(02-03-2016 03:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.
Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

Who seems to think that he went there on his own? It would be extremely out of order for him to have decided unilaterally without running it up the chain of command.

You can't guarantee that you have enough security. But that doesn't justify taking stupid risks when you know that you are not even remotely close to having enough. For what purpose could such risk possibly have been justified?

But I think you are getting to my points. There is just way too much about this whole deal that simply makes no sense. I don't know whether Hillary is responsible or not. But somebody is. And that somebody needs to be identified and punished severely. Maybe Stevens did it unilaterally, in which case he has already been punished pretty severely.

Right, but the problem is...and even you agree...that you can never guarantee that you have enough security. So how do you then punish someone for making the decision to go there and not having more security...when you can never say what is the right level?

What I'd really like to find out is if Stevens was actually a target...or just that these guys happened to get lucky and attack the outpost when he was there.

But I agree...someone up the chain probably okayed him to move there, but I don't see how that would be Hillary. Wouldn't it be someone who is directly responsible for moving protection teams around? Hillary (and no SOS for that matter) certainly isn't qualified to determine how much security someone would need in a particular country. So why would you ever expect a SOS to be making that call...or hold the ultimate responsibility for it?

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

Why? It's less than 650 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi. What was to be gained from an outpost so close to an official embassy?

Source this:

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

In the end, Clinton took responsibility for the lack of security and Stevens death and now she is running for President and that's completely acceptable in the eyes of the MSM. Now if she had been a Republican it would be a completely different story.

(02-03-2016 03:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

Why? It's less than 650 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi. What was to be gained from an outpost so close to an official embassy?

Source this:

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

In the end, Clinton took responsibility for the lack of security and Stevens death and now she is running for President and that's completely acceptable in the eyes of the MSM. Now if she had been a Republican it would be a completely different story.

Well, the outpost was there to begin with. How long was it there? I don't know.

And I read the stuff about Stevens somewhere a few months ago. I don't remember where...but it was just one person's opinion as nobody knows for certain that I'm aware. Since no direct order has been uncovered anywhere, you'd just guessing if you say that HRC told him directly to go there as well.

But your last point doesn't hold with the general populous. The general consensus is that the bad guys killed Stevens and there was little we could have done about it. All the investigations have shown that. And please don't pretend like the MSM did not cover all these investigations.

(02-03-2016 12:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Pathetic answer. So nobody is responsible for their department? Who hired those people? Who gives them general direction? Who knew the relevant intelligence data?

Absolutely pathetic.

And he was a Democrat... if he could only see how much ass-covering his party has become today.

Quote:Somebody made the decision to have the ambassador bascially run a naked bootleg in very dangerous country on a potentially very explosive date, with no supporting resources reasonably available (although we certainly possess those resources many times over in a global sense). I don't know who made that decision, but whoever did needs to fry. The problem is that unless they can prove that person is Hillary, republicans don't seem to care

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the US Congress at the time when it first came out, DID not point the finger at Hillary directly. It was only when Susan Rice came up with her "It's the video" marching orders and the State dept ran with that did it happen.

(02-03-2016 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.
Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

Who seems to think that he went there on his own? It would be extremely out of order for him to have decided unilaterally without running it up the chain of command.

You can't guarantee that you have enough security. But that doesn't justify taking stupid risks when you know that you are not even remotely close to having enough. For what purpose could such risk possibly have been justified?

But I think you are getting to my points. There is just way too much about this whole deal that simply makes no sense. I don't know whether Hillary is responsible or not. But somebody is. And that somebody needs to be identified and punished severely. Maybe Stevens did it unilaterally, in which case he has already been punished pretty severely.

Right, but the problem is...and even you agree...that you can never guarantee that you have enough security. So how do you then punish someone for making the decision to go there and not having more security...when you can never say what is the right level?

What I'd really like to find out is if Stevens was actually a target...or just that these guys happened to get lucky and attack the outpost when he was there.

But I agree...someone up the chain probably okayed him to move there, but I don't see how that would be Hillary. Wouldn't it be someone who is directly responsible for moving protection teams around? Hillary (and no SOS for that matter) certainly isn't qualified to determine how much security someone would need in a particular country. So why would you ever expect a SOS to be making that call...or hold the ultimate responsibility for it?

Perhaps not, but that isn't the real question is it? The additional security was requested numerous times and it was denied. Who did that? She may not be qualified to determine how much security would be needed in any one instance, but she sure as schit had the ability to veto any request for more.

And to your other attempt to lol, deflect in the past post, "This isn't about that" meant this thread isn't about Benghazi.

It's about her reckless, dangerous, and criminal handling of top secret, highly classified, at the highest levels possible, information. Now apparently confirmed as containing operational intel, classified assets, classified sources and put lives at risk.

Bottom line, they don't put 150 FBI agents on the case to investigate email threads, they put them out there to investigate CRIMES. It is now well more than the 22 emails classified BY the State Department, and there is still the remaining question about the 30,000 that she and her henchmen tried to scrub. You know, like with a cloth.

Which, of course, begs the further question- Why would they take the time and effort to attempt to delete (by a rank amateur who had no security clearance at all, did a lousy job, and took the 5th) all the e-mails about yoga poses, wedding plans and shopping lists with Bubba (the two he has ever sent in his life) but leave the classified Doc's they've found?

Wait til those start to come out and the pay-for-play, quid pro quo's surrounding the family front group come to light. Co-mingling State Dept. work and efforts with their private family slush fund is pretty clearly a no-no, that's not gonna go over well.

Way too much to try and unpack there JMU, so I'll just address a few things.

Yes, she could have overruled the requests that were denied...assuming that the funds were actually there to use as there's been lots of debate about funding cuts...but I'm not blaming one party for those. But then again, we're back to her being able to know how much security is enough. Is the SOS, any of them, qualified to make those types of decisions? It's a huge department. There are many under her that are entrusted with making these decisions. Were these decisions brought to her before they were decided? It's probably doubtful. So I guess you can blame her for the people working under her...even though some were probably not directly hired by her...or were perhaps even hired by the prior SOS.

And no, I was not trying to deflect this thread in anyone one way or another. I was just answering questions posed. I was only pointing out that I thought it was interesting that the e-mail thing only came to light under the Benghazi investigation.

(02-03-2016 03:44 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Pathetic answer. So nobody is responsible for their department? Who hired those people? Who gives them general direction? Who knew the relevant intelligence data?

Absolutely pathetic.

And he was a Democrat... if he could only see how much ass-covering his party has become today.

Quote:Somebody made the decision to have the ambassador bascially run a naked bootleg in very dangerous country on a potentially very explosive date, with no supporting resources reasonably available (although we certainly possess those resources many times over in a global sense). I don't know who made that decision, but whoever did needs to fry. The problem is that unless they can prove that person is Hillary, republicans don't seem to care

Correct me If I'm wrong, but the US Congress at the time when it first came out, DID not point the finger at Hillary directly. It was only when Susan Rice came up with her "It's the video" marching orders and the State dept ran with that did it happen.

I encourage you to google the 'Buck Stops Here' sign and what it originally meant. It's quite interesting. Basically, the sign was not about taking responsibility for things that happen beneath you, it was about making the final decision without sending it along to another to make. It's sort of taken on a life of its own recently.

(02-03-2016 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

Why? It's less than 650 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi. What was to be gained from an outpost so close to an official embassy?

Source this:

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

In the end, Clinton took responsibility for the lack of security and Stevens death and now she is running for President and that's completely acceptable in the eyes of the MSM. Now if she had been a Republican it would be a completely different story.

Well, the outpost was there to begin with. How long was it there? I don't know.

And I read the stuff about Stevens somewhere a few months ago. I don't remember where...but it was just one person's opinion as nobody knows for certain that I'm aware. Since no direct order has been uncovered anywhere, you'd just guessing if you say that HRC told him directly to go there as well.

But your last point doesn't hold with the general populous. The general consensus is that the bad guys killed Stevens and there was little we could have done about it. All the investigations have shown that. And please don't pretend like the MSM did not cover all these investigations.

Stevens first went to Benghazi when it was held by rebels during the overthrow of Gaddafi to support the rebels. The consulate was established to be more secure than the hotels where he had been staying.

Clinton said during testimony that she Stevens didn't ask permission to go to Benghazi, yet later acknowledged that he held 4 or 5 business meetings the first day there, as well as dined at a local hotel restaurant with the City Council, something the United States tried to keep quiet but the City Council had invited the press.

So the State Department didn't give him permission to go, nor know why he was there, but knew about his meetings and a dinner with City Council that they wanted to keep 'low-key'. That doesn't jive.

Clinton took responsibility for the lack of security during her testimony. Thats' not conjecture and it has nothing to do for whether or not the attack could have been prevented. She was responsible for his security.

This is the type of thing that would have sunk a politician 40 years ago, democrat or republican, and would still sink a republican today.

4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

Context matters

(02-03-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I encourage you to google the 'Buck Stops Here' sign and what it originally meant. It's quite interesting. Basically, the sign was not about taking responsibility for things that happen beneath you, it was about making the final decision without sending it along to another to make. It's sort of taken on a life of its own recently.

I encourage you to read some leadership literature because part of being a leader is being responsible for what your subordinates do.

The only reason one of your subordinates is in a position to make a decision is because you as the leader of the organization delegated that responsibility to them. If the subordinate did not have the authority to make said decision then the leadership failure is the fact you do not have control over your organization.

There is no better example of this leadership principle than the letter Eisenhower drafted in case the D-Day landings failed. He wrote this before the landings even took place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/d-day-in-...wer-2012-6

Quote:"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

THAT'S leadership.

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

LMAO


Going on eight years later and still "But Bush!"

Leftists! SMDH

(02-03-2016 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

LMAO


Going on eight years later and still "But Bush!"

Leftists! SMDH

Are you surprised, their ruler did bring up the Crusades

(02-03-2016 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I encourage you to google the 'Buck Stops Here' sign and what it originally meant. It's quite interesting. Basically, the sign was not about taking responsibility for things that happen beneath you, it was about making the final decision without sending it along to another to make. It's sort of taken on a life of its own recently.

I encourage you to read some leadership literature because part of being a leader is being responsible for what your subordinates do.

The only reason one of your subordinates is in a position to make a decision is because you as the leader of the organization delegated that responsibility to them. If the subordinate did not have the authority to make said decision then the leadership failure is the fact you do not have control over your organization.

There is no better example of this leadership principle than the letter Eisenhower drafted in case the D-Day landings failed. He wrote this before the landings even took place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/d-day-in-...wer-2012-6

Quote:"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

THAT'S leadership.

Again, your asking for the impossible. There was no way of knowing what level of security was enough to prevent what happened. Even if the requests for more security were approved, that still does not guarantee he would have survived this. Sorry, it just doesn't.

And as noted above. Hillary did take responsibility for the attack in her testimony.

But to use your analogy here, you're basically saying that Eisenhower should be held responsible if one of his troops marches in the wrong direction or shoots the wrong thing! While yes, they can say they take responsibility, nobody rationally expects them to actually be held accountable for it.

(02-03-2016 05:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

LMAO


Going on eight years later and still "But Bush!"

Leftists! SMDH

Are you surprised, their ruler did bring up the Crusades

Even though what he said, fully in context, was not only apropos to the situation he was speaking to but also totally correct.

Carry on. lol

(02-03-2016 05:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

LMAO


Going on eight years later and still "But Bush!"

Leftists! SMDH

Are you surprised, their ruler did bring up the Crusades

Even though what he said, fully in context, was not only apropos to the situation he was speaking to but also totally correct.

Carry on. lol

Are you serious?!?

(02-03-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 people in Benghazi versus thousands lost in Iraq.

LMAO


Going on eight years later and still "But Bush!"

Leftists! SMDH

Are you surprised, their ruler did bring up the Crusades

Even though what he said, fully in context, was not only apropos to the situation he was speaking to but also totally correct.

Carry on. lol

Are you serious?!?

Yes, I've read the full quote...in context. Have you?

(02-03-2016 05:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:20 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:07 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LMAO


Going on eight years later and still "But Bush!"

Leftists! SMDH

Are you surprised, their ruler did bring up the Crusades

Even though what he said, fully in context, was not only apropos to the situation he was speaking to but also totally correct.

Carry on. lol

Are you serious?!?

Yes, I've read the full quote...in context. Have you?

If I hadnt read the quote before, I wouldnt be laughing...

Just in case you missed part of it:

Quote:Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years. But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil.

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-breakfast

(02-03-2016 05:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just in case you missed part of it:

Quote:Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years. But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil.

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife. We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done. We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-breakfast

I didnt miss any part of it...