Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Here's what is not an assumption.
(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.
(2) Stevens, sensing the danger, made many requests for extra security that were denied.
3) It would appear that the State Dept really screwed this up, and left those people up the creek without a paddle.
She was in charge, was she not?
|
1) True. Stevens was part of the state department, why did he chose to go to Benghazi if he was that worried and it was that dangerous. That is not blaming Stevens, but he certainly knew the ground conditions better than most.
2) in part, see 1), but what I want to know, is who denied the extra security. Did it actually cross Clinton's desk or is that handled at a lower level
3) State department screwed up; mistakes were made and it was a tragedy. This has been turned from something to learn from and not repeat, to a political event.
You asked earlier about the video and the conflicting statements. Frankly, I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what they told the Egyptian prime minister. I am sure there was and always is politicking on these events when dealing with other countries with dubious ally relations. The timeline, as I read it, seems to support initially, many in the intelligence community blaming things on a video. that metric changed over time. Maybe Clinton et al should have caveated their remarks a bit more, but that to me does not equate to out-right lying.
Threaded Mode