It’s a bit more complicated than that:
You mean more complicated than all the the conjecture and speculation about military rescues that never took place?
Or more complicated than the facts and circumstances leading up to the event itself?
More complicated than “The State Department should have increased its security posture”, full stop, as an explanation for what caused the attack to more-or-less succeed.
No it’s not. FULL whatever-you-whish-to-use-to-emphasize-your-wrongness.
Not any more complicated than that. Period. Full whatever again. :smack:
It’s Hillary and Co.'s bag. With Stevens himself complicit. That’s the full story.
Why did you link to a story about the report when the report doesn’t agree with you?
The report agrees with everything I have said in this thread - almost to the letter. Did you read it/them?
Yes, I read this trainwreck of a thread, your contributions included. You wrote that:
To your credit, you’ve now backed down a bit, by admitting Stevens’ role in the security problems.
You’re evidently still not addressing the issues identified in the report with the positioning of military forces that left them unable to respond in a timely or coordinated fashion, which is part of “setting the stage” by any measure, and not something the State Department has control over.
You’ll also need to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton herself was aware of the security issues, had the ability to do something about them, and failed to do so, to actually make your case that she is personally responsible.
The only real question is, does the report conclude that CPT H.M. Murdock should have flown in and airdropped a red-and-black custom van, manned with B.A. Baracus and Faceman who fire M-14s that always seem to make enemy jeeps do mid-air flips?
Because that would be awesome. I would totally be eating crow if that plan were endorsed.
Yeah, but it would totally be worth it.
I think it’s just “Face”, not “Faceman”. But they totally would have fixed things. In less than an hour, too… including commercials!
Either works. Templeton Peck - Wikipedia
Although the mission wouldn’t be complete without Polish Private Detective Banacek giving us a bit of Slavic wisdom.
In the TV show they were Ruger Mini-14s, not M-14s.
Has anyone found evidence that HRC insisted that Amb Stevens manning the Benghazi post on the anniversary of 9/11 knowing a serius threat to Stevens’ life was way beyond what could be defended? Reason tells me that Steven’s could have moved to safer ground in Tripoli had he feared that sonething deadly was about to happen. But he didnt because he was a courageous man who wanted to serve his country and help the Libyans as best he could.
It’s too had the dancing on the grave of dead Americans continuous although a great deal of facts are in the that politically motivated dancing needs to stop.
Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), Hicks immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.”
Snip by Moderator
Of course all this depends upon a Commander In Chief more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rested for a campaign funds raising event in Las Vegas the next day. It also depends upon a Secretary of State who actually understood “What difference did it make?”, and a Secretary of Defense who was watching the feed from the drone and understood what the attack consisted of instead of making an immediate response that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.”
Good lord, he’s still playing Rotisserie Army?
How many times does this particular question need to be explained to you before you actually listen to it? The point of her question (which, I notice, you don’t include the rest of, so allow me…)
Important parts bolded by me. She’s not dismissing the dead Americans. You can say she is all you want, but you’re wrong. I don’t want to suggest that you’re deliberately ignoring context for your point of view, but I’m finding it hard to come up with another reason as to why you refuse to admit that she’s not dismissing the dead Americans.
Hand waving noted.
Reading for context is “hand waving” now?
Good to know.
You could have shortened this by saying that after the 9:40pm phone call, Robocop was parachuted into the compound and everyone is saved. Plus, all the bad guys are dead. And Robocop is mostly a robot, so he can’t be a union member.