I’ve seen it. There’s one tiny throw away line about the administration, and there’s some controversy that the CIA Director in Benghazi may or may not have been as dickish as portrayed in the movie, but I enjoyed it. Those guys did save nearly 30 people. Could they have saved the ambassador? Who knows. But bottom line, they were it as far as protection went until it was over.
I was acquainted with one of the security operatives, Glen Doherty, that was killed because my ex-wife grew up with him and they were close friends in high school. He was at some of the parties her former high school classmates hosted over the years and was always really friendly and outgoing. I haven’t seen the movie yet but my ex-wife did last weekend. She thought the content was good but it was so upsetting to her that she couldn’t drive home for 30 minutes after it was over.
It should have been just plain old “Benghazi”.
So the movie convinced you that Benghazi was Hillary Clinton’s fault?
Seriously?
Seriously?
Kinda have to second that incredulity. My politics are such, and my prior knowledge of the story was such, that I was ready to come out of the theater saying, “See! There’s your proof!” But I actually came away realizing that this story is about what happened right there on the ground in Benghazi – not what was happening elsewhere with Clinton, Obama, or anyone else. The movie doesn’t do anything to exonerate Clinton, but it also doesn’t point a finger at her either. At most, it makes you ask what the hell was going on further up the ladder in the military and state department. That might or might not lead to Clinton, but the movie doesn’t take you there.
Why wouldn’t it? I wonder if the movie will spark another investigation (the 9th?) by congress. I mean they have already had 8 investigations (IIRC - it was at least seven), had more than 30 congressional hearings (50% more than for 9/11 I believe), and issued 11 published reports (none of which found any evidence for administration wrongdoing even thought the committees were hostile and looking for any shred of evidence they could find). This fictional action movie is going to be it! It will prove Clinton’s guilt beyond a shadow and on the first State of the Union, President Cruz will have HRC in a federal penitentiary. I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know what the charges will be, but I am sure it will be clear by the time the Oscars come out.
Um, yeah, there’s a *reason *the thing was released right before the primaries.
The reviews show a lot of Michael Bay’s trademark explosions. If that’s what does it for you, go ahead.
It’s interesting to read the comments of those who have seen the movie (which is what the OP asked for) and the assumptions of those who have sort of heard of the movie, maybe seen the trailer, but actually have no idea what the movie conveys.
The real reason it was released here is that similarly themed movies have done well in essentially the same slot - American Sniper and Last Survivor - and the hope that this would get a similar performance from it. It’s a stupid concept - there’s not a “military movie time of year” but studios always try to copy a thing that worked even if it’s a superficial resemblance that really has nothing to do with why a film made money.
Please don’t be dismissive or disrespectful of the security personnel that were killed along with Ambassador Stevens. They were real Navy Seals and highly decorated soldiers that served many missions in different arenas and then transitioned into CIA sponsored security duty that just happened to get out of hand due to the complete ineptitude of the State Department at the time. I am sorry that you didn’t approve of their current title at the time of the events but they handled that heroically as well and ultimately got killed for it and the reasons given for it initially were complete lies. It wasn’t a mob response to anti-Islam messages as was advertised. It was a coordinated and intentional attack. The problem is that there was a very real cover-up in the beginning. I am not saying it was a conspiracy or anything like that. It is just par for the course for Hillary Clinton.
I know personally that Glen Doherty’s younger sister is still furious at her because of the non-empathy Hillary showed when they brought his body back to Andrews AFB for the first family memorial. Hillary’s whole speech was dedicated not to him or the family’s grief, but to explain immediately why she was not to blame at all despite being the Secretary of State who’s job definition includes the protection of such facilities according to their own stated mission.
http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/overview/c9004.htm
There is no way around that as far as I am concerned. I don’t think it is an intentional conspiracy. It was just simple arrogance combined with incompetence and that can easily create such a disaster when the leaders don’t know or really care what they are faced with.
Not fault, but if you think that someone who brushes off numerous pleas for help is presidential material, I most abjectly beg your pardon.
I’m far from a military man, but I wonder at a decision to put…how many of our soldiers at risk? To what end, and what cost? How many Libyans are in the area where such operations might proceed? What is the acceptable collateral carnage? We go in, guns blazing, how many bad guys are there? What have they got in terms of weaponry? Could they shoot down a helicopter full of soldiers? Or five?
“Brush off”? You know this, how?
Cite?
While those are real concerns, multiple units of soldiers were sent to Libya, moved from Tripoli to Benghazi, or readied to do so and called off when the attack ended, during the crisis. It turns out that you can’t just snap your fingers and get a battalion in place in a few hours, but the available resources were utilized.
A cover-up is by definition a conspiracy, but the cover-up is only in your mind. But there are several other threads dealing with that.
Is it?
If it involves two or more people, yes.
Conspiracy
-
the act of conspiring.
-
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
-
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. -
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
-
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
I’d never call a politician trying to cover their asses for doing (or at least accussed of doing to be fair) something stupid a conspiracy. But I would call it a coverup.
But that’s just me.
If there’s a secret agreement between the politician and at least one other person to cover up misconduct, then there’s a conspiracy to cover up misconduct. “Conspiracy” doesn’t just refer to moon Nazis and chemtrails.
I said stupid, not misconduct. And using “conspiracy” at the first chance you get just makes you look like a loon and cheapens the word IMO.
Save conspiracy for the big ones or when one is actually in a court of law.
Mmmm, tasty tasty descriptivism.
I *conspired *with my partner to hide our kid’s Xmas presents from him this year. You cannot take that away from me!