- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
:roll:Ah ... following the traditional coverup structure blueprint.
That "Let's just fix the problem rather than assign blame" is always the last bad brick to be tried after all the other bad bricks have failed.
Ahh...the traditional "I've been totally defeated in the debate so I'll ignore all relevant points and provide a circular argument" blueprint.
Your constant. Sentence fragments. Make no sense.Well, I would remind you of the statements by Team Obama and the left that concern investigations and what they say they have going on too. Which that is all running current. With whatever the Republicans have to say.
Wow, that means we can continue to draw this dog and pony show out longer and still not getting any new relevant information. :roll:Even the AP is reporting more whistle-blowers will be coming forward.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say.Plus like I said......now we have a way to look at what News Sources can be applied to the Benghazi Story. Or if they don't.
What fanciful story? The YouTube video was not even close to a fanciful story, it was debunked inside a month.Was making up a fanciful story to get through an election a political ploy?
I cannot answer why the video was blamed, but I'll give you my best guess. My guess is the video was blamed for a number of reasons. The first, and most prominent, was to hide the presence of the CIA at the consulate. I don't know if the information was to be hid to protect identities of Libyans working with us, to protect our own officers or to hide from the Libyan government we had a CIA headquarters there. Blaming the video would give the terrorists a reason to attack, where there otherwise was little reason to attack. We know that in the course of investigation, our Congressman have outed the identities of some of the Libyans who were working with us, putting their lives in danger. So my guess is this was the most prominent reason to try and divert attention to a video.
The first reason also impacted the second reason, which has to do with the preparation failure at the consulate. I have no idea how accurate the reasoning behind the failure is, but I would guess part of the reason the consulate was not better secured was due to the fact it was operating as an intelligence center, and it's not as simple as hiring the local handman to come strengthen the compound. I'll fully admit this is conjecture, but it makes enough sense that it's a reasonable guess.
The third reason is impacted by the first two. Yes, I think it was also political, but it was political because the classified nature of the first two made it difficult to explain otherwise. Romney had already shown he was willing to politicize the attack in order to win the Presidency, we saw that almost immediately with his tweet right after it happened. So I think there was also pressure to try and downplay (not cover up, two entirely separate concepts) what happened, because, if it was because of the first two reasons I mentioned, Obama could not come out and tell Americans 100% what happened.
Another reason the story became what it was is because neither the CIA nor the State department wanted to take the blame for what happened. The release of the e-mails has kind of highlighted that theory.
So those are my theories on why things played out the way they did. As usual, nothing is as simple as either political party wants the voting public to believe.
What cover up? What exactly are you alleging is being covered up? Those who keep droning on and on about a cover-up never even tell us what is supposedly being covered up. What's being covered up?So a cover up should be ignored?
Up to this point, you've made the most sense I've seen from you in this thread.Allow me to answer. It's a yes and no answer. Yes, it was a regrettable decision, and the people responsible at State have already been fired. No, this does not rise to the level of WH involvement, or even to the cabinet heads of the various departments, who I should add, are all out of office now. Please refer to the tomes I've already posted here to find additional answers, depending on the question. The election is over. What happened then has no relevance to what is happening now. (How am I doing?)
If you're still wanting answers to questions which have been answered multiple times, then there's no helping you. The answers have been given multiple times, by multiple people.Ty Woods died on a rooftop waiting for help that never came, and I want to know why.
What I want to know is why people keep asking questions which have already been answered multiple times. Here, maybe George W. Bush's former Secretary of Defense can explain it to the point you'll actually listen to.
I only know what I have read in the media. I haven’t had any briefings or anything. And I think the one place where I might be able to say something useful has to do with some of the talk about the military response. And I listened to the testimony of both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey. And frankly had I been in the job at the time I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East. Despite all the turmoil that’s going on, with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment’s notice. And so getting somebody there in a timely way – would have been very difficult, if not impossible. And frankly, I’ve heard, “Well, why didn’t you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare ‘em with the noise or something?” Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Gaddafi’s arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft – over Benghazi under those circumstances.
With respect to sending in special forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn’t know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously. And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous. And personally, I would not have approved that because we just don’t it’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way. And there just wasn’t time to do that.”