A year ago Obama said al-Qaida is on the run, and now WE are on the run (Page 2): Yes Molly they do see the fallout caused by Benghazi. How long did it take them to finally acknowledge...

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Molly wrote:

They know the damage caused by Benghazi and how it caused infighting.. of course embassies will be their targets.He had to have an abundance of caution because Lord knows we cannot afford it. I'm sure he will only get blasted for it.. no matter what he does you will see it as wrong.

Yes Molly they do see the fallout caused by Benghazi. How long did it take them to finally acknowledge that "the video" had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi? No one had ever heard of the video until they trotted it out as being the cause of the sacking of the "safe house" and Embassy resulting in four deaths of Americans.

They did learn from that fiasco. They learned to close the Embassy's and Consul's before another calamity could befall them.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

I have to agree. It seems more could have been done. There were many factors to consider and it appears misjudgments were made with serious repercussions. Mistakes, yes, but doubtful anything could have been done to save those four lives. The "damage control" made it look a lot worse than it probably was.

Perhaps the four lives would not have been saved, but at the very least they sure as hell could have tried, rather than issuing a "stand down" order. They are criminally liable.

Navysnipe Loc: Old West

Doubtful anything could have been done???? How about allowing someone to come to their aid rather than giving an order to stand down. Complete lack of leadership on that one.

rumitoid

Navysnipe wrote:

Doubtful anything could have been done???? How about allowing someone to come to their aid rather than giving an order to stand down. Complete lack of leadership on that one.

Having read and heard most of the hearings there were numerous diplomatic factors to consider, none the least of which was that nation's forces were meant to respond and that outpost was primarily CIA. We all agree it was terribly tragic and a mark against our readiness. If we are concerned about those brave Americans who lost their lives to cowards, our efforts should not be to politicize what happened, cheapening their honorable deaths, but look to learn and improve how we handle outposts in highly dangerous areas. This has not been the case.

Navysnipe Loc: Old West

rumitoid wrote:

Havving read and heard most of the hearings there ... (show quote)

On the other hand, if the person who is supposed to be leading this country can't do the job, then get him out and put somebody in that can. He politicized it himself by lying about it afterward.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

Having read and heard most of the hearings there w... (show quote)

It is the Administration that is "politicizing" this atrocity. They refuse to accept responsibility. After all, "what does it matter at this time"? When they were calling for additional protection what did our esteemed politicos do? They reduced the already inadequate protection that was there.
They are criminally liable and should be imprisoned. They at least, so far, have learned from Benghazi and are pulling our people out of harms way, at the present. But never fear, according to our "Liar in Chief", "we are not at war with radical Islam".

rumitoid

Old_Gringo wrote:

It is the Administration that is "politicizin... (show quote)

Though I do not agree, it should be "Lia[e]r in Chief." Hillary took immediate and full responsibility. Certain aspects for security reasons could not be immediately disclosed, which anyone looking for a conspiracy would give ample fodder.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

Though I do not agree, it should be "Lia[e]r in Chief." Hillary took immediate and full responsibility. Certain aspects for security reasons could not be immediately disclosed, which anyone looking for a conspiracy would give ample fodder.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Thank you. I have rectified the situation.

I am properly chastened. I didn't proof before sending. :oops:

rumitoid

Old_Gringo wrote:

Thank you. I have rectified the situation.

I am properly chastened. I didn't proof before sending. :oops:

Was not meant to chasten, just a typo that we all make occasionally. My father was a wise man, despite our differences. He said, "if you do not pay attention to details, such as a good shave and good grammar, it is like dressing up in a clown suit and wanting to be taken seriously." He also said that if your name were not in lights in some way, it may as well be written on your tombstone. His wisdom was, er, diverse.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

Was not meant to chasten, just a typo that we all make occasionally. My father was a wise man, despite our differences. He said, "if you do not pay attention to details, such as a good shave and good grammar, it is like dressing up in a clown suit and wanting to be taken seriously." He also said that if your name were not in lights in some way, it may as well be written on your tombstone. His wisdom was, er, diverse.

Excellent advice.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

Though I do not agree, it should be "Lia[e]r in Chief." Hillary took immediate and full responsibility. Certain aspects for security reasons could not be immediately disclosed, which anyone looking for a conspiracy would give ample fodder.

The conspiracy would be the withholding of pertinent information as to the origin of the Benghazi attack. It was known within hours that there was no "spontaneous" demonstration. Yet the Administration kept saying it was due to a dastardly video. (My usage of dastardly. I can't recall the adjective utilized by the Administration.)

They continued to use that "whipping boy" for several weeks until they could no longer do so with a straight face, although they tried.

rumitoid

Old_Gringo wrote:

The conspiracy would be the withholding of pertinent information as to the origin of the Benghazi attack. It was known within hours that there was no "spontaneous" demonstration. Yet the Administration kept saying it was due to a dastardly video. (My usage of dastardly. I can't recall the adjective utilized by the Administration.)

They continued to use that "whipping boy" for several weeks until they could no longer do so with a straight face, although they tried.

In WWII, Winstone Churchill knew of attacks but gave no warning to the citizens of his own country; many died. Was he wrong? He knew these things because the German code had been broken; to save those people would have alerted the germans of this fact. I find such a decision as Churchill made chilling and, I feel, beyond my patriotism. Let NY, say, suffer the effects of a dirty bomb in order to protect direct links that could wipe out Al-quadda leadership, crippling that organization. Taking the heat in these circumstances is a courage greater than i believe I am capable of.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

rumitoid wrote:

In WWII, Winstone Churchill knew of attacks but ga... (show quote)

Gotcha! Winston(e). LOL

Yes I am well aware what Winston did. I have to agree with him. (I am thankful I didn't have to live with the consequences of his decision.)

We did something similar in the Pacific although without the tragic consequences Winston had to endure. We had broken the (some) codes of the Japanese. The dilemma we faced was to whether or not to kill the top commander of the Japanese military in the Pacific. We learned where he would be, but by eliminating him would the Japanese learn we had broken their code? The decision was made by Roosevelt to go ahead with the assassination. Fortunately, for us, they weren't aware we had broken their code and attributed it to the fortunes of war.

Molly

rumitoid wrote:

Having read and heard most of the hearings there w... (show quote)

WELL SAID!

I also believe the CIA being there is why information was slow going. At the end of the day I do think there were things they didn't want broadcast and I don't believe that when the CIA or the government are involved that everything needs to be aired on the news. There were mistakes and it could have been handled better.. I think everyone can agree.. and maybe with the closing of these embassies it is showing we learned some lessons.