Prodigal has been knocking arguments out of the park on this site recently. I appreciate your candor and ability to prove a point without stooping down to throw mud into the discussions. That people only see this as a partisan blame game makes me upset. I hope that the future politicians in my generation can rise above the muck, and focus on FIXING problems, not just on assigning blame.
"so in spite of the fact that the incompetence of this entire administration led to the slaughter of americans, we have fools cheering them on because they are part of their team. No surprising since we have fools cheering the re-election of a socialist who has racked up 6 trillion in debt in less than 4 years, but they think its a great idea to continue on that path." Freaking bingo! HC was smug, arrogant and combative. She either lied about not having any information on the security issues at Benghazi or is incompetent. Either way she should have been immediately relieved of her position after the tragic deaths of 4 Americans at the feet of her department. But hey this is very typical of this administration and the media's unwillingness to be objective and call out their statist cohorts.
Crockett- I think you are missing the point here. You seem to want to look at a macro vision of foreign affairs and make comparisons to Bush etc. This is not a macro issue. It would be somewhat satisfying if one single BO supporter would simply state that to not even consider beefing up security at foreign embassies in the freaking middle east on the freaking anniversary of 9/11 is incompetence on a startling level. Especially considering that the very embassy that was attacked had already been attacked a few months earlier. HC tried to paint this picture that she is overwhe,med with diplomatic cables and that this was just some sleepy embassy that caught them by surprise. It is absolute ******** and any person with a brain (dem or repub) knows it. This embassy had already been attacked very recently. Not one measure was taken to increase security and then our ambassador was killed. Again in the anniversary of the single biggest day in terrorist history and with the knowledge that terrorists LOVE to stage attacks with sentimental value. BO then covered it up successfully to get past the election and then started taking the blame. Same with HC. Just admit it.
There was a very serious report done on the shortcomings in Benghazi and changes in procedues and personnel resulted. The fault was deemed to be at the Assistant Secretary Level. If you want a U.S. Secretary of State completely cosumed in the details of embassy security at every dangerous location in the world, you and I have very different opinions of what her role and expertise should be. Certainly if there is a systemic failure of leadership that's up to discussion. I certainly agree that someone with a great deal of expertise and authority should be adressing the issues of embassy security. To the extent that such people were either not in place or were disempowered, I think there should be accoutability. I also believe that the United States cannot have a robust role in foreign policy without at some point having its people somewhere in the world vulnerable to energetic and calculating folks who mean them harm.
Someone on the Dennis Praeger show today compared her remark; "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." to saying "what difference does it make if the planes on 9-1-1 were controlled by terrorists or just malfunctioned? It is our job......" Smackdown? If anything got smacked down it was Hillary's Presidential aspirations.
Look I didn't want to do this. There were some mistakes made in Benghazi. Comparing it to the previous administration's biggest foreign policy mess up -- starting a war because of "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't exist -- is roughly liking comparing Lake Travis to Lake Michigan. Like an armchair quarterback spotting open receivers with help of multiple camera angles, the Senate and Prodigal Horn can point out what should have been done. To think the President and the Secretary of State shoud immerse themselves in such detail when they have the whole damned world to be concerned about is demanding something just short of omnicience. As far as efforts to deflect blame and throwing Rice under the bus as she made the rounds with talking points but no deep understanding of the issues, it was lamentable and the legitimate reason to embarrass administation, but in the world of scandals, this is not that exciting.
Crockett- again, for whatever reason, you won't take on the actual issue. Comparing to Bush is worthless and the details are completely different. Did Bill and Hillary Clinton both go on record as saying Iraq had WMDs. Yep. The entire intelligence comunity and several foreign intelligence agencies said the same thing. And please do not trot out that Bush and company faked the intel. Clinton was President and had all of the info that Bush did and he agreed, unequivically, that WMDs were there. Was the war a mistake, i would agree that it was. But it was based on an informed decision and had bipartisan support from congress. Benghazi had none of that. You honestly think if a question was asked to congress about beefing up security on embassies in the ME on 9/11 that they would have said, publicly, it wasn't necessary? And please stop this "immerse themselves in the detail" garbage because it is insulting. Increasing security in the ME on 9/11 is EXACTLY one of the top duties of the SOS. Every military base in the area went on high alert at the time. We had national news people talking about Americans needed to be vigilant on 9/11 in America. But not in targets as obvious and visible as US embassies in the ME? And the whole point of the hearings was to ask what was done? Were the embassies put on high alert? Did the embassies ask for additional security? What did the State Dept actually do to protect the citizens? That is what the hearings were for and she didnt answer a single direct question. The flippancy that you and others take on this issue baffles me. A US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack. he was the first Ambassador killed in action since 1979. And the 3 killed before him were all victims of terrorists (in the 1970's) and all happened in...the ******* ME. Further, after the attack no one from the US govt visited the site for 3 weeks.3 weeks. CNN reporters found Stephens' personal journal as well as other sensitive documents. The State dept released a statement saying no sensitive documents were found. How the hell would they even know? They werent there. When CNN got there the embassy was unguarded and abandoned.
good points, Bronco. However....Bush.... Isn't that how it works? When trapped in a corner, just whisper the words "Bush's Fault"?
The point is that the world is a complicated place and nobody knows exactly what's going to happen next and as vast as our foreign policy and defense resources are they are finite. Choices have to be made, decisions made on limited information. Just mentally make a list of countries and prioritize. Where is Libya on the list? Do you have it in the top 20? If you think Hillary is lazy or stupid, you have a much different impression than I. You guys are welcome to think this is a bigger scandal than Watergate and expect protesters marching in the street. I think the public has looked it over, thinks it was a screwup but on a list of foreign policy setbacks starting in 1941, this one won't register in the top 200.
I'm pretty pissed that blamed it on a youtube video when they knew it was an organized act of terror.
We can just agree to disagree. You won't acknowledge the issue. Was Libya in the top 20 on April 9? Maybe not but maybe. It would be hard to find more places than Libya that are as unstable and capable of fostering terrorism right now. And they just went through a dramatic uprising so from a SOS standpoint I would say they are definitely in the top 20. But on 9/11, Libya would be in the top 5!!!! And that embassy in particular that has been bombed months earlier would be #1 in Libya. This isnt rocket science. And i do not think HC and BO are lazy or stupid. I think they are driven by priorities that are self serving first and foremeost. They did not have their eye on the ball, at all, and it cost an ambassador and others their lives. And then instead of admitting their mistakes they covered it up until the election was over and then refuse to talk about the specifics. It is despicable. She should have resigned.
Bronco, Why a "cover-up" on the attack on the consulate? Wouldn't the administration be seen as incompetent either way whether the attack had been spawned by the video or whether it was a planned terrorist act?
