TWO issues that aren't addressed in the Benghazi "investigation"

[nat4900]

I'd ask "objective" right wingers (a task that may be akin to asking for a virgin at a Reno brothel) to, at least, simply contemplate two issues that don't seem to ever make the headlines or asked by the talking head pundits on the Benghazi issue...

First, as harsh as it may sound, shouldn't ambassador Stevens deserve SOME responsibility for placing himself and those poor 3 other Americans directly in harm's way? I mean, there was relative "safety" back in Tripoli, yet Stevens chose to travel 400 miles to Benghazi, throwing himself into a situation that, by all accounts, was highly volatile.

Second, the question that an objective observer would (and should) ask, is what possible RATIONALE would there be for Hillary Clinton to deliberately place an ambassador into harm's way? I mean, its not like Hillary was going to take herself into Benghazi....all she had to do is ask for help from the military, CIA, etc.
The implication that highly partisan right wingers seem to want to make, is that Hillary actually PLANNED for Stevens' demise......Exactly what was there to be GAINED by Hillary's so-called "refusal" to send help to Stevens?

Addressing those two issues.......objectively....can maybe help to separate the subjective partisanship from the blatant witch hunt.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

^^^^^

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. Absolutely. He, and his small team, chose to be there despite the danger which he wrote of even that very day.
2. He was doing a dangerous job in a dangerous place, and he was well aware of that fact. Had he stayed at the embassy he'd still be alive today, more than likely.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only thing that matters to me is the Obama administration admit they tried to cover it up, right before an election and blamed it on a stupid movie...


My personal opinion is the marines couldn't have rescued him and the others.

 

[Timmy]

Cover what up? It was a surprise attack . U righties act as if the pentagon knew everything right after the attack happend .

 

[Timmy]

The only thing that matters to me is the Obama administration admit they tried to cover it up, right before an election and blamed it on a stupid movie...


My personal opinion is the marines couldn't have rescued him and the others.

Maybe cause there were demonstrations all over the Mid East as well as Libya .

Hillary is right by the way . What's the difference if they were mad over the movie or just were terrorists targeting the U.S. envoy .

 

[Lakhota]

The only thing that matters to me is the Obama administration admit they tried to cover it up, right before an election and blamed it on a stupid movie...


My personal opinion is the marines couldn't have rescued him and the others.

Maybe cause there were demonstrations all over the Mid East as well as Libya .

Hillary is right by the way . What's the difference if they were mad over the movie or just were terrorists targeting the U.S. envoy .

It's funny to hear NaziCons say the anti-Islam video played no role in Benghazi attack.

NYTimes: Captured Suspect Said Benghazi Attack was Revenge For Anti-Islam Video

 

[Wyatt earp]

Cover what up? It was a surprise attack . U righties act as if the pentagon knew everything right after the attack happend .

Getting tired of liberals playing stupid....

Whatever ignorance is bliss I guess on your part.

 

[Timmy]

Cover what up? It was a surprise attack . U righties act as if the pentagon knew everything right after the attack happend .

Getting tired of liberals playing stupid....

Whatever ignorance is bliss I guess on your part.

Your reply means nothing . Do u have any substance to your argument ?

 

[blackhawk]

If Ambassador Stevens deserves some of the responsibility for putting himself in a situation that was highly volatile then why doesn't then Sect of State Clinton and President Obama? If he knew the situation in Benghazi was highly volatile then so did they so why didn't they order him back to Tripoli or pull him out of Libya? For the second part I have never seen anyone claim Hillary Clinton deliberately put ambassador Stevens into harm's way the questions have always been why the lack of security despite how dangerous the situation in Libya was becoming and why the nation was feed a cock and bull story about the attack being the result of a protest over video gone out of control when by all accounts the administration knew early on that was not the case.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Cover what up? It was a surprise attack . U righties act as if the pentagon knew everything right after the attack happend .

Getting tired of liberals playing stupid....

Whatever ignorance is bliss I guess on your part.

Your reply means nothing . Do u have any substance to your argument ?

I know it means nothing to either:

1. A liberal playing dumb

2. A ignorant liberal

3. Low information voter liberal


Here just for you



The Rice Diversion | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Obama throws Rice at media, distracts reporters from White House silence on Egypt | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And a million more, but I guess u r 2 dumb to remember or use google

 

[Timmy]

What's your point ? I get the conspiracy theory , which has yet to be proven even after all the investigations .

 

[nat4900]

If Ambassador Stevens deserves some of the responsibility for putting himself in a situation that was highly volatile then why doesn't then Sect of State Clinton and President Obama? If he knew the situation in Benghazi was highly volatile then so did they so why didn't they order him back to Tripoli or pull him out of Libya? For the second part I have never seen anyone claim Hillary Clinton deliberately put ambassador Stevens into harm's way the questions have always been why the lack of security despite how dangerous the situation in Libya was becoming and why the nation was feed a cock and bull story about the attack being the result of a protest over video gone out of control when by all accounts the administration knew early on that was not the case.

Well...thank you for the reasoned response without the usual derision....

For the first part, regarding Stevens' trip to Benghazi.....You ARE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS and those are the types of questions that were the ORIGINAL intent of the investigations and should still be, without the premise of casting blame on Clinton and State Dept.

For the second part, I would disagree that "no one is casting blame" on Hillary for placing the ambassador in harm's way....I sincerely must tell you that many, many times I've see right wingers begin their attack by stating the inane mantra..."Hillary lied and people died."

 

[Tresha91203]

I suspect he had to go there to destroy documents or be sure no data fell into the hands of the enemy. When an embassy is being overrun, I bet there's a LOT of necessary shredding and burning going on, and I assume it was his job to be damned sure it got done. I doubt that would be made public, but that Is my hunch.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I suspect he had to go there to destroy documents or be sure no data fell into the hands of the enemy. When an embassy is being overrun, I bet there's a LOT of necessary shredding and burning going on, and I assume it was his job to be damned sure it got done. I doubt that would be made public, but that Is my hunch.

He wasn't at the embassy, no one got hurt there, and where he was wasn't under attack when he went there.

 

[blackhawk]

If anyone is interested in what happened in Benghazi minus all the partisan political stuff that followed the attack I would suggest reading the book 13 hours in Benghazi it's the story from the security personal that tried to save Ambassador Stevens, and Sean Smith at the diplomatic compound then returned to the C.I.A. annex and fought the attacks on it.

 

[OKTexas]

Cover what up? It was a surprise attack . U righties act as if the pentagon knew everything right after the attack happend .

They did.

Within 17 minutes of the start of the attack, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who happens to be visiting Washington and was in the Pentagon that day, redirects an unarmed, unmanned drone to Benghazi.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...om-night-benghazi-attack-begs-more-questions/

 

[nat4900]

I suspect he had to go there to destroy documents or be sure no data fell into the hands of the enemy. When an embassy is being overrun, I bet there's a LOT of necessary shredding and burning going on, and I assume it was his job to be damned sure it got done. I doubt that would be made public, but that Is my hunch.

Very unlikely.......

First, the Benghazi annex is NOT the embassy that was located in Tripoli, 400 miles away....and, second
in Benghazi there was a CIA stronghold just a few "blocks" away from the annex....and, third,
an ambassador has plenty of folks other than him/herself to be involved in disposal of documents in a very hostile area.

But, otherwise your theory is at least plausible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Why was Obama arming Al Qaeda and ISIS through the Benghazi Embassy?

2. Don't really matter after 1

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. We never had an Embassy there. 2., see 1.