What's your take on the Benghazi incident?

MSgt Ryan Tanner — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:09:24 -0400

What's your professional/personal opinion of how this incident played out, along with it's political repercussions.

CAVEAT: Careful what you type...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2013 9:34 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:34:40 -0400

It's a terrible tragedy, and I believe we owe the families who lost loved ones some serious no nonsense answers to what happened. I don't think we can talk about how the incident played out until we have the full facts of the matter. Which we don't seem to have. Same for political ramifications, no heads should roll until there is legitimate proof of failure at some level.

We forget that you can do everything right, and still lose good people.

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 22 at 2013 5:45 PM

SFC James Baber — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:45:57 -0500

Political cover-up and spin doctoring by the current administration, and we will never know the exact truth until someone has the balls enough to ignore the BS political grandstanding and force the people involved to testify to the truth or face the consequences for interfering with a judicial investigation. But when the POTUS wants to protect all the ones that could tell some truths about what he did, it will never happen, I feel the same about the WMD lie that got us into Iraq, so before the pundants want to come out and say I am either racist or a GOP prodigy, I think both sides lie all the time, but there was too much evidence that has shown the administration new about the issues and refused to help when the leaders on ground asked for assistance and left them to die without any air support that could have been there within a few hours to help and possibly save about 70% of the personnel killed in the attacks.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2013 5:50 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:50:52 -0500

Something was going on the government didn't want to talk about when the attack happened.

The call was made not to send in troops (for some reason)

The call was made to deliberately lie to the public (for some reason)

The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Sep 19 at 2014 12:49 AM

SSG Mike Angelo — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:49:13 -0400

If one has not worked or been assigned or attached to a US Embassy for duty, then those questioning the aftermath of the Bengazi event have zero credentials in the matter.

Front and Center was Rep Trey Gowdy questioning the organization in direct contact with the Bengazi event. It is clear that Rep Gowdy has zero credentials in the matter, but he is an elected official. How much American taxpayer money went to present this media platform? My guess, a couple of million USD $$. I could find more efficient ways and means to spend taxpayer money.

Why is it that the national GOP principles state that smaller government is better when in fact the elected officials become adamant in the pursuit of their own agenda, hence spend money on how Americans ended up dead at Bengazi?

My take:

The US Ambassador led from the front by taking a high risk movement to the Bengazi consulate. Everyone with him also knew the risks. They took it and the enemy was waiting for them.

Where was the Calvary? One would ask.

On the Libya side? There was none.
On the US side?

US Marines are the selected branch of service that provide security for the US Ambassador and other State Department personnel....on US soil...US Embassy grounds. Once you are off the compound, it is a whole different world.

There are other branches of services to complement the security needs. On this particular day, the US Ambassador, acting as the Chief of the Mission and ranking US Foreign Service Officer and US Diplomat made his choice and had full confidence in his team and his support staff.

My take:

The US Ambassador did the most righteous and most diplomatic movement to Bengazi. He came in peace without American military might. His vision, strategy and execution of foreign action boggles those who have questions and have never worked at a US Embassy.

Let us honor those fallen and move on.

For those like Rep Gowdy who have questions, my answer is... become a foreign service officer and get out there...front and center. Please don't drag US diplomacy in the mud.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made May 27 at 2015 5:48 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Wed, 27 May 2015 17:48:30 -0400

Let me preface. I've served in an Embassy and worked with Ambassadors. They are a diverse bunch. Some of the younger career foreign service officers always wanted to get "dust on their boots" so they could have some State creds. The older guys were more circumspect. We've had Ambassadors over rule their Security Officers and prohibit them from carrying weapons. One such Ambassador in Yemen some years ago was on a domestic flight that got hijacked - her detail overcame the hijacker. I share this because this Ambassador is the President's direct Rep in that country. He didn't have to call Hillary -- it was a fluid and dynamic situation and he was expected to use his best judgment. He always could have stayed exactly where he was. He didn't. He was the senior guy. He had military briefings, DIA & CIA briefings and access to real-time best intelligence and information. Nobody could overrule him on his patch and in the "fog of war."He just flat screwed up. He went out and was ill-prepared, as was his team and that lack of preparation got them all killed and that is a great pity. This "investigation" is just political crap.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 23 at 2015 2:35 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:35:28 -0400

I watched the Congressional Hearing Yesterday and learned that our Embassies are not fully protected around the world and we could see another Benghazi with such lax security..

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 23 at 2015 6:54 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:54:55 -0400

An embassy was attacked. Just like embassies have been attacked repeatedly since we first started fielding embassies in some of the bungholes of the world. There's nothing new or special about this one..

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 23 at 2015 10:03 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:03:16 -0400

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-fact-check-clinton-and-critics-on-benghazi-emails/ar-BBmlVS9?ocid=spartandhp

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton and critics on Benghazi, emails

Congressional investigations, by definition, are about finding facts. But some facts were twisted Thursday in a showdown between Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Republican questioners over how history — and voters — will remember the deadly 2012 attack on a diplomatic compound and CIA quarters in Benghazi, Libya.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 23 at 2015 3:11 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:11:12 -0400

The RSO (Regional Security Officer) Eric Nordstrom as well as Ambassador Stevens made multiple requests for additional State Department security in the form of military SST (Site Security Teams) and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment teams). However these request fell on deaf ears. Patrick Kennedy the Under Secretary for Management and Charlene Lamb the deputy assistant secretary for international programs (now promoted to an RSO position despite being placed on administrative leave after a critical independent inquiry into the attacks) are the individuals responsible for managing these request. Despite the request for additional security, the teams in place were actually pulled out.

What I find troubling are the similarities in the 1998 East Africa bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and Benghazi. Additionally the lack of accountability or oversight is disturbing. The fact that the private email server was used, the review boards that investigated the State Department were picked by the State Department, the conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation all took place really make the State Department look disingenuous with their efforts in addressing the security of our foreign assets. To me Patrick Kennedy and Hilary Clinton seem more interested in obfuscating the facts in order to protect other more damaging conduct. On top of all of this is protection of the possible political gains of Hilary Clinton. This is a classic case of where one tells a lie to cover up more lies.

Will we ever know the truth? More than likely not as the individuals in question are seasoned politicos skilled in their statecraft. Regardless I think the questions regarding the security as well as the integrity of Clinton are prudent. What's sad is the loss of life is being used as an opportunity to find any wrong doing in an effort to derail political opposition rather that correct the internal problems of the State Department. As a lot points to Patrick Kennedy I feel he should resign - he should have know about the server and the policies around that as well the lapse in security issues especially with the history in the region.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Oct 23 at 2015 10:34 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:34:10 -0400

Question: what was the President and Hillary doing at the time of the attack? What did they continue to do when they knew it was attacked? How did they try to cover it up? Why didn't they go after the attackers since they had a year to act? I have no trust in the current administration especially Hillary.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 11:03 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:03:03 -0400

I was just watching the 13 hours interview (on Fox right now) with some of the men Soldiers who were there fighting recounting the incident. What makes me the most mad about this incident was the fact that they were left there to fend for themselves when so many were available and capable of responding. The denial of extra security can be chalked up to poor judgement, the lying about the cause can be chalked up to "conflicting information" but IMO there is no excuse to leave men largely outnumbered and under attack for 13 hours when reinforcements were available. The fact that help was continually told to stand down is what to me is despicable and inexcusable.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 23 at 2015 11:25 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:25:07 -0400

Really , the incident was pretty bogus, our "Ambassador" was not an ambassador per se', since there was no government. It was merely a way to have an acting ambassador there. He was actually just the contact/admin guy giving arms to the rebels. Him and those seal bodyguards fellow cia knew what they were doing. It was highly dangerous job. And the State department did not put enough security there. I suppose becuase it would have made the arms distribution operation more apparent.

As to the cover-up , yea there was but it really is of no import. However the discovery of Hillary's private E-mail accounts was important. As they were highly illegal, and obviously a way for here= to disguise the interrelationship between her being Secretary of state and the Clinton foundation getting $100 of millions of dollars. A way for her to receive bribes basically. That is illegal too of course. But it is of more concern the total disregard for security procedures and laws. She should go to jail, as she and Obama are plainly guilty of violating the Espionage act of 1917. Obama is guilty because he knew about it and did nothing, nothing in this case means he in effect covered Hillary's malfeasance.

That is how it is, I don't about partisanship and my views are not colored by such idiocies. Mainstream Repub politicians are as despicable as mainstream democrat politicians. Hillary is one of the worst so far. It is of note she was kicked off the Watergate investigation for having a lack of ethics. She has obviously gotten much better or worse , at a lack of ethics, or morales or respect of the law , since then.

Response by CPO David Sharp made Oct 24 at 2015 10:15 AM

CPO David Sharp — Sat, 24 Oct 2015 10:15:41 -0400

The State Department, especially H. Clinton, hung those people out to dry for Political expedience. There is no way help could not have arrived from Sicily or Aviano. Every time "Broom-Stick One" opens her mouth it is a lie and a pass-off of accountability. If she had no knowledge of those in her command at that level, does anybody really want her as President of this Nation? We have already endured 7 and one half years of debacle from the lunatics running the asylum. Why isn't she in jail yet? If we did what she did we would have faced a General Courts Martial.