And the wall was the only reason that those who survived were able to do so.

And thank you for linking that article. Tal, you need to read this from the article linked above. They seemed to have done the absolute minimum they could have done, and disaster resulted.

"There are disagreements about whether State acted reasonably, but that it didn't honor requests for additional security is established fact," said Georgetown University adjunct assistant professor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which focuses on foreign policy and national security.
The State Department has acknowledged it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And the wall was the only reason that those who survived were able to do so.

And thank you for linking that article. Tal, you need to read this from the article linked above. They seemed to have done the absolute minimum they could have done, and disaster resulted.

"There are disagreements about whether State acted reasonably, but that it didn't honor requests for additional security is established fact," said Georgetown University adjunct assistant professor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which focuses on foreign policy and national security.
The State Department has acknowledged it rejected requests to provide more security personnel in Libya. It also acknowledged rejecting a request to erect guard towers at the Benghazi mission, but notes that a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012.

---

Now read this:

Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996...y-he-requested

If you want to say that Stevens played a part in his own demise, then that's fine, but I don't think Stevens refused to send more security personnel, refused to adequately harden the consulate, or lied about the cause of the attacK afterwards. That would all have been on Obama and Clinton.

Yes, Stevens played a part in his own demise. I read somewhere, and will scare it up again if you wish, that Stevens felt adding more security would be sending the wrong message.

All I can tell you is that according to your Politi Fact site, additional security was repeatedly requested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

---

Show your links to that assertion so I can give you one that the republican congress refused requests for additional funds for the state dept. Specifically they cut the budget for embassy and consulate security.

http://reverbpress.com/politics/gop-...starting-2011/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1954912.html

I understand your feelings but rather rely on the facts. I mean you hold the lives of 4 lost lives in one tragic incident, but mark the lost lives of others as casualties of war. That's illogical, and MASSIVELY inaccurate. Just my own feelings on the whole matter.

Yep. Just devastating cuts. Only in the fantasy world of liberals could this be considered the root cause of Benghazi. Note the cuts that occurred in 09 when the dems were in charge.

Attachment 49128

Yeah they seem to have gone back up in 2012, wonder why? You know I don't remember anyone saying it was the root cause of the tragedy in Benghazi, but you cannot ignore it as one of many factors either.

Repubs did a great job of politicizing it though.

Spending for 2012 would have been voted in BEFORE the September attack on Benghazi. How do you explain that?

Quote:

---

All I can tell you is that according to your Politi Fact site, additional security was repeatedly requested.

---

Three reasons, basically: bureaucratic confusion, the mission’s unique legal status, and the murky nature of the intelligence warning of potential threats.oreover, the mission’s confusing legal status made meeting its security needs particularly hard. The Benghazi mission wasn’t an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This strange legal status put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.
Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.” So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996...y-he-requested

Quote:

---

So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way.

---

So that's (literally, in this case) the bottom line. And who was responsible for the making sure the "bureaucratic muddle" did not endanger an ambassador's life? If you guess HC, you guess right. Were there other contributing factors? That sure seems to be the case, and if that's your point then consider it made, but HC is ultimately responsible. And who was responsible for doing nothing, nothing, nothing during the hours and hours the assault was underway? Who was responsible for intentionally lying about the reason for the attack?

And where is HC now? Hmmmmm. HC has just finished grocery shopping, has put all the bags into the trunk, and is on her way home.

Yep. Got off scott free. Sad. At least she is not the president, so maybe justice was served after all, at least on a low level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yep. Got off scott free. Sad. At least she is not the president, so maybe justice was served after all, at least on a low level.

---

And I'm sure she is much happier.

If so, then good for her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If so, then good for her.

---

So please stop posting about her.

Tell you what. I'll stop posting about her if you'll start treating Trump with the same kind, considerate, and understanding point of view you use with Clinton. The primary reason I bring her up is when some on this board start whining about Trump's supposed lying (and he does do it) when they were perfectly happy to vote for both Clinton and Obama. What's good for the goose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Tell you what. I'll stop posting about her if you'll start treating Trump with the same kind, considerate, and understanding point of view you use with Clinton. The primary reason I bring her up is when some on this board start whining about Trump's supposed lying (and he does do it) when they were perfectly happy to vote for both Clinton and Obama. What's good for the goose...

---

I haven't whined nor have I talked about HC -- only when you trash her. You have no idea who I voted for. I have stated on here that I was a fan of tRump's Apprentice tv show and had hopes his business acumen would improve our country in major ways.

Coming back to the theme of the thread, Trump has told his press secretary not to bother with WH press conferences so perhaps he would approve the murder of all journalists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Coming back to the theme of the thread, Trump has told his press secretary not to bother with WH press conferences so perhaps he would approve the murder of all journalists

---

What if tRump holds a press conference and no one shows up?