Benghazi terrorist attacks and the Whistleblowers (generation, Pelosi, Reid, dollars)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good question, seems rather selective for things to get to this level when many embassies were attacked in the past, what could possibly be the reason Benghazi draws such attention.
Uhhh, maybe the fact that they repeatedly asked (begged) for more security,they should have known that it was coming,that it was being watched while it went on for 7 HOURS,that as it turns out there were forces available to help but weren't sent,the coverup since it happened,not releasing the survivors names to congress etc. etc. etc. and lastly "it was the video". I don't know much since Watergate that's come close to what this is turning out to be.
So, how about not pointing to other acts and actually stay focused on this epic failure.
“The world is safer,” Mr. Obama said as he appeared at a White House ceremony bestowing the Medal of Honor to two soldiers killed in the Korean War. “It is a better place because of the death of Osama bin Laden.”
Or at least that is what Obama wanted us to believe. Obviously they could not increase security because that would contradict what Obama was shouting to the roof tops during the campaign.
The house is holding new hearsing on the Benghazi attack. They will hear new information on a cover up. This goes straight to the top, Obama and then Hillary Clinton who testified that she had no part in it. Testifying before congress, she claimed she did not approve them, didn't deny them. She claims ignorance, A cable with her signature that denies additional security and orders the withdrawal.
Uhhh, maybe the fact that they repeatedly asked (begged) for more security,they should have known that it was coming,that it was being watched while it went on for 7 HOURS,that as it turns out there were forces available to help but weren't sent,the coverup since it happened,not releasing the survivors names to congress etc. etc. etc. and lastly "it was the video". I don't know much since Watergate that's come close to what this is turning out to be.
So, how about not pointing to other acts and actually stay focused on this epic failure.
The ambassador lived many places that were more dangerous, he knew the dangers and could have been killed at any time. There are hundreds of embassies and many requests for security and thousands of threats, it's a judgement call, criticism is 50-50 hindsight. This was a country in turmoil with a deposed leader, you just don't send in a company of soldiers for many obvious reasons. Libya was a country in total disarray the worst case the only guarantee for safety was to not have an ambassador there in the first place. Whether the attack was over a video, which there have been in the past, or not why is that important after the fact, what would we have done differently.
Terrorists killed 4 people and your worried about their motivation.
The ambassador lived many places that were more dangerous, he knew the dangers and could have been killed at any time. There are hundreds of embassies and many requests for security and thousands of threats, it's a judgement call, criticism is 50-50 hindsight. This was a country in turmoil with a deposed leader, you just don't send in a company of soldiers for many obvious reasons. Libya was a country in total disarray the worst case the only guarantee for safety was to not have an ambassador there in the first place. Whether the attack was over a video, which there have been in the past, or not why is that important after the fact, what would we have done differently.
Terrorists killed 4 people and your worried about their motivation.
Not to mention republicans voted to cut funding for State Department security; yet these hypocrites say nothing about that
Good question, seems rather selective for things to get to this level when many embassies were attacked in the past, what could possibly be the reason Benghazi draws such attention.
Hmmm, perhaps the reason is that this time four American citizens were killed, including a U.S. Ambassador, and there was evidence and testimony about repeated requests for extra security because the situation on the ground was very hostile, and they were denied because we didn't want to offend the unstable government of the country we "liberated".
And we have an African command center set up in the region with armed forces just an hour or two away by plane, and yet we didn't help our people during a seven-hour firefight with rebel forces. And there was testimony from our Secretary of Defense that the President told him to handle it and then left and never contacted him again that night. He went to bed and left right after his morning news conference to go to a fundraiser.
And he didn't even attend his national security briefing that day or 50% of the ones in the months leading up to that event. His excuse was his press secretary's condescending reply that this President actually reads his briefings, unlike his stupid predecessor who met with his security advisors.
The ambassador lived many places that were more dangerous, he knew the dangers and could have been killed at any time. There are hundreds of embassies and many requests for security and thousands of threats, it's a judgement call, criticism is 50-50 hindsight. This was a country in turmoil with a deposed leader, you just don't send in a company of soldiers for many obvious reasons. Libya was a country in total disarray the worst case the only guarantee for safety was to not have an ambassador there in the first place. Whether the attack was over a video, which there have been in the past, or not why is that important after the fact, what would we have done differently.
Terrorists killed 4 people and your worried about their motivation.
50-50 hindsight? I'm not a foreign policy expert, but even I could have predicted an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 in a country full of weapons stolen from the Gaddafi warehouses, as reported by a journalist at the time.
An attack on a U.S. Embassy is the same as an attack on our soil. Why couldn't we at least have sent air cover or armed drones to help these guys out during their seven-hour fight? I understand no boots on the ground, but why not air cover? Why do we even have Africom if it can't protect our own people over there?
I don't even care about the video story, though it does say something about Obama's willingness to always blame anything but radical Islamic extremists in these instances. I also disliked the implication that the violent protests were our own fault because someone here made an offensive movie about Muslims. Why is it our fault that people are so sensitive to any movie or cartoon they deem offensive that they will go on a murderous rampage?
The ambassador lived many places that were more dangerous, he knew the dangers and could have been killed at any time. There are hundreds of embassies and many requests for security and thousands of threats, it's a judgement call, criticism is 50-50 hindsight. This was a country in turmoil with a deposed leader, you just don't send in a company of soldiers for many obvious reasons. Libya was a country in total disarray the worst case the only guarantee for safety was to not have an ambassador there in the first place. Whether the attack was over a video, which there have been in the past, or not why is that important after the fact, what would we have done differently.
Terrorists killed 4 people and your worried about their motivation.
Except the mission could have been closed and the Ambassador recalled like EVERY other country who had missions in the region did.
Now since they decided to leave it open AFTER the wall was breached days before the fatal attack wouldn't one think you'd do SOMETHING to up protection?
If a group kicked in your front door and then remained standing out on the sidewalk looking at your house would YOU just go on as if nothing happened?
Not to mention republicans voted to cut funding for State Department security; yet these hypocrites say nothing about that
You'll probably dismiss it because it comes from a Heritage blog, but it uses actual numbers from the Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations. This actually falls in line with State Department testimony before Congress that the budget cuts were not the reason security was denied.
There has been some back and forth between Republicans and Democrats over funding for security in Libya in the wake of Ambassador Chris Stevens’s death. Republicans have questioned whether the State Department had adequate security to protect the ambassador, and Democrats have countered that Republicans tried to cut funding for embassy security. What does the budget record show?
According to the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Congressional Budget Justification Department of State Operations (p. 11), overall funding for those programs has increased sharply over the past decade. Indeed, Worldwide Security Protection is more than double what it was a decade ago. Despite reductions from budget peaks in FY 2009 and FY 2010, both budget lines are higher than in FY 2008. (continues below chart)
Comparing FY 2011 actual funding versus the FY 2012 estimate, there appears to be a reduction in Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance. But that reduction does not account for additional funding in FY 2012 from Overseas Contingency Operations funds amounting to $236 million for Worldwide Security Protection (p. 63) and $33 million for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (p. 467). As a result, total funds for Worldwide Security Protection for FY 2012 are estimated to be $94 million higher than in FY 2011, while Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance is estimated to be $61 million less than FY 2011. Together, there is a net increase.
In terms of people, the budget justification reported that Worldwide Security Protection had slightly fewer positions budgeted (1,777 in FY 2011 versus 1,707 in FY 2012) and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance had the same number of positions budgeted (1,014 for both years).
In its budget request for FY 2013, the Administration requested significantly more funding for embassy security—mostly through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget—but retained the same number of positions, apparently on the assumption that security staffing was adequate. Regardless, that budget, even if approved in its entirety, would have entered into effect after the events in Libya.
It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know much since Watergate that's come close to what this is turning out to be.
