B-b-b-but BENGHAAAAAAZI!

[Elixir]

This popped up in my FB feed from two years ago, and is even more relevant today.

 

[SLD]

That's just proof of how devious Clinton is. She always gets away from the investigation.

SLD

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This will change when Wikileaks releases the real emails.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This popped up in my FB feed from two years ago, and is even more relevant today.

View attachment 8302

The republican congress is the most powerful PAC in the country by far.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It was investigated. seven times (congressional inquires). I understand there were 13 hearings, 50 briefings, tens of thousands of documents but there was no evidence of wrongdoing on her part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This popped up in my FB feed from two years ago, and is even more relevant today.

View attachment 8302

Just curious, where's the $14m figure from?

 

[Blackclaw]

Sometimes I wonder just what Republicans expected Hillary to do during the attack. She wasn't in charge of the military. It wasn't up to her decide where to pre-position military forces. The only thing she should have done was insisted that Ambassador Stevens remain in the more secure embassy in Tripoli instead of hanging out at the consulate in Benghazi, but even that conclusion is one made with the benefit of hindsight. Yet Republicans seem to believe that Hillary should have used her magical witch powers to intervene once the attack began.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sometimes I wonder just what Republicans expected Hillary to do during the attack. She wasn't in charge of the military. It wasn't up to her decide where to pre-position military forces. The only thing she should have done was insisted that Ambassador Stevens remain in the more secure embassy in Tripoli instead of hanging out at the consulate in Benghazi, but even that conclusion is one made with the benefit of hindsight. Yet Republicans seem to believe that Hillary should have used her magical witch powers to intervene once the attack began.

The State department knew the Benghazi compound was under manned and under armed.
Requests had been made for increased security but no additional manpower or resources were sent there.
In fact the security staff of 34 was reduced to 6 shortly before the attack.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6996/10-devastating-facts-benghazi-report-james-barrett

However the though the article indicates faults by Clinton, she was cleared of any wrongdoing. However I will not plough through thousands of pages so I will take the investigation findings as correct. However I would have concerns about a lack of security given the climate in the Middle East.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sometimes I wonder just what Republicans expected Hillary to do during the attack. She wasn't in charge of the military. It wasn't up to her decide where to pre-position military forces. The only thing she should have done was insisted that Ambassador Stevens remain in the more secure embassy in Tripoli instead of hanging out at the consulate in Benghazi, but even that conclusion is one made with the benefit of hindsight. Yet Republicans seem to believe that Hillary should have used her magical witch powers to intervene once the attack began.

The State department knew the Benghazi compound was under manned and under armed.
Requests had been made for increased security but no additional manpower or resources were sent there.
In fact the security staff of 34 was reduced to 6 shortly before the attack.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6996/10-devastating-facts-benghazi-report-james-barrett

However the though the article indicates faults by Clinton, she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Thanks for pointing out that Clinton wasn't to fault. However, the fact remains that all embassy's are undermanned! Every single one. It's a matter of resources. There is a finite defense budget (controlled by a republican congress). Staffing a few extra security to the embassy in Brazil and Afghanistan means pulling them from somewhere. Secondly, the republican spin that the Obama administration was spinning this elaborate conspiracy into convincing the people that it wasn't a terrorist attack is crazy talk. Bizarre. Anyone north of retarted knew that terrorist attacks are possible at any time.

 

[funinspace]

The State department knew the Benghazi compound was under manned and under armed.
Requests had been made for increased security but no additional manpower or resources were sent there.
In fact the security staff of 34 was reduced to 6 shortly before the attack.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6996/10-devastating-facts-benghazi-report-james-barrett

However the though the article indicates faults by Clinton, she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Thanks for pointing out that Clinton wasn't to fault. However, the fact remains that all embassy's are undermanned! Every single one. It's a matter of resources. There is a finite defense budget (controlled by a republican congress). Staffing a few extra security to the embassy in Brazil and Afghanistan means pulling them from somewhere. Secondly, the republican spin that the Obama administration was spinning this elaborate conspiracy into convincing the people that it wasn't a terrorist attack is crazy talk. Bizarre. Anyone north of retarted knew that terrorist attacks are possible at any time.

Another of the really strange things about blaming Clinton for this is that the right wing somehow thinks that the Secretary of State would have time to review security requirements/requests for the dozens and dozens of embassies and consulates in all the hot spots around the world. The SoState is essentially the US's top diplomat towards the world, not a paper shuffler, nor a security analyst.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The State department knew the Benghazi compound was under manned and under armed.
Requests had been made for increased security but no additional manpower or resources were sent there.
In fact the security staff of 34 was reduced to 6 shortly before the attack.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6996/10-devastating-facts-benghazi-report-james-barrett

However the though the article indicates faults by Clinton, she was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Thanks for pointing out that Clinton wasn't to fault. However, the fact remains that all embassy's are undermanned! Every single one. It's a matter of resources. There is a finite defense budget (controlled by a republican congress). Staffing a few extra security to the embassy in Brazil and Afghanistan means pulling them from somewhere. Secondly, the republican spin that the Obama administration was spinning this elaborate conspiracy into convincing the people that it wasn't a terrorist attack is crazy talk. Bizarre. Anyone north of retarted knew that terrorist attacks are possible at any time.

In countries I've visited like the Philippines and China, local security staff man checkpoints. However, can they trust the guards in Iraq and other hostile places. There is also security against car bombs. The US must consider extra resources nonetheless to minimise the impact or possibility of attacks. If it is scaling down its military presence then it can redeploy a few troops to those areas. Of course on paper it's easy but I think this can be considered.

 

[funinspace]

Thanks for pointing out that Clinton wasn't to fault. However, the fact remains that all embassy's are undermanned! Every single one. It's a matter of resources. There is a finite defense budget (controlled by a republican congress). Staffing a few extra security to the embassy in Brazil and Afghanistan means pulling them from somewhere. Secondly, the republican spin that the Obama administration was spinning this elaborate conspiracy into convincing the people that it wasn't a terrorist attack is crazy talk. Bizarre. Anyone north of retarted knew that terrorist attacks are possible at any time.

In countries I've visited like the Philippines and China, local security staff man checkpoints. However, can they trust the guards in Iraq and other hostile places. There is also security against car bombs. The US must consider extra resources nonetheless to minimise the impact or possibility of attacks. If it is scaling down its military presence then it can redeploy a few troops to those areas. Of course on paper it's easy but I think this can be considered.

Security for the embassies/consulates comes out of the State Department's budget generally. One of the ironies, is that it is the Repugs that were doing the latest cutting of resources, and Hillary Clinton was bitching about those cuts in 2011:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...-budget-cuts/2011/09/29/gIQAm87ODL_story.html

The State Department is still reeling from deep cuts made by Senate and House appropriations panels to the Obama administration’s budget requests for next year, with some officials warning of national security risks.

Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state in its Bureau of Political Military Affairs, told a meeting last week of the Center for New American Security that the hefty cuts will compromise national security. He noted that the 2012 funding bill for State Department and foreign operations was cut 8 percent by the full Senate Appropriations Committee and a whopping 18 percent by the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had sounded similar concern in March, telling the House Foreign Affairs Committee that threatened deep cuts would be “devastating” to her agency.

If one looks at 'Table 3.2—Outlays by Function and Subfunction: 1962–2021' from the below link, and sub-link provided below, row 23 of the spreadsheet, the total international affairs budget trippled from $16.x billion in 2001 to $45-48 billion today.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist03z2.xls

I hardly think that the issue is funding. If we have trippled our general budget in this general area, it is either a resource allocation issue (largely under congressional control) or it is simply to much to ask of our Government to do...

 

[ideologyhunter]

This all goes under the G.O.P. syndrome of "Ours Doesn't." Ask your favorite Republican friend what W received on August 6, 2001, or about 5 weeks before 9/11. If your friend doesn't know, explain that this was the day on which W (in the middle of a month-long 'brush clearin' vacation in Crawford TX) was handed a report specifically warning him that Al Qaeda was planning to attack us, using airline jets as a weapon...that Bush took no action...never brought this up with any of his security people...the Great Decider decided to do nothing. I've had Tea Partiers react to this with a snort of disbelief. Based on the Republican tantrums over Hillary, ask yourself what would have happened to a Democrat President, if he or she had neglected a clear and alarming briefing like 8/6. Impeachment? Probably. A never-ending storm of recrimination, led by the Faux News posse and Limbaugh? Dead certainty. Deaths resulting from Bush's inaction? 3000+ on 9/11, untold thousands from the resulting wars.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This all goes under the G.O.P. syndrome of "Ours Doesn't." Ask your favorite Republican friend what W received on August 6, 2001, or about 5 weeks before 9/11. If your friend doesn't know, explain that this was the day on which W (in the middle of a month-long 'brush clearin' vacation in Crawford TX) was handed a report specifically warning him that Al Qaeda was planning to attack us, using airline jets as a weapon...that Bush took no action...never brought this up with any of his security people...the Great Decider decided to do nothing. I've had Tea Partiers react to this with a snort of disbelief. Based on the Republican tantrums over Hillary, ask yourself what would have happened to a Democrat President, if he or she had neglected a clear and alarming briefing like 8/6. Impeachment? Probably. A never-ending storm of recrimination, led by the Faux News posse and Limbaugh? Dead certainty. Deaths resulting from Bush's inaction? 3000+ on 9/11, untold thousands from the resulting wars.

The inquiry which included Republicans found no evidence of wrongdoing on her part though she was not found to be perfect. Nonetheless security needs to be constantly addressed.

 

[Derec]

It was not the attack itself. It was the "blaming it on a video critical of Islam" and then this bit of tone deafness:

 

[Shadowy Man]

It was not the attack itself. It was the "blaming it on a video critical of Islam" and then this bit of tone deafness:

Yes, because the people voting for Trump are concerned about tone deafness.

ETA: Sorry... i forgot the most important part of my response:

 

[funinspace]

It was not the attack itself. It was the "blaming it on a video critical of Islam" and then this bit of tone deafness:

Yeah, that is why the Repugs had 14 hearings; and that must be why the right wing nuts constantly harp about Hillary getting those 4 people killed...cuz she blamed the wrong factor for the attack and being tone deaf...yeah sure

But yeah that is about all there is to it. Just imagine a high official fibbing a bit about something inconsequential and being a tad tone deaf about trivia...

 

[Blackclaw]

It was not the attack itself. It was the "blaming it on a video critical of Islam" and then this bit of tone deafness:

Her question was valid. The Republicans were incensed that the attack might have been because of plain old terrorism instead of terrorism inspired by a video of some fool burning a Quran. What the hell difference did it really make?

 

[ZiprHead]

It was not the attack itself. It was the "blaming it on a video critical of Islam" and then this bit of tone deafness:

Are you saying the video wasn't part of the provocation?

Khattala told the newspaper that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/benghazi-attack-suspect-had-been-living-defiantly-in-plain-sight.html

 

[Elixir]

Are you saying the video wasn't part of the provocation?

What I'm hearing (which might not be what Derec is saying) is "I'm a Trumpsucker, but too embarrassed to admit it. But not too embarrassed to repeat Republican half-truths in order to undermine Clinton."

Am I close, Derec?