Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Benghazi Hearings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Frenchise" data-source="post: 197859" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>There were frustrated they couldn't get there quicker. You said "they were told not to deploy". That is not true. Additionally, it appears the delay was to try and get more firepower, which is not a bad idea when you're going up against 60+ people attacking.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no waiver required if the facility is temporary, as the Benghazi compound was designated. There was no law broken. I'm not a psychic, I can't tell what you mean when you say "Having an ambassador with inadequate security, especially when it required breaking/ skirting the law is a big deal." The facility, not the ambassador, had inadequate security, and required a temporary designation. Realize that in civil-war torn Libya, the state department chose not to invest all the resources required to make the special mission a permanent facility. The ambassador knew that and travel there anyway. In fact, part of his reason for visiting was to prepare a proposal to make it permanent before a Sept 30th fiscal year deadline. That is a very broad way of "skirting" the law.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The videos don't prove a thing. Rep. Jordan is referencing emails sent at different time frames. Between that time-frames, the assessment changed. The statement that the attack in Benghazi is not related to Cairo means nothing other than that the two events were not coordinated; it doesn't mean the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video.</p><p></p><p>No one can say that he attack would have happened on 9/11 without that video. Attackers themselves referenced the video. Would an attack have happened at some point, regardless of the video? Yes, I think it would. The main difference though, is that the terrorists used the video to swell the ranks of the attackers. Which is why there were people mentioning it.</p><p></p><p>I agree the administration appears to have strongly played up the video-side while downplaying the terror side of it. I think this is wrong, but that's not a stand down order, there's no violation of state department facility law, and there no indication that the CIA knew any attack was coming. In addition, you cannot say the video played no role in the attack.</p><p></p><p>Nothing could have been done by Clinton or Obama to save them on that night. That's a much less salacious scandal than what the conservative media was trying to sell, and it appears some people here bought it. The entire "scandal" revolves around incorrect talking points and intelligence reports/understanding at various points in time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Frenchise, post: 197859, member: 1007"] There were frustrated they couldn't get there quicker. You said "they were told not to deploy". That is not true. Additionally, it appears the delay was to try and get more firepower, which is not a bad idea when you're going up against 60+ people attacking. There is no waiver required if the facility is temporary, as the Benghazi compound was designated. There was no law broken. I'm not a psychic, I can't tell what you mean when you say "Having an ambassador with inadequate security, especially when it required breaking/ skirting the law is a big deal." The facility, not the ambassador, had inadequate security, and required a temporary designation. Realize that in civil-war torn Libya, the state department chose not to invest all the resources required to make the special mission a permanent facility. The ambassador knew that and travel there anyway. In fact, part of his reason for visiting was to prepare a proposal to make it permanent before a Sept 30th fiscal year deadline. That is a very broad way of "skirting" the law. The videos don't prove a thing. Rep. Jordan is referencing emails sent at different time frames. Between that time-frames, the assessment changed. The statement that the attack in Benghazi is not related to Cairo means nothing other than that the two events were not coordinated; it doesn't mean the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video. No one can say that he attack would have happened on 9/11 without that video. Attackers themselves referenced the video. Would an attack have happened at some point, regardless of the video? Yes, I think it would. The main difference though, is that the terrorists used the video to swell the ranks of the attackers. Which is why there were people mentioning it. I agree the administration appears to have strongly played up the video-side while downplaying the terror side of it. I think this is wrong, but that's not a stand down order, there's no violation of state department facility law, and there no indication that the CIA knew any attack was coming. In addition, you cannot say the video played no role in the attack. Nothing could have been done by Clinton or Obama to save them on that night. That's a much less salacious scandal than what the conservative media was trying to sell, and it appears some people here bought it. The entire "scandal" revolves around incorrect talking points and intelligence reports/understanding at various points in time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Benghazi Hearings
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top