Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.

(2) Stevens, sensing the danger, made many requests for extra security that were denied.

It would appear that the State Dept really screwed this up, and left those people up the creek without a paddle.

She was in charge, was she not?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.

(2) Stevens, sensing the danger, made many requests for extra security that were denied.

3) It would appear that the State Dept really screwed this up, and left those people up the creek without a paddle.

She was in charge, was she not?

1) True. Stevens was part of the state department, why did he chose to go to Benghazi if he was that worried and it was that dangerous. That is not blaming Stevens, but he certainly knew the ground conditions better than most.

2) in part, see 1), but what I want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level

3) State department screwed up; mistakes were made and it was a tragedy. This has been turned from something to learn from and not repeat, to a political event.

You asked earlier about the video and the conflicting statements. Frankly, I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what they told the Egyptian prime minister. I am sure there was and always is politicking on these events when dealing with other countries with dubious ally relations. The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video. that metric changed over time. Maybe Clinton et al should have caveated their remarks a bit more, but that to me does not equate to out-right lying.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

1) True. Stevens was part of the state department, why did he chose to go to Benghazi if he was that worried and it was that dangerous. That is not blaming Stevens, but he certainly knew the ground conditions better than most.

2) in part, see 1), but what I want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level

3) State department screwed up; mistakes were made and it was a tragedy. This has been turned from something to learn from and not repeat, to a political event.

You asked earlier about the video and the conflicting statements. Frankly, I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what they told the Egyptian prime minister. I am sure there was and always is politicking on these events when dealing with other countries with dubious ally relations. The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video. that metric changed over time. Maybe Clinton et al should have caveated their remarks a bit more, but that to me does not equate to out-right lying.

" want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level"

Agreed. I suspect it's handled at a lower level. But we don't know who made those decisions, but I believe we know that no one was fired. I'd like to know why that is, if it's true.

"The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video"

That doesn't explain why her early private emails (to Egypt and to her family) asserted that it was a planned terrorist attack. Yet after that, in public, she blamed the video. She told the families of the victims it was the video, and that was also after she claimed privately it was a planned attack.

If she blamed the video, knowing that it was really a pre-planned attack, her only conceivable reason for doing so, is to avoid looking like her agenccy bungled this. That doesn't raise any red flags to you, in terms of her qualifications for the job?

The guy who made the video is an American citizen. It doesn't bother you that she likely threw him under the bus, to save her own skin?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.


She was in charge, was she not?

So now in addition to France, we have to listen to what the Red Cross is doing? No more America leading, but instead follow the Red Cross.

She was in charge and took responsibility for it. Did Bush ever take responsibility for the colossal screw up in Iraq?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So now in addition to France, we have to listen to what the Red Cross is doing? No more America leading, but instead follow the Red Cross.

She was in charge and took responsibility for it. Did Bush ever take responsibility for the colossal screw up in Iraq?

I'll tell you, when you disagree with me, you have a really hard time distinguishing what I actually said, from what you are claiming that I said.

I think we went through this before. I did not ever say we have to follow the French or the Red Cross. What I said was, I want to know why, in this case, everyone else sems to have done a better job of gauging the threat level. Why were we outperformed by everyone else in this case.

She seems to struggle with the concept of accurately summarizing threat level. Sometimes, she thinks the threat level is higher than it really is (like when she said she came undr sniper fire at an airport, when video showed her shaking hands with a big smile). In this case, it sure seems like we thought Benghazi was a lot safer than it actually was - after all, we left our people there, and denied their repeated requests for extra security.

Maybe you don't care about such things when the people under scrutiny are Democrats.

"She was in charge and took responsibility for it"

She did? By shrieking "what difference does it make" what happened?

"Did Bush ever take responsibility for the colossal screw up in Iraq"

Do you honestly not know if he has ever conceded that he was wrong about WMDs? As were a lot of other people, like Hilary. She made the same mistake that Bush did, and she supported the war based on the same evidence. So why don't you claim she made a colossal screw up, when she voted for that war, based on her often-stated conclusion that they had WMDs?

You have fun with that.