1
1
0
Hillary Clinton
Election 2016
Benghazi
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
1
1
0
I don't care for either of the idiots that are running but my question would be; How many of the ones mentions informed of a possible attack and asked to beef up security prior to it happening? I believe the gentleman from Benghazi did warn the White House of the possibility and asked for assistance that HRC ignored.
I may be wrong.
I may be wrong.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Chris Wilson
I don't know why I bother.
First, Ambassador Stevens, through his Regional Security Officer, requested security measures that were not ignored, rather they were declined. This was not done by HRC, it was done by Undersecretary Kennedy. These type of administrative matters do not rise to the department secretary. The very first hearing help by the house covered the actual shortcomings that allowed the attack to be so successful, including attribution to the individuals who made the poor decisions.
Regarding blame on congress. There is plenty for them, but not for the security decisions in question. The committee asked Assistant Secretary Lamb if the financial resources were adequate for the diplomatic security bureau. She answered affirmative. The issue was poor decision making on where to use those resources.
It was a tragic event. Not a political scandal. Those that seek to perpetuate that narrative dishonor the lives of those lost that night.
First, Ambassador Stevens, through his Regional Security Officer, requested security measures that were not ignored, rather they were declined. This was not done by HRC, it was done by Undersecretary Kennedy. These type of administrative matters do not rise to the department secretary. The very first hearing help by the house covered the actual shortcomings that allowed the attack to be so successful, including attribution to the individuals who made the poor decisions.
Regarding blame on congress. There is plenty for them, but not for the security decisions in question. The committee asked Assistant Secretary Lamb if the financial resources were adequate for the diplomatic security bureau. She answered affirmative. The issue was poor decision making on where to use those resources.
It was a tragic event. Not a political scandal. Those that seek to perpetuate that narrative dishonor the lives of those lost that night.
(0)
(0)
LT Charles Baird
MSgt (Join to see) MSG Stan Hutchison
CW2 Chris Wilson
Thank you all for your input - like I said I may be wrong with my assumptions.
A few questions:
Who did Undersecretary Kennedy report too? Was the position Hillary held ultimately responsible for the actions or lack thereof?
Like in the military if a subordinate of a Command makes a decision that ultimately fails; the Command is ultimately at fault. (Hence if Kennedy made a decision that failed and he worked for or reported to Hillary - then Hillary is ultimately at fault).
The Department of the (add branch here) does not take the blame (where it may rightfully belong); the blame falls on the Command. Hence congress not taking the blame as the blame will fall on the office in charge of the decision as it does not take an act of Congress to make a decision about security at an Embassy.
CW2 Chris Wilson
Thank you all for your input - like I said I may be wrong with my assumptions.
A few questions:
Who did Undersecretary Kennedy report too? Was the position Hillary held ultimately responsible for the actions or lack thereof?
Like in the military if a subordinate of a Command makes a decision that ultimately fails; the Command is ultimately at fault. (Hence if Kennedy made a decision that failed and he worked for or reported to Hillary - then Hillary is ultimately at fault).
The Department of the (add branch here) does not take the blame (where it may rightfully belong); the blame falls on the Command. Hence congress not taking the blame as the blame will fall on the office in charge of the decision as it does not take an act of Congress to make a decision about security at an Embassy.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Chris Wilson
Kennedy reported to both deputy secretary Nides and to HRC. Sure she's ultimately responsible for anything that goes on within the department, but she's far removed from the beaurcratic process that resulted in bad decisions. Following the spirit of that notion, why didn't they grill Obama? (of course a sitting president would not appear before a committee).
You're correct, congress doesn't make decisions about embassy security at that level, but neither does the secretary. These decisions are delegated to the undersecretary for management and then the assistant secretary for diplomatic security, and then further to a deputy assistant secretary. You can drag the secretary of state in and grill her over decisions made by those under her, but you show your ass when you politicize it and play gotcha with questions that are already answered on record by more appropriate witnesses. They were never interested in what really went wrong. They were only interested in how they could spin it to make it look as if she personally ignored pleas for help from Tripoli - a gross mischaracterization of the truth. This is why they spent so much time on figuring out who told ambassador Rice to say it was a film protest rather than a terrorist attack. What bearing does that have on the security posture of the facility? It's irrelevant. As Clinton herself said, "What difference does it make, at this point?" Indeed.
There's plenty of things to pin on HRC in this election cycle. Plenty. This just isn't one of them.
You're correct, congress doesn't make decisions about embassy security at that level, but neither does the secretary. These decisions are delegated to the undersecretary for management and then the assistant secretary for diplomatic security, and then further to a deputy assistant secretary. You can drag the secretary of state in and grill her over decisions made by those under her, but you show your ass when you politicize it and play gotcha with questions that are already answered on record by more appropriate witnesses. They were never interested in what really went wrong. They were only interested in how they could spin it to make it look as if she personally ignored pleas for help from Tripoli - a gross mischaracterization of the truth. This is why they spent so much time on figuring out who told ambassador Rice to say it was a film protest rather than a terrorist attack. What bearing does that have on the security posture of the facility? It's irrelevant. As Clinton herself said, "What difference does it make, at this point?" Indeed.
There's plenty of things to pin on HRC in this election cycle. Plenty. This just isn't one of them.
(1)
(0)
LT Charles Baird
CW2 Chris Wilson Thank you for your reply - now I know why I don't deal in politics.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Maybe they should have been investigated. Why didn't the Democrats do it? They held the majority in Congress during most of those incidents (if not all). Maybe there was no evidence of wrong doing. Maybe we're talking apples and oranges...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google