Who is Responible for the Benghazi debacle and how should they pay for it

[bodecea]

The buck starts and stops with obama, he should be impeached. Work your way down from there starting with Clinton.

I really, really, really want the Republicans to be known forever and ever as the sore loser party to resorts to Impeachments everytime a Democrat is in the White House.

 

[Lakhota]

Who is responsible? I would say the ones who cut the embassy security budget.

 

[hortysir]

Who is responsible? I would say the ones who cut the embassy security budget.

Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget - Washington Times

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

​

Hmmmm.....
2010, hunh?
That's when (R)s took over the House.

But ya know what else?
The (D)s still controlled the Senate and the Presidency.

But we're not talking about who's responsible for the attack or lack of defense capabilities.

We're asking who made the deliberate decision to LIE to the American public.

I would say, "But you already knew that", but......

​

 

[Dante]

Who is responsible? I would say the ones who cut the embassy security budget.

Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget - Washington Times

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

​

Hmmmm.....
2010, hunh?
That's when (R)s took over the House.

But ya know what else?
The (D)s still controlled the Senate and the Presidency.

But we're not talking about who's responsible for the attack or lack of defense capabilities.

We're asking who made the deliberate decision to LIE to the American public.

I would say, "But you already knew that", but......

​

No one lied. The lying accusation is just that, only an accusation.

 

[Darkwind]

The buck starts and stops with obama, he should be impeached. Work your way down from there starting with Clinton.

I really, really, really want the Republicans to be known forever and ever as the sore loser party to resorts to Impeachments everytime a Democrat is in the White House.

Sorry, the "sore loser' crown will forever be worn by the Democrats for the 2000 election.

 

[Darkwind]

The GOP hearings committee, obviously; their hearing this week was as much a debacle as the first, if not more so.

What should be done? Vote the republican committee members out of office, clearly.

because we all know how unimportant truth is

truth in a partisan GOP hearing?

The only partisanship in that hearing was coming from the left side of the room.

 

[Claudette]

No S. Your the one who has it wrong.

You just don't want to admitt your boy hero, Hillary and his inept State Department screwed the pooch on Benghazi.

Hell. Barry jetted off to his fundraiser while his consulate was under attack and you think thats okay??

Good Gawd. Open your eyes and take an unbiased look at his conduct and the conduct of his SOS and State Department and then tell me how innocent they are. Jeeze.

The fact is that our embassies have been attacked for decades with losses of life from embassy personnel. We have not shown the ability to provide 100% protection for embassy staff for over 30 years.

Even after nine Congressional hearings on Benghazi, nobody has shown that this attack could have been prevented or that the staff could have been rescued.

Maybe Republicans will have better luck in proving a crime has been committed in the tenth hearing....or twentieth hearing

Boy Winger are you sure are biased.

That embassy had been requesting additional security for months. They were operating at the bare minimum when they should have been heavily fortified because of where they were. Libya.

There had been threats for months. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. This administration had months to beef up security. Instead they denied those repeated requests.

There is no crime per se. Its not a criminal act and no one will ever pay any price for the deaths of those four men. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Its just the absolute ineptness of the State Department and the lies told by the admistration. They knew, via the CIA, that it was AQ yet they sent minions out to blame it on a video. Of course Barry was running for re-election and thats a big part of that little lie and Barry had no problem jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser as his consulate was under attacki. Great guy who certainly had HIS priorities in order.

If Bush had been POTUS you and others would be screaming for answers. You'd want the how, why and where. Hell. The NYS would have 8 inch letterhead and run it for months. Since its Barry and his pack of boobs the LSM could give shit one.

Benghazi was completely preventable and those four very good men should still be alive.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No S. Your the one who has it wrong.

You just don't want to admitt your boy hero, Hillary and his inept State Department screwed the pooch on Benghazi.

Hell. Barry jetted off to his fundraiser while his consulate was under attack and you think thats okay??

Good Gawd. Open your eyes and take an unbiased look at his conduct and the conduct of his SOS and State Department and then tell me how innocent they are. Jeeze.

The fact is that our embassies have been attacked for decades with losses of life from embassy personnel. We have not shown the ability to provide 100% protection for embassy staff for over 30 years.

Even after nine Congressional hearings on Benghazi, nobody has shown that this attack could have been prevented or that the staff could have been rescued.

Maybe Republicans will have better luck in proving a crime has been committed in the tenth hearing....or twentieth hearing

Boy Winger are you an idiot.

That embassy had been requesting additional security for months. They were operating at the bare minimum when they should have been heavily fortified because of where they were. Libya.

There had been threats for months. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. This administration had months to beef up security. Instead they denied those repeated requests.

There is no crime per se. Its not a criminal act and no one will ever pay any price for the deaths of those four men. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Its just the absolute ineptness of the State Department and the lies told by the admistration. They knew, via the CIA, that it was AQ yet they sent minions out to blame it on a video. Of course Barry was running for re-election and thats a big part of that little lie and Barry had no problem jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser as his consulate was under attacki. Great guy who certainly had HIS priorities in order.

If Bush had been POTUS you and others would be screaming for answers. You'd want the how, why and where. Hell. The NYS would have 8 inch letterhead and run it for months. Since its Barry and his pack of boobs the LSM could give shit one.

Benghazi was completely preventable and those four very good men should still be alive.

our own state department knew it

back in july of the same year

they issued a new travel warning

for the Benghazi area

warning of kidnappings and assassinations in the area

 

[Ravi]

Who is Responible for the Benghazi debacle and how should they pay for it

The responsible party is the party that carried out the attack.

Or are you saying George W. Bush should be hanged for 9/11?

 

[rightwinger]

The buck starts and stops with obama, he should be impeached. Work your way down from there starting with Clinton.

I really, really, really want the Republicans to be known forever and ever as the sore loser party to resorts to Impeachments everytime a Democrat is in the White House.

Sorry, the "sore loser' crown will forever be worn by the Democrats for the 2000 election.

Who was impeached after the 2000 election?

 

[rightwinger]

No S. Your the one who has it wrong.

You just don't want to admitt your boy hero, Hillary and his inept State Department screwed the pooch on Benghazi.

Hell. Barry jetted off to his fundraiser while his consulate was under attack and you think thats okay??

Good Gawd. Open your eyes and take an unbiased look at his conduct and the conduct of his SOS and State Department and then tell me how innocent they are. Jeeze.

The fact is that our embassies have been attacked for decades with losses of life from embassy personnel. We have not shown the ability to provide 100% protection for embassy staff for over 30 years.

Even after nine Congressional hearings on Benghazi, nobody has shown that this attack could have been prevented or that the staff could have been rescued.

Maybe Republicans will have better luck in proving a crime has been committed in the tenth hearing....or twentieth hearing

Boy Winger are you sure are biased.

That embassy had been requesting additional security for months. They were operating at the bare minimum when they should have been heavily fortified because of where they were. Libya.

There had been threats for months. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. This administration had months to beef up security. Instead they denied those repeated requests.

There is no crime per se. Its not a criminal act and no one will ever pay any price for the deaths of those four men. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Its just the absolute ineptness of the State Department and the lies told by the admistration. They knew, via the CIA, that it was AQ yet they sent minions out to blame it on a video. Of course Barry was running for re-election and thats a big part of that little lie and Barry had no problem jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser as his consulate was under attacki. Great guy who certainly had HIS priorities in order.

If Bush had been POTUS you and others would be screaming for answers. You'd want the how, why and where. Hell. The NYS would have 8 inch letterhead and run it for months. Since its Barry and his pack of boobs the LSM could give shit one.

Benghazi was completely preventable and those four very good men should still be alive.

If they had doubled the security, would it have stopped the attacks? Embassies around the globe had requested more security. Who should have received more?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its best

 

[Claudette]

The fact is that our embassies have been attacked for decades with losses of life from embassy personnel. We have not shown the ability to provide 100% protection for embassy staff for over 30 years.

Even after nine Congressional hearings on Benghazi, nobody has shown that this attack could have been prevented or that the staff could have been rescued.

Maybe Republicans will have better luck in proving a crime has been committed in the tenth hearing....or twentieth hearing

Boy Winger are you sure are biased.

That embassy had been requesting additional security for months. They were operating at the bare minimum when they should have been heavily fortified because of where they were. Libya.

There had been threats for months. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. This administration had months to beef up security. Instead they denied those repeated requests.

There is no crime per se. Its not a criminal act and no one will ever pay any price for the deaths of those four men. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Its just the absolute ineptness of the State Department and the lies told by the admistration. They knew, via the CIA, that it was AQ yet they sent minions out to blame it on a video. Of course Barry was running for re-election and thats a big part of that little lie and Barry had no problem jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser as his consulate was under attacki. Great guy who certainly had HIS priorities in order.

If Bush had been POTUS you and others would be screaming for answers. You'd want the how, why and where. Hell. The NYS would have 8 inch letterhead and run it for months. Since its Barry and his pack of boobs the LSM could give shit one.

Benghazi was completely preventable and those four very good men should still be alive.

If they had doubled the security, would it have stopped the attacks? Embassies around the globe had requested more security. Who should have received more?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its best

Considering it was Libya, and unstable ME country, You can call it Monday morning quarterbacking but I sure don't. Its just facts.

The Embassy was operating with the bare minimum for security and had received credible threats. Hell. The Brits closed the're embassy and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. No lies there. You don't close an embassy for nothing.

Security should have been beefed up and not left to the Libyan militia. Or we should have closed our embassy and brought our people home.

The State Department had months to do either but refused. I call that ineptitude at its best. To bad it cost four very good men the're lives.

You can site Monday morning quarterbacking all you want. It was a failure of our State Department to protect our embassy and employees with a pack of lies from the administration as to the cause.

 

[rightwinger]

Boy Winger are you sure are biased.

That embassy had been requesting additional security for months. They were operating at the bare minimum when they should have been heavily fortified because of where they were. Libya.

There had been threats for months. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. This administration had months to beef up security. Instead they denied those repeated requests.

There is no crime per se. Its not a criminal act and no one will ever pay any price for the deaths of those four men. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Its just the absolute ineptness of the State Department and the lies told by the admistration. They knew, via the CIA, that it was AQ yet they sent minions out to blame it on a video. Of course Barry was running for re-election and thats a big part of that little lie and Barry had no problem jetting off to his Vegas fundraiser as his consulate was under attacki. Great guy who certainly had HIS priorities in order.

If Bush had been POTUS you and others would be screaming for answers. You'd want the how, why and where. Hell. The NYS would have 8 inch letterhead and run it for months. Since its Barry and his pack of boobs the LSM could give shit one.

Benghazi was completely preventable and those four very good men should still be alive.

If they had doubled the security, would it have stopped the attacks? Embassies around the globe had requested more security. Who should have received more?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its best

Considering it was Libya, and unstable ME country, You can call it Monday morning quarterbacking but I sure don't. Its just facts.

The Embassy was operating with the bare minimum for security and had received credible threats. Hell. The Brits closed the're embassy and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. No lies there. You don't close an embassy for nothing.

Security should have been beefed up and not left to the Libyan militia. Or we should have closed our embassy and brought our people home.

The State Department had months to do either but refused. I call that ineptitude at its best. To bad it cost four very good men the're lives.

You can site Monday morning quarterbacking all you want. It was a failure of our State Department to protect our embassy and employees with a pack of lies from the administration as to the cause.

Since you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking...

How much security would have had to be in place to stop the attack?
I would also like to see a cite for the "bare minimum" claim. What is the bare minimum and where is it established?

 

[Oldstyle]

Who is responsible? I would say the ones who cut the embassy security budget.

Benghazi attack followed deep cuts in State Department security budget - Washington Times

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

​

Hmmmm.....
2010, hunh?
That's when (R)s took over the House.

But ya know what else?
The (D)s still controlled the Senate and the Presidency.

But we're not talking about who's responsible for the attack or lack of defense capabilities.

We're asking who made the deliberate decision to LIE to the American public.

I would say, "But you already knew that", but......

​

No one lied. The lying accusation is just that, only an accusation.

You embarrass yourself with that statement, Dante. No one lied? It's become very obvious that quite a few people in the Obama Administration lied, did so repeatedly and continue to do so. There was no demonstration about a YouTube video that day in Benghazi...people in the Obama Administration created that narrative out of thin air. They knew it was a completely false narrative and they went with it anyways. They blamed the lack of security on Republican budget cuts. Once again a complete lie as proven by the testimony of Charlene Lamb. Barack Obama said that he ordered the military to do everything possible to help the people on the ground in Libya that day. Another lie. They DIDN'T send special forces from Italy. They DIDN'T send any fighter planes.

The "lies" in this scandal are so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. I'm not even getting into Jay Carney stating that the only changes to intelligence reports by the State Department were for spelling and style. That's such a blatant lie at this point that it's embarrassing to watch him stand up there and tell it.

 

[bodecea]

The buck starts and stops with obama, he should be impeached. Work your way down from there starting with Clinton.

I really, really, really want the Republicans to be known forever and ever as the sore loser party to resorts to Impeachments everytime a Democrat is in the White House.

Sorry, the "sore loser' crown will forever be worn by the Democrats for the 2000 election.

Riiiiiiight. How'd Bush being the winner by SCOTUS work out for us?

 

[Claudette]

If they had doubled the security, would it have stopped the attacks? Embassies around the globe had requested more security. Who should have received more?

Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its best

Considering it was Libya, and unstable ME country, You can call it Monday morning quarterbacking but I sure don't. Its just facts.

The Embassy was operating with the bare minimum for security and had received credible threats. Hell. The Brits closed the're embassy and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. No lies there. You don't close an embassy for nothing.

Security should have been beefed up and not left to the Libyan militia. Or we should have closed our embassy and brought our people home.

The State Department had months to do either but refused. I call that ineptitude at its best. To bad it cost four very good men the're lives.

You can site Monday morning quarterbacking all you want. It was a failure of our State Department to protect our embassy and employees with a pack of lies from the administration as to the cause.

Since you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking...

How much security would have had to be in place to stop the attack?
I would also like to see a cite for the "bare minimum" claim. What is the bare minimum and where is it established?

The bare minimum came from Hicks. He was second to Stephens so he should know.

Heres just one link. There are others.

U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


As for how much security? Certainly more than was provided. Beefed up security sure couldn't have hurt them.

If they had the security beefed up then it may have changed the minds of the attackers but then no one knows for sure. At least the security that was there would have been aware of the warnings and been on guard for attack and have more numbers to repulse same.

Better yet they should have closed the embassy down and left like the Brits and the Red Cross. Then there would have been no attack at Benghzi and we would be discussing something else.

 

[rightwinger]

Considering it was Libya, and unstable ME country, You can call it Monday morning quarterbacking but I sure don't. Its just facts.

The Embassy was operating with the bare minimum for security and had received credible threats. Hell. The Brits closed the're embassy and the Red Cross pulled out because of those threats. No lies there. You don't close an embassy for nothing.

Security should have been beefed up and not left to the Libyan militia. Or we should have closed our embassy and brought our people home.

The State Department had months to do either but refused. I call that ineptitude at its best. To bad it cost four very good men the're lives.

You can site Monday morning quarterbacking all you want. It was a failure of our State Department to protect our embassy and employees with a pack of lies from the administration as to the cause.

Since you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking...

How much security would have had to be in place to stop the attack?
I would also like to see a cite for the "bare minimum" claim. What is the bare minimum and where is it established?

The bare minimum came from Hicks. He was second to Stephens so he should know.

Heres just one link. There are others.

U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


As for how much security? Certainly more than was provided. Beefed up security sure couldn't have hurt them.

If they had the security beefed up then it may have changed the minds of the attackers but then no one knows for sure. At least the security that was there would have been aware of the warnings and been on guard for attack and have more numbers to repulse same.

Better yet they should have closed the embassy down and left like the Brits and the Red Cross. Then there would have been no attack at Benghzi and we would be discussing something else.

The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.



So what do we have? A temporary facility in a country that we had minimal diplomatic presence under Gadhafi. It had a fortified safe room for diplomats to secure themselves in case of attack. What it didn't have was a safe room that could withstand the building being burnt down.
Should we have had an army around the compound? In retrospect, it would have helped prevent an attack. But we have to look at embassy security as a whole. What level of security is needed to protect ALL of our embassies? Can we keep ALL of our embassies safe?

Based on attacks over the last 40 years, the answer is no

 

[Claudette]

Since you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking...

How much security would have had to be in place to stop the attack?
I would also like to see a cite for the "bare minimum" claim. What is the bare minimum and where is it established?

The bare minimum came from Hicks. He was second to Stephens so he should know.

Heres just one link. There are others.

U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


As for how much security? Certainly more than was provided. Beefed up security sure couldn't have hurt them.

If they had the security beefed up then it may have changed the minds of the attackers but then no one knows for sure. At least the security that was there would have been aware of the warnings and been on guard for attack and have more numbers to repulse same.

Better yet they should have closed the embassy down and left like the Brits and the Red Cross. Then there would have been no attack at Benghzi and we would be discussing something else.

The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.



So what do we have? A temporary facility in a country that we had minimal diplomatic presence under Gadhafi. It had a fortified safe room for diplomats to secure themselves in case of attack. What it didn't have was a safe room that could withstand the building being burnt down.
Should we have had an army around the compound? In retrospect, it would have helped prevent an attack. But we have to look at embassy security as a whole. What level of security is needed to protect ALL of our embassies? Can we keep ALL of our embassies safe?

Based on attacks over the last 40 years, the answer is no

Well your right there. Embassies have been and will be attacked.

Libya is far from stalbe. They should have had more security and if they didn't want to provide it they should have closed the embassy and pulled out like the Brits and the Red Cross.

If they had you and I would be discussing something else.

 

[depotoo]

Since you are Monday Morning Quarterbacking...

How much security would have had to be in place to stop the attack?
I would also like to see a cite for the "bare minimum" claim. What is the bare minimum and where is it established?

The bare minimum came from Hicks. He was second to Stephens so he should know.

Heres just one link. There are others.

U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


As for how much security? Certainly more than was provided. Beefed up security sure couldn't have hurt them.

If they had the security beefed up then it may have changed the minds of the attackers but then no one knows for sure. At least the security that was there would have been aware of the warnings and been on guard for attack and have more numbers to repulse same.

Better yet they should have closed the embassy down and left like the Brits and the Red Cross. Then there would have been no attack at Benghzi and we would be discussing something else.

The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.



So what do we have? A temporary facility in a country that we had minimal diplomatic presence under Gadhafi. It had a fortified safe room for diplomats to secure themselves in case of attack. What it didn't have was a safe room that could withstand the building being burnt down.
Should we have had an army around the compound? In retrospect, it would have helped prevent an attack. But we have to look at embassy security as a whole. What level of security is needed to protect ALL of our embassies? Can we keep ALL of our embassies safe?

Based on attacks over the last 40 years, the answer is no

It ws either Thompson or Nordstrom that stated in the hearing that under the State Dept's. list for criticality (highest level) of which only 14 are on that listof our diplomatic missions, Tripoli and Benghazi were part of those 14. Yet they continued reducing security there and had as they stated, the bare minimum at the time of the attacks. This, even though the State Dept. had received cables listing the reasons why they needed more security, such as the wall of the compound there had twice been breached by IED's and there were a total of 200 incidents within the last few months there, which they listed. The answer? Continue reducing security personnel there.

 

[depotoo]

The bare minimum came from Hicks. He was second to Stephens so he should know.

Heres just one link. There are others.

U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs


As for how much security? Certainly more than was provided. Beefed up security sure couldn't have hurt them.

If they had the security beefed up then it may have changed the minds of the attackers but then no one knows for sure. At least the security that was there would have been aware of the warnings and been on guard for attack and have more numbers to repulse same.

Better yet they should have closed the embassy down and left like the Brits and the Red Cross. Then there would have been no attack at Benghzi and we would be discussing something else.

The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.



So what do we have? A temporary facility in a country that we had minimal diplomatic presence under Gadhafi. It had a fortified safe room for diplomats to secure themselves in case of attack. What it didn't have was a safe room that could withstand the building being burnt down.
Should we have had an army around the compound? In retrospect, it would have helped prevent an attack. But we have to look at embassy security as a whole. What level of security is needed to protect ALL of our embassies? Can we keep ALL of our embassies safe?

Based on attacks over the last 40 years, the answer is no

Well your right there. Embassies have been and will be attacked.

Libya is far from stalbe. They should have had more security and if they didn't want to provide it they should have closed the embassy and pulled out like the Brits and the Red Cross.

If they had you and I would be discussing something else.

The UN had also pulled their people out.