Roles were reversed? We missed the ball. We had a complete "foul up" from the repub side that did EVERYTHING Hillary was accused of...We had one little hearing :meh:

 

If HRC had 9 for Benghazi. There should have been at least 29 for the W and Cheney fiasco.

 

Bullets :scared:

 

Did you sleep through 2006-2008?

Of note - the headline of this article is out of context.

 

It reads as if the sister is tell the American people to not blame HRC. PP did not misquote the headline - it is accurate. But in the article there only only statement that uses the word 'blame'. "I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panneta."

 

She does indicated that in hindsight the resources of security were inadequate. You mean using local militia in an unstable country may not be enough security? She also tries to deflect some of this onto Congress - 'maybe if they had more resources budgeted' (paraphrased).

 

The interview and article definitely had 'an agenda'.

I went back and re-read parts of the report. The WH did not include the 'principles'. The cabinet level people and Obama were not part of that meeting. There is no mention of an actual face to face between the CiC, SoS, SoD or the CIA director.

 

From report:

 

Moments before the White House meeting began, Bash emailed several people including Mills and Sullivan, notifying them of the assets the Sec- retary had ordered to respond to the attacks. He wrote:

After Consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda [sic] Bay, Crete) and a Marine FAST team out of Roda [sic], Spain.

 

 

 

 

 

More

 

Curiously, the two members of the Defense Department Bash identified in his “spinning up” email as the proper persons to “convey” “approval from the host nation”—Winnefeld and Miller—were not part of the White House meeting.

 

In fact, Winnefeld was not even at the Pentagon. He had left to return to his residence to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries and testified he received one update on the events during the dinner.

 

 

 

 

Despite the Secretary’s expectation the assets he ordered to deploy would move as fast as possible in order to respond, the individuals who partici- pated in the White House meeting, nevertheless, felt the need to “work through” the assets the Secretary had already ordered to deploy.352 At the time of the White House meeting, the final decision about which assets to deploy had apparently not been made, according to them, despite the Secretary’s recollection and testimony to the contrary

 

 

 

 

 

Further down in report.

Witnesses who actually were present and appeared before the Committee were surprisingly unable to recall details regarding the various issues and discussions during the White House meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

...

The two-hour “meeting”—in which neither the Commander in Chief nor the Secretary of Defense participated—was in fact much more detailed and involved than witnesses suggested and presents a new perspective on what was happening and being discussed in Washington D.C. even while an Ambassador was missing and a second U.S. facility was under attack half a world away.

 

 

 

 

 

So I apologize for implying the 'principles' (President, Cabinet level staff) were face to face. But there was a two hour meeting held after SoD testified that he already ordered actions and deployments to begin.

 

The stark reading of this is actually the lack of follow-up, focus and leadership by all the 'principles' during the real time events. Orders supposedly given, assets identified and supposedly spinning up, meetings at the White House (but apparently not in the situation room) with no decisions or actions. Its just disheartening, at best, to see this lack of action in print. Nothing really happened outside of Libya during the entire event. That is why I use the word 'abandoned' and that people in Libya (including the small 'Team Tripoli') had to do there own defense and ultimately rescue themselves.

Did you sleep through 2006-2008?

 

I was wide awake. Was there as much attention focused on that investigation?

I was wide awake. Was there as much attention focused on that investigation?

 

You have not specified an investigation but once the dems took the senate they spent all the time they could investigating everything they could think of. It's what happens when the opposition holds the Senate or House. Don't try to imply that the republicans are worse than the democrats. It's how DC operates.

"The Pentagon had no forces that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis began. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There were no armed drones within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, a large seaborne force with its own helicopters, in the Mediterranean Sea.

 

The Africa Command also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies. Every other regional command had one at the time. The Pentagon was caught unprepared for this type of crisis.

 

On the night of the attacks, the Pentagon was able to divert an unarmed Predator drone operating 90 miles away to Benghazi, and the C.I.A. later used it to help plan an escape route for the surviving Americans. But other military forces were too far away or could not be mobilized in time, military commanders have said."

 

From NYT

 

I don't think anyone argues the tragedy of Benghazi, but many of suggest there was a criminal negligence by HRC which is simply untrue.

 

I know the movies make it seem we can mobilize a force instantaneously, but sadly some places that's not true.

 

I served in the 7th Infantry Division "Light"...check out my avatar. In 1986 we became the most readily deployable unit in the US military and each of our batteries were on one of 3 constant "bayonet" status'. Red status meant you were first up should we be called to fight and your gear was stored on the flight line at Travis Air Force base and you could not be more than 1/2 an hour from home base of Ft. Ord. We could be wheels down, most anywhere in the world we thought we would need to deploy within 24 hours (or so our "deployment readiness strategy" stated). Now remember, we were a "Light" division, which kind of had a double meaning...we had far less equipment than the typical military combat division, making us "light" in gear and weight...which also made us quick as "light" to deploy. The typical combat unit could not do this. We also trained constantly to be ready to deploy at a moments notice. That was somewhat tested when units of my division deployed to Honduras in Operation Golden Pheasant Operation Golden Pheasant - Military Wiki - Wikia Though we went on high alert, we at the time were on "Blue" bayonet status, meaning we were 3rd in line for deployment and we didn't participate. The units that did go were in Honduras in mere hours.

 

Point being is, if we could deploy from CA many places across the world that quickly in 1986, I don't see how some small unit somewhere in the middle east couldn't have been in Benghazi fairly quickly. And if you listen to the guys whose job it is to deploy in situations like that, they say (have heard several unit leaders on talk radio state this) that they could have been there if given the go ahead and quite probably changed the outcome.

 

Now, I'm not placing total blame to HRC, though she sure shoulders a lot of it, but it appears to me she didn't take the necessary heed she should have and didn't take the situation seriously. I also feel, and this is my personal belief, that losing those guys in Benghazi doesn't bother her a bit and that she doesn't take any responsibility for not at least making a decision to try and help those guys when they were under attack; or not doing more beforehand to help beef up security in the area when it was requested.

I served in the 7th Infantry Division "Light"...check out my avatar. In 1986 we became the most readily deployable unit in the US military and each of our batteries were on one of 3 constant "bayonet" status'. Red status meant you were first up should we be called to fight and your gear was stored on the flight line at Travis Air Force base and you could not be more than 1/2 an hour from home base of Ft. Ord. We could be wheels down, most anywhere in the world we thought we would need to deploy within 24 hours (or so our "deployment readiness strategy" stated). Now remember, we were a "Light" division, which kind of had a double meaning...we had far less equipment than the typical military combat division, making us "light" in gear and weight...which also made us quick as "light" to deploy. The typical combat unit could not do this. We also trained constantly to be ready to deploy at a moments notice. That was somewhat tested when units of my division deployed to Honduras in Operation Golden Pheasant Operation Golden Pheasant - Military Wiki - Wikia Though we went on high alert, we at the time were on "Blue" bayonet status, meaning we were 3rd in line for deployment and we didn't participate. The units that did go were in Honduras in mere hours.

 

Point being is, if we could deploy from CA many places across the world that quickly in 1986, I don't see how some small unit somewhere in the middle east couldn't have been in Benghazi fairly quickly. And if you listen to the guys whose job it is to deploy in situations like that, they say (have heard several unit leaders on talk radio state this) that they could have been there if given the go ahead and quite probably changed the outcome.

 

Now, I'm not placing total blame to HRC, though she sure shoulders a lot of it, but it appears to me she didn't take the necessary heed she should have and didn't take the situation seriously. I also feel, and this is my personal belief, that losing those guys in Benghazi doesn't bother her a bit and that she doesn't take any responsibility for not at least making a decision to try and help those guys when they were under attack; or not doing more beforehand to help beef up security in the area when it was requested.

 

Thank you for your insight. Even though I don't know that we have the abilities to deploy much faster.

 

I'm still struggling to see where HRC shoulders this. The requests for extra security never made her desk. Orders to deploy a rescue force hardly fall into her jurisdiction. Finally, the Gowdy gang couldn't hang this on her.

Benghazi: Mother of Slain Ambassador Criticizes Donald Trump

I heard a stat tonight that I had not heard before. Under George Bush 13 embassies/consulates were attacked, 66 people killed and there were no Congressional investigations.

I heard a stat tonight that I had not heard before. Under George Bush 13 embassies/consulates were attacked, 66 people killed and there were no Congressional investigations.

 

How many of those were fronts for the CIA running secret operations? How many of those were engaged in 9 hour attacks? How many of those did the insurgents overrun the facility? How many of these used contracted local 'milita' as their primary security force? And how many did the Director of the CIA or the SoS fail to tell rescuers or potential rescuers about the presence of a 'annex' with 3 dozen Americans?

 

I think that technically this may be correct. In the 12 George years (not sure which one this is addressing) I can remember there were the car/truck bomb attacks that were usually stopped at the embassy gate. Then they would detonate at the perimeter usually killing many.

 

But these Marine protected embassies. Not consulates convering for CIA activity that would be known exclusively to the CIA and State Department. Its not really the same at all.

^ So, 66 killed and nothing to see here.

^ So, 66 killed and nothing to see here.

 

As stated. There hit and runs, murders or suicide attacks with various collateral damage. None of them were Benghazi ongoing battles with ongoing American lives in peril for hours and hours.

 

Apparently the reference is to this story - from 2014. Its a clear attempt of equivocation for the purposes of political cover.

 

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 6

Thanks for the additional info and detail Bluegrasscard. I can see the drawn out nine hour battle being a big difference that caused people to want to investigate how we handle a situation like that in the future.

 

I am not so sure about the other factors you listed being unique to Benghazi.

 

I wonder how many people are like me who are not aware that these types of attacks happen with such frequency.

I wonder what evidence we would find if all attacks were investigated with the zeal Benghazi was.

I wonder what evidence we would find if all attacks were investigated with the zeal Benghazi was.

 

I'm guessing some kind of negligence or complacency would be found. I'm guessing if there wasn't negligence at some point no one would have ever lost their lives in embassy attacks. I could be naive though.