Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10113
    11 Sep '16 10:181 edit
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/11/what-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton.html
    Last month, I retired from the State Department after 25 years of public service as a Foreign Service officer. As the Deputy Chief of Mission for Libya, I was the last person in Tripoli to speak with Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was murdered in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on our Benghazi post. On this, the fourth anniversary of the Benghazi tragedy, I would like to offer a different explanation for Benghazi’s relevance to the presidential election than is usually found in the press.
    Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs "to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.”

    This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.
    The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure. It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi. Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”

    Had Ambassador Stevens’ July 2012 request for 13 additional American security personnel (either military or State Department) been approved rather than rejected by Clinton appointee Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, they would have traveled to Benghazi with the ambassador, and the Sept. 11 attack might have been thwarted.

    U.S. law also requires the secretary of state to ensure that all U.S. government personnel assigned to a diplomatic post abroad be located at one site. If not, the secretary — and only the secretary — with the concurrence of the agency head whose personnel will be located at a different location, must issue a waiver. The law, which states specifically that the waiver decision cannot be delegated, was passed after the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, when deficient security was blamed for that debacle under Bill Clinton's presidency.

    When asked about security at Benghazi on Sept. 11, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly asserted her lack of responsibility. Initially, she said that she never read any of the reporting on security conditions or any of the requests for additional security, claiming that “she delegated security to the professionals.” More recently, she stated that “[I]t was not my ball to carry.” But the law says otherwise. Sound familiar?

    Her decision to allow the Benghazi consulate to be separate from the CIA annex divided scarce resources in a progressively deteriorating security environment. U.S. personnel assigned to Benghazi tried to overcome this severe disadvantage through an agreement that the security personal from each facility would rush to the other facility’s aid in the event it was attacked. The division of our security resources in Benghazi is the root cause of the “stand down” order controversy so vividly portrayed in the movie “13 Hours.”

    Notably, one of the primary goals of Ambassador Stevens’ fatal visit was to begin consolidating our Benghazi personnel into one facility, which would have concentrated our security posture in Benghazi’s volatile and violent environment.

    There are no punitive measures for breaching these two laws. Mrs. Clinton will not have to appear before judge and jury to account for her failures. Is this why she felt these laws could be ignored? Because she is now the Democratic presidential candidate, only the American electorate will have the opportunity to hold her accountable.

    Candidate Clinton and her campaign point to her record as secretary of state as a positive qualification for the presidency.

    However, the record shows that Secretary Clinton persuaded the president to overthrow Qaddafi and advocated maintaining a diplomatic presence in Benghazi after the Libyan revolution. And then she abandoned her diplomats by ignoring her security obligations. She sent Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi during the 2011 revolution and then induced him to return in the first few months of his tenure, which accounted for his September visit there. Despite the fact that Sidney Blumenthal had alerted her to the increasing danger for Americans in Benghazi and Libya, Mrs. Clinton apparently never asked security professionals for an updated briefing on the situation in Libya. Either she could not correlate the increased tempo of attacks in Libya with the safety of our diplomats, demonstrating fatal incompetence, or she was grossly negligent.

    If Mrs. Clinton was unable to fulfill her security obligations to the federal employees she was legally obligated to protect as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    11 Sep '16 10:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/11/what-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton.html
    Last month, I retired from the State Department after 25 years of public service as a Foreign Service officer. As the Deputy Chief of Mission for Libya, I was the last person in Tripoli to speak with Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was murdered in the Sept. ...[text shortened]... ct as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
    If Mrs. Clinton was unable to fulfill her security obligations to the federal employees she was legally obligated to protect as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
    Amen.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    11 Sep '16 11:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/11/what-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton.html
    Last month, I retired from the State Department after 25 years of public service as a Foreign Service officer. As the Deputy Chief of Mission for Libya, I was the last person in Tripoli to speak with Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was murdered in the Sept. ...[text shortened]... ct as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
    it's not a different perspective, it's the same perspective. the same dead horse beaten to a pulp.
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    11 Sep '16 11:171 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    it's not a different perspective, it's the same perspective. the same dead horse beaten to a pulp.
    A perspective which, on the basis of the person's quarter of a century of highly related experience, carries far more weight than your armchair quarterbacking world affairs based on the intelligence gathering you glean from TYT or CNN.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Sep '16 13:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    If Mrs. Clinton was unable to fulfill her security obligations to the federal employees she was legally obligated to protect as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
    Then what will you do? You have a political system that essentially gives you the choice between Hillary and Trump. We all know that Trump doesn't even know where Libya is and couldn't do the job of Secretary of State, let along president. So, given that you won't trust Clinton, what will you do?
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35898
    11 Sep '16 13:49
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]If Mrs. Clinton was unable to fulfill her security obligations to the federal employees she was legally obligated to protect as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
    Amen.[/b]
    IF she was "unable to fulfill" her "security obligations" in Benghazi, it was directly the fault of the Republicans who defunded the embassy in Benghazi. Blame them. Grill them on a rotisserie, let's see how they hold up to scrutiny for what they've done.
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    11 Sep '16 13:52
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Then what will you do? You have a political system that essentially gives you the choice between Hillary and Trump. We all know that Trump doesn't even know where Libya is and couldn't do the job of Secretary of State, let along president. So, given that you won't trust Clinton, what will you do?
    I'm quite certain Trump knows far more about Libya--- and it's factor as a world player--- than you will ever know.
    You have such a hard time finding your own ass, you've opted to keep your head as a marker.
    At literally every turn, Trump has outdone all takers.
    When this election results come back in a landslide both for him and against his crooked, sickly opponent you'll be one of those sideline jokers who said they saw it all along.
    Pathetic what passes as informed opinions these days...
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10113
    12 Sep '16 01:15
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Then what will you do? You have a political system that essentially gives you the choice between Hillary and Trump. We all know that Trump doesn't even know where Libya is and couldn't do the job of Secretary of State, let along president. So, given that you won't trust Clinton, what will you do?
    What will I do? Go on with my life.

    I'm just pointing out what the next President is all about and what we can continue to expect.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10113
    12 Sep '16 01:171 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    IF she was "unable to fulfill" her "security obligations" in Benghazi, it was directly the fault of the Republicans who defunded the embassy in Benghazi. Blame them. Grill them on a rotisserie, let's see how they hold up to scrutiny for what they've done.
    Yep, it was Bush's fault.

    And Colin Powell, a Republican, told her to use a personal server. It's all part of the vast right winged conspiracy Hillary used to talk about.

    So as we can see, all evil in the universe can be traced directly to the GOP.
  10. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    12 Sep '16 06:29
    Originally posted by whodey

    If Mrs. Clinton was unable to fulfill her security obligations to the federal employees she was legally obligated to protect as secretary of state, how can we trust her with the security of our entire country? I won’t.
    So no ex-secretary of state should ever be president?
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Sep '16 09:00
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I'm quite certain Trump knows far more about Libya--- and it's factor as a world player--- than you will ever know.
    As certain as you are that the world is flat?

    Pathetic what passes as informed opinions these days...
    Luckily, your opinions do not pass as informed opinion.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Sep '16 09:021 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    What will I do? Go on with my life.

    I'm just pointing out what the next President is all about and what we can continue to expect.
    So, who will you vote for? Will you try to change the system, or will you just complain nonstop about everything?
    Do you think your constant lying helps the issue or harms it?
    Do you actually care, or do you just enjoy lying and complaining?
  13. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35898
    13 Sep '16 05:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yep, it was Bush's fault.

    And Colin Powell, a Republican, told her to use a personal server. It's all part of the vast right winged conspiracy Hillary used to talk about.

    So as we can see, all evil in the universe can be traced directly to the GOP.
    Not arguing with you, for once.

    But no, not Bush. More like McConnell and Boehner, the two big wheels in the Party of NO, during Obama's terms.

    And Powell sent his emails using Yahoo, for god's sake. But he was smart enough to delete all his when he left office. So much for transparency there, eh? We will now never know just how much certain bigwig Republicans knew about W's WMD lies.

    Seems to me Hillary's biggest crime (apparently) was not deleting her emails when she left office.
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Sep '16 05:58
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As certain as you are that the world is flat?

    [b]Pathetic what passes as informed opinions these days...

    Luckily, your opinions do not pass as informed opinion.[/b]
    Your attempts at indictment usually have a way of backfiring, so thanks for your unintended compliment.

    I guess.
  15. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    149165
    13 Sep '16 09:41
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    it's not a different perspective, it's the same perspective. the same dead horse beaten to a pulp.
    Not a dead horse, 4 dead Americans.
Back to Top