Whywas security at Benghazi progressively rduced as attacks worsened in elect season?

[depotoo]

First state, then the executive branch

My op? Look again. But, fyi, the state dept. falls under the executive branch and who is head of the executive branch? Think real hard, now.

Your OP mentioned Obama 5 times but your source material did not mention Obama once. Explain?

True, not your OP. So you are saying first it was State's fault or are you saying first it was the Executive branch's fault, and by default Obama's, or are you saying something else?

 

[depotoo]

Random, the security detail had requested more security more than once and were denied. They even sent state a list of all the attacks going on, even attacks on the compound there before, such as having a hole blown through the fence there big enough for a truck to drive through. Not only did they deny them and even remove security numbers, they denied the request for the use of an aircraft they had been previously allowed to have on hand due to the volatility there.

 

[RandomVariable]

Random, the security detail had requested more security more than once and were denied. They even sent state a list of all the attacks going on, even attacks on the compound there before, such as having a hole blown through the fence there big enough for a truck to drive through. Not only did they deny them and even remove security numbers, they denied the request for the use of an aircraft they had been previously allowed to have on hand due to the volatility there.

This is an after action review. How are you connecting this to a Benghazi scandal?

 

[Spoonman]

It wasn't reduced


Republicans slashed security at all embassies. They had to save money somewhere

even if this was the case, which it isn't, it would have had to have been approved by Obama.

he owns the blame

 

[depotoo]

Random, the security detail had requested more security more than once and were denied. They even sent state a list of all the attacks going on, even attacks on the compound there before, such as having a hole blown through the fence there big enough for a truck to drive through. Not only did they deny them and even remove security numbers, they denied the request for the use of an aircraft they had been previously allowed to have on hand due to the volatility there.

This is an after action review. How are you connecting this to a Benghazi scandal?

After action? No. Have you not read the cables sent to the powers that be at the state dept. telling them they needed more security as things were worsening there and they denied them? Did you also know the compound did not meet security guidelines and only Clinton could sign off on it being ok to use that way? Guess what, she did. Does that not all point to her failing to execute her duties before the attack?

 

[depotoo]

scan•dal•ous*(ˈskæn dl əs)*adj.1.*disgraceful; improper or immoral:*scandalous behavior.2.*defamatory; libelous.3.*attracted to scandal:*a scandalous gossip.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hi, I just got back and looked over the posts in this thread.

They seem to mostly fall into three catgories:

1.) Liberals trying hard to keep people from talkling about about the topic (why was security reduced as attacks increased).
2.) Liberals trying to pretend it's already been discussed, though all the administration did was evade, stonewall, hide witnesses, lie and change the subject for 1-1/2 years.
3.) Conservatives talking about what happened AFTER the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.

Twenty-plus posts worth of that junk and still counting. Isn't it time we stopped the irrelevant fluff and discussed the actual topic?

1.) Why were the decision(s) made to reduce the security through the spring and summer of 2012, even as people kept firing shots into the compond in increasing numbers, setting off bombs, attacking convoys, and blowing holes in the walls more and more? Doesn't appear to be just one mistaken decision. Personnel were reduced again and again, with more and more American forces withdrawn each month, even as attacks increased, and $millions was spent on embassy swimming pools, parties,and office furniture. Why?

2.) Once the fatal attack actually started, no attempt was made to send any help, though the course and length of the attack could not be forecase and suitable forces were available, close enough to make an attempt plausible. Why not?

3.) Who made these decisions?

These questions have never been answered, and have seldom even been asked. Yet they are far more important than who wrote an email afterward, who blamed a video afterward, etc.

A video did not kill four Americans, including an Ambassador.

Emails after the attack, did not kill four Americans including an Ambassador.

Deciding to reduce security while attacks went on for months, DID kill four Americans including an Ambassador. Who decided that, and why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hi, I just got back and looked over the posts in this thread.

They seem to mostly fall into three catgories:

1.) Liberals trying hard to keep people from talkling about about the topic (why was security reduced as attacks increased).
2.) Liberals trying to pretend it's already been discussed...

The poster is making the above 2 accusations, but:

There have been 442 threads on USMB discussing Benghazi, going back to 9/11/12,

and that's not counting the Benghazi threads that don't happen to have 'Benghazi' in the title.

Shut. the. fuck. up. you. mental. retard.