# Benghazi Attack for Dummies. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466 "2013-11-08T23:46:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/641 "2013-12-01T15:27:59Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Here’s the exchange between Senator McCain and General Demsey (bolding and color mine): > > “When you’re talking about the Benghazi issue, you say, ‘We positioned our forces in a way that was informed by and consistent with available threat estimates,’” McCain continued. “Then you go on to say, ‘Our military was appropriately responsive,’ even though seven hours passed and two Americans died at the end of that. Then you go on and say, ‘We did what our posture and capabilities allowed.’” > > McCain said a base in Crete was just 90 minutes away. > > “We could have placed forces there,” he said. “We could have had aircraft and other capabilities a short distance away at Souda Bay, Crete. So, for you to testify before this committee that they were consistent with available threat estimates is simply false; that our military was appropriately responsive.” > > “I stand by my testimony, your dispute of it notwithstanding,” Dempsey replied. > > McCain countered, “Well, perhaps you can give me some facts that would substantiate it.” > > **Dempsey then said that a contingent was not sent because the State Department didn’t request one.** > > “So it’s the State Department’s fault,” McCain challenged. > > **“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded. “I’m sure they had their own assessment.”** > So I will ask you again, Lobohan, for a cite regarding this assessment. In that exchange, McCain and Dempsey are talking about placing forces in the region in advance of the attack, **not** the response to the attack. The assessments they are referring to are assessments of likely threats, and not an assessment of the response after the attack. On the subject of the response to the attack, however, Dempsey has this rather persuasive trump card: > [@](#): > > Dempsey said he stood by the conclusion of an independent review board, which concluded the “interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.” > [@Magiver](#): > > Cite who made the decision not to send a rescue team and the supporting data to back up that decision. A team **was** sent, from Tripoli, and you know that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/642 "2013-12-01T15:54:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is this an infinitely-resolving request, i.e. even if such information was provided, could we expect demands for finer and finer details, as in if you are told where an asset is located (for example, in a particular city), you might want to know its exact street address at the time? > Frankly, it’s starting to to sound like that poster who held as evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy that the exact quantity of steel and concrete on each floor of the towers was not being published. I never did manage to figure out what he planned to do with such information even if he had it, despite repeated requests. Back that train up a moment. I’ve asked for the same information and made the same comments as those in Congress. It’s not been forth coming. That’s a fact. There is no conspiracy theory here. If you look at the report cited multiple times about what happened it goes into detail about the events that happened yet it completely ignores the decision making process in the WH. Notice I’ve been referring to the WH and not Obama. What I’ve gotten in response in this thread is that those in charge said it couldn’t be done and therefore it must be true. That’s great but the details behind those statements have not been made. Could be true, could be total bullshit. I’ve then had to put up with how hard it is to get an airplane in the air, load an airplane, parachute out of an airplane, land in the same location,or that there might have been traffic or a host of other pointless “what-if’s”. This is nonsense and I’ve painfully walked through how easy it is to get a plane off the ground and land in a tight grouping with supplies. Again, doesn’t mean they had the resources where they needed to be but that information has not been released. They just skipped over the details in the report. Look at the report again and how much detail is in it and then look for the detail on rescue efforts. There isn’t any beyond a cursory agreement it took too long. Congress asked for these details and they have yet to be provided. It’s not hard information to provide. So instead of repeating the request for this information I’ll ask you why you think the WH should not have to provide it. Congress is entitled to an answer and so are we as part of the FOIA. It doesn’t mean we get secret information but it does mean we get an accounting of what happened. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/643 "2013-12-01T16:26:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Look at the report again and how much detail is in it and then look for the detail on rescue efforts. There isn’t any beyond a cursory agreement it took too long. Congress asked for these details and they have yet to be provided. -Magiver If Congress asked for details and the White House is defying Congress then why is the Republican controlled House not making a big political, legal and constitutional stink about it? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/644 "2013-12-01T16:45:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That was already posted. It doesn’t mention any of the process involved yet it goes into detail on all the other faults that added to the problem. > > What part if the following sentence don’t you understand: > > Cite who made the decision not to send a rescue team and the supporting data to back up that decision. > > That’s what McCain was asking for in his questioning. Demsey said he couldn’t do it and he was asked to justify his decision. That’s not a one sentence response. It’s a a great deal of information. > > How many people are threatening us > What kind of equipment are they using > What kind of teams are available > where are they located > how long to get each team airborne > what equipment do they need > how long to load the equipment > What intelligence assets do we have > where are they located > > etc etc etc… > > These questions get broken down by task for other people to answer. Why are you focused on the State Department and DOD since Woods and Dougherty were killed on the premises of a CIA clandestine operation of some sort. The deadly attack on State Department property did not last long enough for a response from outside of Libya? You appear to be conflating the two deadly incidents that are seven hours apart in your argument purely for political motives. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/645 "2013-12-01T17:31:40Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’ve asked for the same information and made the same comments as those in Congress. It’s not been forth coming. That’s a fact. There is no conspiracy theory here. If you look at the report cited multiple times about what happened it goes into detail about the events that happened yet it completely ignores the decision making process in the WH. Notice I’ve been referring to the WH and not Obama. . . . > So instead of repeating the request for this information I’ll ask you why you think the WH should not have to provide it. Congress is entitled to an answer and so are we as part of the FOIA. Let me be sure I understand you here: you are saying that it is a fact that Congress has been denied information relating to why the military didn’t send a rescue mission to the compound, correct? You’re saying that Darrell Issa, Buck McKeon, and all other (primarily Republican) congressmen doing oversight on the events of September 11, 2012, have not been able to reach a conclusion on why more help wasn’t sent? And that the primary reason for that is that the White House is stonewalling? Is that what you are saying? Please feel free to correct, clarify, or expound as needed. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/646 "2013-12-01T17:53:48Z")
I’m sure the Defense Department knows what assets are available to spring into action, and how long it takes to mobilize those efforts. I surely hope they don’t make that information public, despite repeated requests by **Magiver**. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/647 "2013-12-01T19:06:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Back that train up a moment. > > I’ve asked for the same information and made the same comments as those in Congress. It’s not been forth coming. That’s a fact. There is no conspiracy theory here. If you look at the report cited multiple times about what happened it goes into detail about the events that happened yet it completely ignores the decision making process in the WH. Notice I’ve been referring to the WH and not Obama. > > What I’ve gotten in response in this thread is that those in charge said it couldn’t be done and therefore it must be true. Not really - they were saying it couldn’t be done safely or usefully. I can buy that it was physically possible to scramble any number of resources, but the people in charge used their experience, training and discretion to be selective about what would actually be deployed in light of the lack of hard information. And if more men had been sent in to be uselessly killed, people would be blaming Obama for that, too. > [@](#): > > So instead of repeating the request for this information I’ll ask you why you think the WH should not have to provide it. Congress is entitled to an answer and so are we as part of the FOIA. It doesn’t mean we get secret information but it does mean we get an accounting of what happened. Feel free to ask the WH to your heart’s content, and to ask your congressman to ask the WH on your behalf. I’m personally satisfied the situation was handled as best it could be under the circumstances, and if it wasn’t handled better, it’s only because people are not psychic. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/648 "2013-12-01T19:12:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Back that train up a moment. > > I’ve asked for the same information and made the same comments as those in Congress. It’s not been forth coming. That’s a fact. There is no conspiracy theory here. If you look at the report cited multiple times about what happened it goes into detail about the events that happened yet it completely ignores the decision making process in the WH. Notice I’ve been referring to the WH and not Obama. > > What I’ve gotten in response in this thread is that those in charge said it couldn’t be done and therefore it must be true. That’s great but the details behind those statements have not been made. Could be true, could be total bullshit. I’ve then had to put up with how hard it is to get an airplane in the air, load an airplane, parachute out of an airplane, land in the same location,or that there might have been traffic or a host of other pointless “what-if’s”. This is nonsense and I’ve painfully walked through how easy it is to get a plane off the ground and land in a tight grouping with supplies. Again, doesn’t mean they had the resources where they needed to be but that information has not been released. They just skipped over the details in the report. > > Look at the report again and how much detail is in it and then look for the detail on rescue efforts. There isn’t any beyond a cursory agreement it took too long. Congress asked for these details and they have yet to be provided. > > It’s not hard information to provide. > > So instead of repeating the request for this information I’ll ask you why you think the WH should not have to provide it. Congress is entitled to an answer and so are we as part of the FOIA. It doesn’t mean we get secret information but it does mean we get an accounting of what happened. …can we have a cite that congress has asked the question you asked? Can we have a cite that the White House has not provided the information requested? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/649 "2013-12-01T23:19:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If Congress asked for details and the White House is defying Congress then why is the Republican controlled House not making a big political, legal and constitutional stink about it? I assumed you were aware of this but the holdup of every appointment is due to the [Benghazi investigation](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/lindsey-graham-benghazi-98934.html). ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/650 "2013-12-01T23:45:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I assumed you were aware of this but the holdup of every appointment is due to the [Benghazi investigation](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/lindsey-graham-benghazi-98934.html). No, it’s due to Lindsey Graham being an McCain’s errand boy. > **[CNN’s Crowley to Sen. Graham: Will You Release Nominees Now That CBS Benghazi...](https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-crowley-to-sen-graham-will-you-release-nominees-now-that-cbs-benghazi-report-was-debunked/)** > > On CNN's State of the Union Sunday morning, host Candy Crowley interrogated Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about whether he would continue to place holds on all of the White House's nominees to obtain access to Benghazi survivors, now that the 60... Congress isn’t asking for this. One dingbat is. So you won’t accept the words of two SoDs and working generals unless Lindsey-Fucking-Graham gets what he wants? What kind of standard is that? There have already been investigations. You’re scrambling now. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/651 "2013-12-02T00:12:02Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I assumed you were aware of this but the holdup of every appointment is due to the [Benghazi investigation](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/lindsey-graham-benghazi-98934.html). Which is directly attributable to a debunked 60 Minutes report. Please answer my previous questions, whether you think that I have characterized your views fairly. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/652 "2013-12-02T00:42:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I assumed you were aware of this but the holdup of every appointment is due to the [Benghazi investigation](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/lindsey-graham-benghazi-98934.html). That stunt is being pulled by Lindsay Graham who is a Senator. I specifically asked you about the GOP controlled House. If you don’t know why Boehner is not pursuing what you think should be pursued then we must assume you are chasing ghosts. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/653 "2013-12-02T03:41:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No, it’s due to Lindsey Graham being an McCain’s errand boy. Congress isn’t asking for this. One dingbat is. are you suggesting that McCain and Graham don’t have the backing of other Republicans (that’s two by the way)? Again, you didn’t research anything before posting. [Here is an article](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/30/benghazi-questions-block-nominations/3314023/) listing Republicans on board with this. > [@Lobohan](#): > > So you won’t accept the words of two SoDs and working generals unless Lindsey-Fucking-Graham gets what he wants? > > What kind of standard is that? > > There have already been investigations. You’re scrambling now. The standard, thanks for asking, is that people justify their testimony. Otherwise there’s no point in investigating anything. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/654 "2013-12-02T03:47:58Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That stunt is being pulled by Lindsay Graham who is a Senator. I specifically asked you about the GOP controlled House. If you don’t know why Boehner is not pursuing what you think should be pursued then we must assume you are chasing ghosts. So if googled “Boehner,benbhazi attack” what would I find? [Here’s Boehner’s position on the matter](http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-statement-1st-anniversary-benghazi-terrorist-attack): “We mourn the loss of four Americans who gave their lives in Benghazi exactly one year ago tomorrow. We remember their sacrifice, and that of their families, and we will not rest until we have answers about what happened. It is disgraceful that one year later, even though a number of the terrorists who participated in this attack have been identified, not a single one has been brought to justice. “For the past year, this administration has failed to provide sufficient answers, fully comply with subpoenas, and make available relevant individuals to provide testimony. In short, this administration hasn’t been upfront with the American people or this Congress. Republicans will not stop until we get to the truth. We will press forward with our investigation until we have answers, full accountability, and justice.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/655 "2013-12-02T04:13:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not really - they were saying it couldn’t be done safely or usefully. I can buy that it was physically possible to scramble any number of resources, but the people in charge used their experience, training and discretion to be selective about what would actually be deployed in light of the lack of hard information. > > And if more men had been sent in to be uselessly killed, people would be blaming Obama for that, too. Look at what you just said. **You can buy** that it was physically possible to scramble any number of resources, but the people in charge used their experience, training and discretion to be selective about what would actually be deployed in light of the lack of hard information. So can I. So can Congress. All it takes is the information to back up the statements made. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Feel free to ask the WH to your heart’s content, and to ask your congressman to ask the WH on your behalf. I’m personally satisfied the situation was handled as best it could be under the circumstances, and if it wasn’t handled better, it’s only because people are not psychic. You’re satisfied on the word of the people who did not justify their decisions. Yes, they’re not psychic. They didn’t know how long it was going to last or the strength of the forces at the outset. That changed over time with the addition of a drone and the reports of the people on the ground. The only way they would have assets available would be to launch them immediately. A special ops team brings with it the advantage of advanced training, snipers, specialized night operations, drones, satellites, stand-off-and-deliver air support… They held a tremendous advantage before anyone assessed the situation. After launching they had the advantage of time and planning support from the intelligence community on the ground. So yes, they may not have had a viable mission upon arrival but that call couldn’t be made at the start of the attack. You have taken the word of the very people being challenged to support their decisions and you’re personally satisfied with their opinion of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/656 "2013-12-02T05:02:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > are you suggesting that McCain and Graham don’t have the backing of other Republicans (that’s two by the way)? Again, you didn’t research anything before posting. [Here is an article](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/30/benghazi-questions-block-nominations/3314023/) listing Republicans on board with this. What subpoena is the WH ignoring? Specifically, please. Grandstanding politicos that are trying to sway gullible voters aren’t something that needs to be answered. Specifically, what legal summons are they ignoring. Specifically. > [@](#): > > The standard, thanks for asking, is that people justify their testimony. Otherwise there’s no point in investigating anything. What testimony. Who exactly needs to substantiate their testimony? They are free to call the general back, if that’s who you mean. The reason they don’t, is that they understand that this issue makes them look worse. Because there is no there there. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/657 "2013-12-02T05:07:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Look at what you just said. **You can buy** that it was physically possible to scramble any number of resources, but the people in charge used their experience, training and discretion to be selective about what would actually be deployed in light of the lack of hard information. > > So can I. So can Congress. All it takes is the information to back up the statements made. I gave you that information several times. They didn’t have intelligence on the scene. Why are you ignoring that? What evidence do you need for no intelligence? Specifically? The trouble is, you have no idea what you want. That’s why you can scoff at whatever evidence you’ve given. > [@](#): > > You’re satisfied on the word of the people who did not justify their decisions. Yes, they’re not psychic. They didn’t know how long it was going to last or the strength of the forces at the outset. That changed over time with the addition of a drone and the reports of the people on the ground. The only way they would have assets available would be to launch them immediately. A special ops team brings with it the advantage of advanced training, snipers, specialized night operations, drones, satellites, stand-off-and-deliver air support… They held a tremendous advantage before anyone assessed the situation. After launching they had the advantage of time and planning support from the intelligence community on the ground. > > So yes, they may not have had a viable mission upon arrival but that call couldn’t be made at the start of the attack. You have taken the word of the very people being challenged to support their decisions and you’re personally satisfied with their opinion of the situation. Two SoD and at least two generals have no problem. You have the conspiracy theory that they are lying. Yet none of the GOP witchunts have found anything at all. But since you want the witchunts to work, you demand more and more and more. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/658 "2013-12-02T05:38:02Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I gave you that information several times. They didn’t have intelligence on the scene. They sent a drone to the area. You know this yet you keep posting the same false information. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/659 "2013-12-02T05:40:34Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Two SoD and at least two generals have no problem. You have the conspiracy theory that they are lying. They’ve provided an opinion without any substantiation. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Yet none of the GOP witchunts have found anything at all. But since you want the witchunts to work, you demand more and more and more. All it takes is the information backing up their opinon. That’s it. Done. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466/660 "2013-12-02T05:45:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > They sent a drone to the area. You know this yet you keep posting the same false information. The drone did not provide the level of intelligence they needed. Drones aren’t magic. One drone. One. In a city. Do you expect the drone to float down to the city and look in windows and hallways? Is the drone gonna tell the generals how much local support the attacking militias have? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/benghazi-attack-for-dummies/673466.md?page=34)