Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
This is what is so frustrating to me. It was poor planning as to where
these "quick reaction forces" were placed on that day, the anniversary of 9/11 when the threat level was so high and Ambassador Stevens had told Hillary of the serious dangers at his compound. Poor strategic planning and poor judgement if they needed more than 12 hours to reach "hot spots".
|
Correct. It was no surprise that it was very dangerous in Benghazi. Other nations (like Britain) evacuated their embassies in Benghazi, because they knew it was too dangerous. Same with the Red Cross. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security.
So how did we get caught with our pants around our ankles for 12 hours?
12 hours. I don't get it. I genuinely don't know what's indicative or greater incompetence - not having anything within 12 hours of a known danger spot where you know you have peopple, or if we had assets but chose not to send them. Those are the only two choices, there is no third option, and in either case, someone screwqed up, and superb Americans are dead because of it.
That doesn't mena it was Hilary's fault, she doesn't make every decision.
Also, it's awfully convenienet that in every public statement, she claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video (therefore no one can blame her). Yet in every proivate communication, she said she knew it had nothing to do with the video.
Spence will say that every time she flip-flopped, she was merely reacting to the latest intelligence, which said "forget what we told you an hour ago, now we know it was because..."
It could be that. Or it could be she's lying. We know she's a serial liar. Has she ever offered evidence to support her claim that she wa salways relying on the latest intelligence, instead of saying whatever was politically expedient at the time?
Now she's claiming that th efamilies of the dead are lying, when they claim she blamed the video.
At what point does she start to lose credibility? After how many lies, exactly?