative
witch hunters?Truth-Seriously, if Bush were President this would not
have happened? How can you forget the 3,000 deaths of innocent Americans, on our
soil, or the 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers
who died because of his incompetence?
" if BUSH were President (today or during Benghazi)there would be four
Americans that would still be alive today!!"How many Americans
died in Embassy and Consulate attacks in the years prior to the Obama
presidency?Any death is tragic, but it is ludicrous to say that Bush
would have prevented it. His record of protecting oversees Americans was hardly
stellar.I wish these hearings and investigations focused more on
preventing future deaths than finding a partisan target. Of course these deaths
were preventable.And in hindsight, things would have been done
differently and 4 people would be alive today. I am quite certain that Pres
Bush would say the same thing concerning those killed on his watch.But, let me guess. That was completely different, right?Yes,
mistakes were made.
JoeBlow said, "How many Americans died in Embassy and Consulate attacks in
the years prior to the Obama presidency?" The issue is all the lies we were
told about Benghazi, the stonewalling, the denials, calling it a phony scandal,
the cover-ups by Obama and Hillary right before the election to make voters
believe Obama had Al Qaida on the run, as he boasted! That's the
difference! Obama and Hillary have been caught in another of their many lies!
But don't worry Joe, the liberal main stream media will not cover this and
the rest of America is asleep! The news media is much more worried about a silly
traffic jam in New Jersey where no one died and no one lied!
Pure partisan politics as usual.
Not all deaths are tragic, just ask the Canadian sniper who "popped and
dropped" a terrorist from 1.5 miles away
After EVERY scandal and disaster on his watch, including this one, Obama has
promised, " A thorough investigation and those who are responsible will be
held accountable." No investigation has followed and no one has ever been
held accountable. Obama has not kept ONE promise he made except one:
"Fundamentally transform America". That is the only promise Obama has
EVER kept. I don't even recognize my country anymore and it is still
declining in every way a country can decline! And all we get from Obama is lies,
cover-ups, stonewalling and blaming Bush and the GOP!
Why would we have a handful of people manning an embassy anyway? Do we really
rely on rogue gangs to protect our embassies? That is a huge amount of
incompetence, that goes from the top-down, starting with the president.If we had 10 more heavily armed military personnel, with support staff/drones
etc at their disposal. Either the attack would have been avoided, or we would
have more dead alqueda minions. Instead we have leadership ignoring the
ambassadors request for more support or close the embassy altogether. We have
leadership that ignored the call. We have leadership that ordered troops to
stand down several times. We had leadership in comfy homes telling Navy Seals
that their assessment is wrong, while they the sells had RPGs fired at them. We
only had a drone with video flying by the embassy to video the death of our
ambassador. Really? We had a safe room that wasn't that safe. We had
support staff that was told to stand down.But,Hillary likeher
husband wittingly lecturesus."What difference does it make?!" They are
not going to let their idiocy getin their way to become rulers over us,because
of a few American lives
Whatever else this Senate report means, it is apparent that NOTHING Obama or
Hillary says should be trusted! They have destroyed all their credibility with
anyone who thinks our government leaders must be honest, which clearly they have
proven they are not!
If the situation was reversed with Obama and Hillary being Republicans (heaven
forbid), this report would've had the media crucifying them... which it
obviously will not do, since they are actually liberal Democrats. Instead,
the media is busy hammering daily on potential Republican candidates who might
challenge Hillary in the next presidential election... all over issues far less
important. And so the double standard continues...
@ FT and JoeBlow:What does this article or this issue have to do
with former president Bush? I'm quite certain he had been out of office for
years before this incident happened. Whether or not something similar
would've happened under his watch is totally irrelevant and purely
conjecture by anyone saying such things. Perhaps it's just another sorry
attempt to deflect the blame from where it belongs... to those who were actually
in charge when this happened.So FT... where do you come up with your
number that "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and American soldiers
were killed" due to former president Bush's incompetence?That number is much higher than any I've ever read or heard reported
before. So please justify and explain precisely where you came up with that
number. Or is it just another exaggeration from the left to deflect from the
real issue about the incompetence of the present administration... which seems
much more likely, again. And if you can't objectively justify
your statement, it will certainly make it much more difficult to believe
anything else you write here in these posts.
Tators,Follow the thread. I was responding to an uninformed poster
who claimed that this would not have happened under Bush.Look,
Benghazi highlighted mistakes. Obviously things would have been handled
differently in hindsight. That is the real issue here.One can fault
Obama for furthering the "video" story. I get that.But,
that was all after the fact. So, again. Where is the scandal.Either it was incompetence, which occurred prior to the attack and
deaths, or it was in the aftermath.Obamas "lies" didn't
get anyone killed. Now the focus seems to be more on Clinton. Partisan
perhaps?Here is another prediction.I predict that in the
next 2 years, an American in an embassy or consulate will be killed.Unfortunately, it is not uncommon.This will forever be known as
Benghazi. How many of the previous attacks can you name without use of google?
I am sick of everything being viewed through partisan glasses.