Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Benghazi - Is what happened important or not?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Quote:The question stands. Care to address it? Why are the same people who are crucifying Hillary not demanding the members of the previous administration be out through a Spanish inquisition of their own? That's not condoning what Hillary did. It's saying that you can't tell me that there was nothing wrong with Bush's actions while wanting to lynch Hillary and expect me to take you seriously. Bush let 3,000 Americans die so he could justify ordering the deaths of many thousands more.
 

No, I have literally no interest in going down any sort of rabbit hole right now. The Pistons play tonight, the GOP debate is tonight, and American Horror Story is on.

 

Way to take the veil off, though.
When people look back at history, especially relatively "recent" history (within the last 20 years) they need to understand that the world wasn't like it is today.  There was no Wikipedia to look things up, no google, no real cell phone usage, etc.  Heck, 20 years ago you had an "awesome" internet connection if you were dialing up with a 56k modem.

 

Most intelligence was gained either through verbal communication or "snail mail".

 

Fast-forward to the mid-to-late 2000's and look at how information is passed.  It's all digital and on the WWW.  If anyone thinks that any country is naive or ignorant regarding the internet, they are sadly mistaken.

 

The State Department and specifically Hillary Clinton had more than enough information to either avoid or quell what happened in Benghazi.  When they failed, they lied about it.  That is a fact.

Quote:No, I have literally no interest in going down any sort of rabbit hole right now. The Pistons play tonight, the GOP debate is tonight, and American Horror Story is on.


Way to take the veil off, though.


Aren't those all the same thing?
Quote:When people look back at history, especially relatively "recent" history (within the last 20 years) they need to understand that the world wasn't like it is today.  There was no Wikipedia to look things up, no google, no real cell phone usage, etc.  Heck, 20 years ago you had an "awesome" internet connection if you were dialing up with a 56k modem.

 

Most intelligence was gained either through verbal communication or "snail mail".

 

Fast-forward to the mid-to-late 2000's and look at how information is passed.  It's all digital and on the WWW.  If anyone thinks that any country is naive or ignorant regarding the internet, they are sadly mistaken.

 

The State Department and specifically Hillary Clinton had more than enough information to either avoid or quell what happened in Benghazi.  When they failed, they lied about it.  That is a fact.
Internet good, Hillary at fault.

 

Internet bad, Bush gets a pass.

 

Got it. 
Quote:Bush let 3,000 Americans die so he could justify ordering the deaths of many thousands more.
 

Rolleyes
Quote:The State Department and specifically Hillary Clinton had more than enough information to either avoid or quell what happened in Benghazi. When they failed, they lied about it. That is a fact.


You can say they had enough information to avoid or quell an attack all you like. It still doesn't make it a fact.


What is the end game of letting these people die if it could have been avoided? What was the nearest exit strategy that could have been employed which she or others neglected? Was there a battalion of troops right around the corner just waiting on the word to engage? No. There wasn't.
Quote:You can say they had enough information to avoid or quell an attack all you like. It still doesn't make it a fact.


What is the end game of letting these people die if it could have been avoided? What was the nearest exit strategy that could have been employed which she or others neglected? Was there a battalion of troops right around the corner just waiting on the word to engage? No. There wasn't.
 

There were enough troops stationed in Malta who could have arrived in time to save lives even were they not dispatched until after the attack started.


 

That's not Hillary's fault though. Her fault was propagating the lie about the video being the cause of the attack.


 

Her biggest crime is selling US policy for personal gain in the form of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. However, there's no smoking gun to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened although it's obvious that's what she did.


 

But none of this matters. Since she's a Dem, she can get away with just about anything and still end up as the nominee for Prez. Compare that to Herman Cain who was dumped based on mere rumors of infidelity.

Quote:I think this is yet another example of how the right wing exists in its own bubble and feeds itself what it wants to hear.   And as a result, when things don't happen that they think should logically happen, they get really angry about it.   In this case, the right wing media has been feeding their minions a bunch of stuff about how they have uncovered some sort of smoking gun that disqualifies Hillary Clinton from the Presidency and  might actually send her to jail.   When she winds up not going to jail and gets elected President, they will be even more angry than ever.  

 

Wake up.   People in high office make mistakes all the time that get people killed.  And then they try to spin their way out of it to avoid political damage.  It happens multiple times in every administration, Republican and Democrat.  
 

What was your point? It's OK to be incompetent and a liar? If so, then you need to wake up and realize that it shouldn't be acceptable. It may be OK with you, but it isn't OK with me. While I don't have the misguided belief that I can somehow change it, it doesn't make me "right wing" to disagree with the job performance of a Democrat. 

 

Clinton grossly under-performed in her duties and someone died as a result. That alone, while disturbing, isn't entire problem here. She lied and has mislead Congress while also obstructing their investigations. So, please, tell me how and why it is that I have the wrong point-of-view here because you haven't done it yet.

This is getting out early ridiculous. There were six hundred separate and specific request by the Ambassador to reinforce security at the very location that the al-qaeda like groups advertised they would attack. The simple fact that Sydney Blumenthal had a direct line and of communication to the sitting Secretary of State and the ambassador in a forward operating theater of operations in under a policy that she herself advocated for didn't have the same access as a shame before everything this country stands for. The idea that you would compare that to a general warning in August of 2000 and one in a specific threat that was outlined 600 times by the sitting ambassador in Benghazi Libya is utterly intellectually dishonest. And in the case of 9/11 there was no cover up there was a full and thorough investigation to determine who the perpetrators were where are they were trained and an adequate an appropriate response was it mediately made it out. The idea that anyone could defend using a YouTube video as a scapegoat to try and prop up both the policy in Libya and the idea that al Kaida was decimated under this administration is demonstrative of the level of partisan bias that is poisoning the political system that we live in today.
TJBender has officially become a liberal troll. Not sure why.

Quote:TJBender has officially become a liberal troll. Not sure why.
I'm actually holding back on my thoughts about 9/11. That event is why I became as militant about my rights as I am.
Please. Speak more about that.
Quote:You can say they had enough information to avoid or quell an attack all you like. It still doesn't make it a fact.


What is the end game of letting these people die if it could have been avoided? What was the nearest exit strategy that could have been employed which she or others neglected? Was there a battalion of troops right around the corner just waiting on the word to engage? No. There wasn't.
 

FACT

In 2011, al-Qaeda was known to be in Tripoli to exploit Libya’s unsettled status and to try to obtain some of the thousands of missing MANPADS (man portable air-defense systems): shoulder-fired missiles seized by rebel forces that stormed Qaddafi government bases. U.S. Ambassador Cretz realized there were seriously dangerous tensions among anti-Qaddafi factions: Islamists and secularists. “I think there is a genuine cause to be concerned that things could go wrong,” he told reporters.

 

FACT

Operation Papa Noel, a major terrorist plot targeting foreign diplomatic missions in Libya, was thwarted in December of 2011. Pro-Qaddafi elements had planned to launch a sophisticated attack on foreign diplomatic missions and oil fields in Libya. Later, the written emergency-evacuation plan for the U.S. mission in Benghazi warned, “the majority of Loyalist insurgents tasked with carrying out this plan are still active and free in Benghazi” and “Islamic terrorist elements do exist in this area of the country, and have been reported by open sources to be gaining operational capability.”

 

FACT

In an online posting in 2012, al-Qaeda stated its intent to attack the Red Cross, the British
, and then the Americans in Benghazi
. The goals were accomplished in order.

 

FACT

April 10, 2012: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy traveling in Benghazi carrying United Nations envoy Ian Martin.

 

FACT

May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) hits the Benghazi offices of the International Red Cross
and the agency decides to pull out.

 

FACT

June 6, 2012: An improvised explosive device detonated just outside the Benghazi consulate compound.

 

FACT

June 11, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hit a convoy carrying the British ambassador in Benghazi
. The U.K. pulled out of Benghazi.

 

FACT

2012: There was an al-Qaeda demonstration right smack in the middle of Benghazi. “They had a parade down the streets. They raised their flag on one of the county buildings,” says one observer.

 

Here is the final FACT regarding this.

Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

 

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

 

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

 

11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)

 

I can post more that clearly shows how she and other administration officials clearly lied about the whole thing.  These are all facts that are freely available for those who choose to find out the truth.
Quote:I'm actually holding back on my thoughts about 9/11. That event is why I became as militant about my rights as I am.
 

You a truther?

 

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in?
Quote:You a truther?


What other conspiracy theories do you believe in?
Just that there's a lot more to 9/11 than we'll ever be told.


Well, that and that the NFL has it out for the Jaguars :p
Quote:FACT

In 2011, al-Qaeda was known to be in Tripoli to exploit Libya’s unsettled status and to try to obtain some of the thousands of missing MANPADS (man portable air-defense systems): shoulder-fired missiles seized by rebel forces that stormed Qaddafi government bases. U.S. Ambassador Cretz realized there were seriously dangerous tensions among anti-Qaddafi factions: Islamists and secularists. “I think there is a genuine cause to be concerned that things could go wrong,” he told reporters.

FACT

Operation Papa Noel, a major terrorist plot targeting foreign diplomatic missions in Libya, was thwarted in December of 2011. Pro-Qaddafi elements had planned to launch a sophisticated attack on foreign diplomatic missions and oil fields in Libya. Later, the written emergency-evacuation plan for the U.S. mission in Benghazi warned, “the majority of Loyalist insurgents tasked with carrying out this plan are still active and free in Benghazi” and “Islamic terrorist elements do exist in this area of the country, and have been reported by open sources to be gaining operational capability.”

FACT

In an online posting in 2012, al-Qaeda stated its intent to attack the Red Cross, the British
, and then the Americans in Benghazi
. The goals were accomplished in order.

FACT

April 10, 2012: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy traveling in Benghazi carrying United Nations envoy Ian Martin.

FACT

May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) hits the Benghazi offices of the International Red Cross
and the agency decides to pull out.

FACT

June 6, 2012: An improvised explosive device detonated just outside the Benghazi consulate compound.

FACT

June 11, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hit a convoy carrying the British ambassador in Benghazi
. The U.K. pulled out of Benghazi.

FACT

2012: There was an al-Qaeda demonstration right smack in the middle of Benghazi. “They had a parade down the streets. They raised their flag on one of the county buildings,” says one observer.


Here is the final FACT regarding this.
Approximately 3:40 p.m
. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”


6:07 p.m
.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)


About 10:00 p.m.
: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197628.htm'>issues a statement</a> confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48996921/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/us-confirms-death-official-benghazi-attack/#.UIm7A4ZJpr4'>posted</a> at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.


11:12 p.m.
: Clinton sends
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/chelsea-clinton-diane-reynolds-secret-email-115786'>an email to her daughter</a>, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)


I can post more that clearly shows how she and other administration officials clearly lied about the whole thing. These are all facts that are freely available for those who choose to find out the truth.
That is a lot of facts. I have never defended a stance that I feel Hillary is/was being entirely truthful with the events immediately following the attack. I don't expect most politicians to tell any "truth" which does not fit their narrative (see Rick Scott), especially ones who are former Monsanto employees.


I also won't wholly blame Republicans who slashed budgets for embassy security (plenty of Dems have dirty hands there too), though I will say it was a factor. The reason being.. though Republicans conveniently decided to no longer write blank checks for the so-called war on terror the moment Obama took office, spending just on embassy security increased over 1000% between 1998 - 2012. At some point there is a need for fiscal responsibility. (Of course, I would have gone straight to the Afghanistan / Pakistan region on 9/12/01 instead of spending billions trying to colonize Iraq, but I digress..)


There were several problems with the facility at Benghazi. Because it was not designated as a full time facility, it was not held to the same security standards as other embassies and was not eligible for security upgrade funds (for things like raising the height of the perimeter wall which was well below where it should have been). It was cash strapped and relied heavily on the embassy in Tripoli for support (financial and otherwise).


Were there warning signs? Could the Dept of State done more to protect these people with the limited resources they had? Yes.


Once the attack started, was there anything anyone could do to save these people? No. They were on their own.


The point I made was this type of thing happened plenty of other times and nobody gave a [BAD WORD REMOVED].


To challenge Rumsfeld or Rice after any of the tragedies I mentioned earlier in this thread would be considered unpatriotic and in poor taste.


Were there warning signs or preventative measures Rumsfeld and Rice could have taken to save the lives of the dozens of others killed in similar attacks on embassies and consulates? Just like Hillary, at the time protecting those people was their job. Nobody, especially the media, really stopped to ask about these other instances though. Certainly not to the degree they are about this one incident. But when it's Hillary at the post, the rules of what is acceptable and expected is a 180 degree flip. That is what I find offensive. This entire hearing is a politically driven dog and pony show. Fact.
No u didnt.


What other instance had 600 seperate requests for additional support. What other instance allowed an AMBASSADOR to be killed. What other instance was blamed on a BLANKING VIDEO!


Weve pointed out time and time again these unique aggravating circumstance and the preoccupation with the political narrative instead of the truth and yet you still persist with your sad attempts at an analogy clinging desperately to your fetishistic obsession with moral relativism.
For [BLEEP] sake.. which of the other attacks I mentioned did you even know about prior to my posting about them? I'm guessing maybe one. You don't know the details about them like you do Benghazi because certain media outlets didn't plaster round the clock investigative reporting about them. You are fixating on this incident because it was crammed up your crevice in an endless loop for months.


I am agreeing that leadership failed to protect these people. Was leadership not also responsible for protecting against these other attacks?


Nobody else seemed to care about the details of the other 13 attacks which killed dozens of others (since none were ambassadors, I guess it doesn't matter). What the [BLEEP] does moral relativism have to do with the fact the media and politicians considered these other 13 instances unspeakable tragedies, not worthy of investigation on what went wrong and who was to blame, but Benghazi is a stain on our nation which we need to spend tens of millions of dollars getting to the bottom of. It's bull dookie.
Failure... Gross negligence and deception. See how the terms are different?
Quote:For [BAD WORD REMOVED] sake.. which of the other attacks I mentioned did you even know about prior to my posting about them? I'm guessing maybe one. You don't know the details about them like you do Benghazi because certain media outlets didn't plaster round the clock investigative reporting about them. You are fixating on this incident because it was crammed up your crevice in an endless loop for months.


I am agreeing that leadership failed to protect these people. Was leadership not also responsible for protecting against these other attacks?


Nobody else seemed to care about the details of the other 13 attacks which killed dozens of others (since none were ambassadors, I guess it doesn't matter). What the [BAD WORD REMOVED] does moral relativism have to do with the fact the media and politicians considered these other 13 instances unspeakable tragedies, not worthy of investigation on what went wrong and who was to blame, but Benghazi is a stain on our nation which we need to spend tens of millions of dollars getting to the bottom of. It's bull dookie.


Party lines Have been drawn and don't you dare step out of line with your party of choice. The other side is pure evil.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12