New Papers Reveal Obama State Dept Knew Benghazi Attack Not Caused by Protests

It is important that we know the truth. I applaud all efforts to keep this in the news.

, and they are now haunted by that one lady who was the mother of one of the casualties of the 13 hours of Benghazi and her voice on TV before the Republican convention and the movie 13 hours of Benghazi is a thorn on their side since it's based on the book and it's not based on the book it is the book and the is the story from the idiots at Department of State who with the President Obama and secretary rice and Hillary Clinton lied through their teeth again and again and again!

SP5 Christine Conley - I'm sorry for a captain kind but at least he's alive. Those four men lost their lives and if you saw the mom on the news she was livid I'm not talking about when she was at the Republican National Convention I'm talking about when she was on TV how in the hell can the mother not be considered close family relative by the Department of State? Had those contractors not disobeyed their station Chief to go fight the Enemy at the Regional Embassy office compound. Those men as well as have people the other compound could have died. Those ex-special forces contractors that survived no longer work as security because they disobey their orders but in doing so they save many people's lives. The problem is, Hillary Clinton's walking around saying get over it when she was responsible as the chief of the state department. I wonder what would have happened had this been Republican Administration what was Democrats have said what would the Democrats have wanted if Mitt Romney were the Secretary of State they would want his head! I think it's a double standard. Either way Donald Trump was wrong but at least that captains alive while those four people died in Benghazi including the Ambassador. Please watch 13 hours at Benghazi or read the book. Rice not complete rice the secretary rice Hillary Clinton Barack Obama and others did untruths the whole time.

SP5 Christine Conley - we also had firewalls between agencies that kept them apart to not share info prior to 911. I am talking from the moment the attack began to how the government reacted and later how it decided to lie in unison. That is why the controversy will not go away.

The Ambassador is the primary link for the diplomatic efforts in a given country to the President, through the Secretary of State. At times, they even speak directly to the President. At some point the buck has to stop with someone and despite your efforts to dismiss this as a low level staffer bad call, I assure you that it is the Sec of State at the minimum who must be held accountable. Either way, again I have to ask, who was presented as the responsible individual(s) for not addressing the security concerns the common sense approach to fielding diplomats in dangerous locations without the proper assets in place to ensure their safety? That would be no one. Regardless, it was Clinton's responsibility as far as most Americans are concerned and they would be correct.

As for laying this on the Ambassador, I'm sorry but no. It was Clinton who pushed for the our involvement in Libya's civil war and it was she who ordered Amb Stevens to increase US presence across the country. This is all on record and confirmed. Amb Stevens may have been a willing candidate, but that does not absolve Clinton of her primary duty to ensure the safety and security of her ambassadors. I can't point it out enough that even if he were a willing candidate, he STILL had the sense to issue out multiple requests for additional security. If those requests did not make it up to Clinton's level, then I still have to criticize her for the incompetence of her staff.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Once again you are well into armchair quarterbacking. Still there were many investigations into this and they were not just looking for criminal liability, but political liability. None of them found it to the degree you are pushing for despite having far more information than either of us likely do. That's what you are going to have to explain, at least for me to take it seriously.

Political liability filters out to the people. If you don't believe the people took a look at the issue, and did not add this event into their perspective of Sec Clinton's experience, you are being delusional. I assure you that it is absolutely a factor I looked at and many of the servicemen and women I serve with too.

As to the investigations, if you look at the reports, the common denominator in each is that the political sides disagree. Without consensus from those reports, I go with my understanding of Embassy security, DOD/DOS relationships, and the factual reporting on Libya (i.e. what has been confirmed and proven). This leads me to believe most of the GOP perspective because it actually makes more sense and it was a lot more comprehensive. Additionally, if you believe the DNC members aren't going to circle the wagons for their precious Clinton, you're again being delusional. Now I get that the GOP want's nothing more than to find something which discredits Clinton, well, they found it and they were correct in digging deeper. Clinton screwed up and she paid for it.

To illustrate the common denominator.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/benghazi-report-obama-clinton-224854