More time has been spent investigating Benghazi than was spent on the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and Katrina. Anyone who thinks that the Benghazi investigation was anything other but a farce isn't actually thinking. It was nothing but a gross act of partisanship by the GOP to tarnish Hillary. If they had spent half of the time they did on Benghazi focusing on the chaos that resulted from the ousting of Qadafi, there might have been a significant change in US Middle East policy that would have made Hillary untenable even to the Democratic Party establishment. But the GOP is too busy trying to find the evil conspiracies to notice the obvious (though likely unintentional) foreign policy mistakes that actually occurred.
Dr. Anne Stevens, the sister of Ambassador Chris Stevens, has served as a family spokesperson since his death. … “It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted.” “I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had.“
Yes, too much time was spent on it. Partially true...but given you say 'anything other than a farce' means this is false. It certainly did have a political purpose (as any and all such congressional investigations do), but there were definitely things deserving of investigation. Fair point, but easily applies the other way, although surely to a lesser degree. The Dems handling of this whole thing just led to continued questions. Perhaps that was intentional, but it seemed to show continued bumbling about...making your statement more true, possibly.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I won't try to disuade you from it. But I wonder how you square this opinion with those of the men on the ground that night and the opinion of some of the family members who lost loved ones that night? They certainly don't seem to hold your opinion this was nothing but a political witch hunt. To be specific, I'm referring to: Security Contractors: (i.e. former SEALS, Rangers) Mark Geist John Tiegen Kris Paronto Family members: Patricia Smith (Sean Smith's mother) Charles Woods (Tyrone Wood's father)
One good one. The question is how many it takes to get that. That said, hopefully there won't be any more. How many do you think there should be when the US is attacked, in a known war zone, has zero response, many officials lie about what happened, it turns out requests for enhanced security were made numerous times, and so on?
Not privy to all of the facts, most notably, the information that DoD had regarding the forces they had available, the force necessary to reasonably expect a successful outcome, and the logistics required to move that force into Benghazi during an ongoing uprising. I don't take them seriously at all. While I am sorry for their loss, the fact that the administration didn't acknowledge that Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack for a week after the event just doesn't rise to the level of warranting an investigation. We often don't get full information about national security matters for years after an event, b****ing that the administration "lied" for a week just seems completely asinine. That's really the problem. The only thing that is actually accurate about the Republican's demised equine is the fact that the administration kept up the "it's about a video" narrative for a week. Given the pure volume and impact of lies told by the previous administration, it gives Benghazi a "boy who cried wolf" feel, particularly given how often and loudly the GOP has cried wolf throughout Obama's presidency.
Don't get me wrong, every single life is precious, but why are we so concerned with the death of 4 Americans while 4,000+ Americans died in a bogus Iraq war with hundreds of thousands of people coming back maimed or with PTSD. That's not even to mention the innocent Iraqis killed during the invasion. Clinton admitted more should have been done and it is a tragedy. But some people are acting like Clinton herself fired the mortars. "Murder". Really? I can't stand Clinton, but she's right, it's time to move on.
how many investigations should we have had for 9/11? how come when bush was called to testify he would only do it if cheney was sitting next to him the whole time and the whole conversation was off the record and limited to one hour? thousands and thousands of gun deaths a year in this country and the NRA and their republican puppets block funding for simply studying causes of gun violence. this whole benhazi investigation was nothing but a partisan witch-hunt and everyone who is not a republican shill knows it. republicans wasted time and tax payer dollars for nothing...real fiscal conservatives there! for the record, i hate hillary clinton and would never give her my vote.
Same as above, and in any case calling for an investigation: 1 good one. The first part is indeed something to question. The latter is because much of what would be discussed was classified, and it's disclosure would lead to material degradation of our security. Fair point, but the answer is because the NRA would be concerned about how those studies would be performed, and what would happen with the potentially questionable conclusions from them. I think it often was politically driven, but that doesn't mean the situation didn't call for an investigation...and that much of that investigation would involve looking at various factors within the administration in charge at the time. This is the problem with Congressional investigations...they usually are far too politically motivated. She also put out false narratives around the incident, and continued to do so for years afterward. At best, she didn't do much to calm any concerns about what occurred. My recollection is that there was a Rapid Reaction Force, I believe which switched from a different one that very night, and there were numerous communication breakdowns which led to it not being activated until it was too late. Which is a perfect example of why an investigation into what happened (or didn't happen) and why was very important, and didn't need to have a political bent. I think a real look into why nothing more was done to beef up security is very called for, and again not necessarily having to do with pointing fingers back at Hillary or anyone else. Totally get there are far more requests than there are budget for them. BUT you would think a location like Benghazi, in a known hotspot, where other embassies had simply just left, would get top priority. Surely, the United States of America had funding to beef up security at a single location if it desired to do so. So, why wasn't anything done here? Maybe it just fell through the cracks. If so, the cracks need to be closed up. Maybe it was decided not to...if so, why? I point this out because I could see, given other actions, that the administration may have decided not to. If that was the case, it is certainly worthy of being looked into to.
One apolitical investigation would have been great, but given the Republican majority in Congress, nothing about the investigation was apolitical. This statement answers the rest of the questions asked below. Both could be the case. Benghazi might have been a top priority after all the other "known hotspot" were covered, but there were far more requests than budget for them. Surely, we could have. Unfortunately, the ones holding the purse strings were more interested in making Clinton and Obama look bad. Maybe the cracks were created specifically for political purposes, perhaps the GOP cut the embassy security budget in the hopes that something like this would happen so they could try and use it as a cudgel in the 2012 or 2016 election. This one I can answer, because DoD decided they couldn't get an appropriate force to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome during an ongoing uprising. No, this one you made up in your head. "The administration" didn't decide a thing, DoD decided they couldn't get an appropriate force to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome during an ongoing uprising. It has been, extensively, without finding any wrongdoing. There are plenty of lessons to be learned, one of which is DON'T CUT SECURITY FUNDING UNLESS YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL RISKS.
Just imagine the liberal response if a Republican let four Americans die by doing absolutely nothing. It leaves me SMH.
Yeah, I remember when liberals conducted 7 investigations into George Bush for his handling of 9/11, not finding Bin Laden, and launching a war in Iraq on false pretences. Not to mention the 7 investigations into George Bush appointing one of his buddies, a former horse trainer, as the head of FEMA and telling everyone Brownie was doing a hell of a job while people were dying at the Superdome. It's mind blowing how many actual disasters occurred under Bush that you all seem to forget in favor of the faux scandals that are propped up for Obama. I mean it's just freaking nuts.
If the funding to provide proper security wasn't available, then why not pull everyone out? Especially on 9/11. Other countries had pulled their people out. It's frustrating that people died and everyone wants to point fingers to anyone but themselves. In the future, if Congress doesn't give the State Dept the money they feel they need to keep people safe, then I hope they just bring people home. I know that someone serving in some of these countries can never be 100% safe. But, these people seemed to be in a very dangerous part of the world at a very dangerous time. And then the way the Obama team handled this whole thing over the next several days just stinks to high heaven. But, it's all over now. Hopefully our Gov't has learned from its mistakes.
For a major news network to publish this information without adequate proof is grounds for a major lawsuit. THIS may be a HUGE and F'd up story if true... http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/1...-us-diplomats-in-2012-attack-sources-say.html
