Benghazi, a different perspective

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.

She was in charge, she gets the blame.

Originally posted by KellyJay
She was in charge, she gets the blame.

What reasonable security measures could have been taken at this CIA outpost to assure its safety against attack by 80-150 men armed with automatic weapons, RPGs and mortars?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What reasonable security measures could have been taken at this CIA outpost to assure its safety against attack by 80-150 men armed with automatic weapons, RPGs and mortars?

Far more importantly, what reasonable security measures could have been taken that would have allowed them to foresee that particular attack?
Its always easy to armchair criticise after the fact.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What reasonable security measures could have been taken at this CIA outpost to assure its safety against attack by 80-150 men armed with automatic weapons, RPGs and mortars?

Obviously the US army should recruit 10 billion more soldiers, and then post a battalion at every office and outpost around the world. Then people will think twice before attacking Americans!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Obviously the US army should recruit 10 billion more soldiers, and then post a battalion at every office and outpost around the world. Then people will think twice before attacking Americans!

Or at least not deny ~600 requests for more help when asked for before the deaths of the
4 people in question.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Or at least not deny ~600 requests for more help when asked for before the deaths of the
4 people in question.

None of those requests envisioned such a massive assault.

The only thing that really could have been done was to withdraw all diplomats and CIA personnel from Benghazi and right wingers would have screamed "Retreat! Appeasement!" if that had been done.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Or at least not deny ~600 requests for more help when asked for before the deaths of the 4 people in question.

That figure got me wondering. Did someone really make 600 requests? Over what time period? Do you know how many days there are in a year?
It took one Google Search and the first hit, to find out that that is simply not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/600-requests-from-benghazi-for-better-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/

There were approximately 600 security requests and concerns many of which were, in fact, granted, and many of which were merely repeats.

Many also never went to Washington.

It would also be meaningless to make anything from that figure unless you were to compare similar statistics from other locations. For example, how many security requests and concerns are produced per year by the US embassy in Zambia? How many are granted and how many are denied?

Originally posted by no1marauder
None of those requests envisioned such a massive assault.

The only thing that really could have been done was to withdraw all diplomats and CIA personnel from Benghazi and right wingers would have screamed "Retreat! Appeasement!" if that had been done.

I think the Benghazi case is really interesting because there have been countless of misjudgments of the security situation (in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere) that have led to e.g. soldiers dying in IED ambushes etc. The difference seems to be that in the case of Benghazi, an ambassador died rather than just a lowly soldier. I think this indicates how in some circles some people really are viewed as being worth more than others.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think the Benghazi case is really interesting because there have been countless of misjudgments of the security situation (in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere) that have led to e.g. soldiers dying in IED ambushes etc. The difference seems to be that in the case of Benghazi, an ambassador died rather than just a lowly soldier. I think this indicates how in some circles some people really are viewed as being worth more than others.

Let's be honest; it's a "big deal" because it serves the political interests of one party to make it a big deal. Americans are getting killed all over the world as a result of our government's incessant meddling in other countries' affairs but such incidents have never triggered the number of Congressional Committees and investigations that this one has.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think this indicates how in some circles some people really are viewed as being worth more than others.

Although that is certainly often the case (and something that is perpetuated by tv and movies), I think no1 is correct that in this case it has less to do with the importance of who died and more to do with the importance of who can be blamed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's be honest; it's a "big deal" because it serves the political interests of one party to make it a big deal. Americans are getting killed all over the world as a result of our government's incessant meddling in other countries' affairs but such incidents have never triggered the number of Congressional Committees and investigations that this one has.

Well, it's one thing for politicians to attempt to gain from such an event; it's another thing for gullible people to lap it all up.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

During Bush's tenure, there were 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel resulting in 87 deaths.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, it's one thing for politicians to attempt to gain from such an event; it's another thing for gullible people to lap it all up.

And yet another for people like Kelly to pass on falsehoods about it.

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?

Seriously, do you really believe what you write? Nobody running for President, except an incumbent has any valid experience or knowledge.

The only thing we have to go on, is the candidate's promises and their past performance in the jobs they held. Most voters, including you will vote based on partisanship. I would contend that Mr. Trump competed in an arena where being wrong cost him a lot of money. That beats politics any day in my book. All the politician has to do is dupe hacks who are already on his side.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet another for people like Kelly to pass on falsehoods about it.

Falsehood? What have I pushed that was false?