• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee largely exonerated the U.S. military from responsibility for failures associated with the September 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, instead blaming the White House and the State Department for ignoring heightened threats in the area.

The committee majority’s conclusions, in a report released Tuesday, do not differ significantly from those reached by other congressional panels that have touched on the military’s role in the Benghazi incident.

Well, except in one way.

While the findings are consistent, the House panel was able to “go much further down the road of assessing hypotheticals” regarding the Defense Department’s role, a staffer said. The report found that there had been no order given to a six-man military group based in Tripoli to “stand down” rather than rush to Benghazi, but rather that the majority of the group was ordered to stay in the Libyan capital to combat possible threats there.

There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.
 
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.

I have no idea what happened that night. It does read to me that the majority were told to "stay put", so we can all agree now that they were ordered to, not go help, according to the staffer in your story.
 
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.

So what aggressive action did Obama take?

Oh yeah that's right he didn't take any despite the fact he damn well knew what was going on.

Obama is a passive ***** when it comes to Geo-politics and he only gets hard or belligerent when he tells US citizens he looks forward to circumventing the Constitution.

Funny how he's "Mr. Hard Ass" when he talks down to the American people, yet turns into a ***** when a potential Geo-Political confrontation erupts.
 
I have no idea what happened that night. It does read to me that the majority were told to "stay put", so we can all agree now that they were ordered to, not go help, according to the staffer in your story.

The reason is why they were ordered to not rush to Benghazi. The Pentagon was concerned that there would be more attacks on U.S. assets in Libya. Rushing a security team to Benghazi would leave assets in Tripoli more vulnerable. That does not sound, to me, like sound strategy.
 
The reason is why they were ordered to not rush to Benghazi. The Pentagon was concerned that there would be more attacks on U.S. assets in Libya. Rushing a security team to Benghazi would leave assets in Tripoli more vulnerable. That does not sound, to me, like sound strategy.

Yeah and you act like we only had a few dozen guys on the ground or air support 10 hours away...

This is a good reason to arm our embassies with Napalm, Grenades and an arsenal of automatic weapons.

If they threw a few grenades and fired some Napalm and a few warning shots this would have never happened.
 
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.

Why stretch this into some sort of redemption or deflection? Facts are just that... facts. This report is just one of many that show exactly how the failures of the civilian side of the administration lead to the deaths.

More will come out as time goes by.

This shouldn't be political, although anything done in DC turns political.

What we should be focusing on, as I've said on this forum before, is where the breakdown or bad choices occurred and create fixes so that something similar doesn't happen again.

If the White House or the State Department screwed up, then we should know that and how we can make sure people in the field have the power to do what they need, including save their lives.
 
The reason is why they were ordered to not rush to Benghazi. The Pentagon was concerned that there would be more attacks on U.S. assets in Libya. Rushing a security team to Benghazi would leave assets in Tripoli more vulnerable. That does not sound, to me, like sound strategy.

How does what happened at Benghazi not piss you off? If it happened during a Republican administration exactly as it did, would you be so equally interested in accepting excuses? I can say that I would be just as pissed about Benghazi if it happened under a Republican adminstration.
 
The reason is why they were ordered to not rush to Benghazi. The Pentagon was concerned that there would be more attacks on U.S. assets in Libya. Rushing a security team to Benghazi would leave assets in Tripoli more vulnerable. That does not sound, to me, like sound strategy.


Never said why I thought they did or did not do anything. Just pointing out the article basically says they were ordered to stay put.
 
Why stretch this into some sort of redemption or deflection? Facts are just that... facts. This report is just one of many that show exactly how the failures of the civilian side of the administration lead to the deaths.

More will come out as time goes by.

This shouldn't be political, although anything done in DC turns political.

What we should be focusing on, as I've said on this forum before, is where the breakdown or bad choices occurred and create fixes so that something similar doesn't happen again.

If the White House or the State Department screwed up, then we should know that and how we can make sure people in the field have the power to do what they need, including save their lives.

Quite obviously, security at the Benghazi compound was insufficient. The fact that the attack was successful is indicative of that. And yes, that's on State and, to an extent, the White House.

However, while this shouldn't be political, it is. One repeated cudgel used by the GOP has been that the White House issued a "stand down" order to forces that might have been able to assist, which leads to the conclusion that Obama "let them die." As we now see, this is not correct.

While clearly the priority should be to prevent future attacks, knowing how they screwed up and knowing how they didn't are both vital.
 
Why stretch this into some sort of redemption or deflection? Facts are just that... facts. This report is just one of many that show exactly how the failures of the civilian side of the administration lead to the deaths.

More will come out as time goes by.

This shouldn't be political, although anything done in DC turns political.

What we should be focusing on, as I've said on this forum before, is where the breakdown or bad choices occurred and create fixes so that something similar doesn't happen again.

If the White House or the State Department screwed up, then we should know that and how we can make sure people in the field have the power to do what they need, including save their lives.

The only thing that makes this political is the fact those in charge of giving orders did NOTHING but pretty much say "stand down."

If they were given permission to fight for their lives this wouldn't even be a story ... Obama was too inept to consider such a concept because hes one of those OWS guys where uprisings just lead to graffiti written in human ****....
 
How does what happened at Benghazi not piss you off?

Who says it doesn't? I'm not particularly keen on American diplomats being killed by terrorists. You know what else pissed me off? Republicans immediately politicizing the attack and using it as a cudgel based on information we know is false.

If it happened during a Republican administration exactly as it did, would you be so equally interested in accepting excuses?

This isn't "accepting excuses," this is determining facts.

I can say that I would be just as pissed about Benghazi if it happened under a Republican adminstration.

Good for you.

Nine Americans were killed when terrorists stormed a U.S. diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 12, 2003. Were you pissed then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_compound_bombings
 
Why stretch this into some sort of redemption or deflection? Facts are just that... facts. This report is just one of many that show exactly how the failures of the civilian side of the administration lead to the deaths.

More will come out as time goes by.

This shouldn't be political, although anything done in DC turns political.

What we should be focusing on, as I've said on this forum before, is where the breakdown or bad choices occurred and create fixes so that something similar doesn't happen again.

If the White House or the State Department screwed up, then we should know that and how we can make sure people in the field have the power to do what they need, including save their lives.

It's disappointing that some would rather just sweep this whole thing under the rug rather than acknowledge anything that might cast the current administration in a less than perfect light.
 
It's disappointing that some would rather just sweep this whole thing under the rug rather than acknowledge anything that might cast the current administration in a less than perfect light.

Which would be disappointing if that's what I was actually doing. Apparently debunking oft-repeated lies = "Sweeping things under the rug."
 
Which would be disappointing if that's what I was actually doing. Apparently debunking oft-repeated lies = "Sweeping things under the rug."

Obviously some thing went along. Whatever. Let me know when what happened is a greater concern for you than bashing Republicans. I won't hold my breath.
 
So what aggressive action did Obama take?

Oh yeah that's right he didn't take any despite the fact he damn well knew what was going on.

Obama is a passive ***** when it comes to Geo-politics and he only gets hard or belligerent when he tells US citizens he looks forward to circumventing the Constitution.

Funny how he's "Mr. Hard Ass" when he talks down to the American people, yet turns into a ***** when a potential Geo-Political confrontation erupts.
I'm sure Osama bin Laden and Muhmar Ghaddafi both agree from their graves. Obama just doesn't have what it takes to order military strikes into foreign countries.
 
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.

Are you friggin kidding?!?

They were ordered to stay put, and not help, and that's your proof of no stand down order?
 
Obviously some thing went along. Whatever. Let me know when what happened is a greater concern for you than bashing Republicans. I won't hold my breath.

So apparently one is not allowed to point out that a significant talking point from the people who politicized this whole thing in the first place is a lie -- what, I'm not allowed to do that unless I'm sufficiently angry about the attack that happened a year and half ago?
 
Are you friggin kidding?!?

They were ordered to stay put, and not help, and that's your proof of no stand down order?

That wasn't a "don't go help Benghazi" order, it was a "protect assets in Tripoli" order. Read the damn article.
 
So apparently one is not allowed to point out that a significant talking point from the people who politicized this whole thing in the first place is a lie -- what, I'm not allowed to do that unless I'm sufficiently angry about the attack that happened a year and half ago?

You're "allowed" to think/post/feel about this however you want. I just understand what's most important to you regarding this.
 
You're "allowed" to think/post/feel about this however you want. I just understand what's most important to you regarding this.

You understand whatever you want.
 
Republicans investigating Benghazi blame White House, State Dept. for failures - The Washington Post

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...



Well, except in one way.



There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.

Special forces in Italy ready to go were told to not go. No one was told to go or specifically told not to.

Repeat: There were take-no-action orders. There were not go orders. Maybe your false claim can finally be put to rest.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Osama bin Laden and Muhmar Ghaddafi both agree from their graves. Obama just doesn't have what it takes to order military strikes into foreign countries.

Generally I'm an "isolationist" but our embassy was attacked and they were basically told to stand down until they were murdered.

I would have lit those ****s on fire. **** orders. Then I would have shot the **** out of them then threw grenades at them... Then I would have burned the place to the ground after I evacuated the building.

Too bad those we (or better yet idiot Obama) select advisers or diplomats aren't the best "McGivers" - if they were they would have survived.

I would have lit them all on fire and watched them run.... Use that time to destroy the embassy and make an escape..

There was nothing in the building to defend with a human life....

If I had Napalm I would have them all melted to the concrete...
 
Are you friggin kidding?!?

They were ordered to stay put, and not help, and that's your proof of no stand down order?


Yeah, his own message proves his conclusion is 100% opposite from his own message. But there is no surprise about that. :roll:
 
Special forces in Italy ready to go were told to not go. Aircraft on a nearby aircraft carrier were told not to go. No one was told to go or specifically told not to.

Repeat: There were take-no-action orders. There were not go orders. Maybe your false claim can finally be put to rest.

House GOP Blasts State Dept. over Benghazi Review - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Meanwhile, Mullen was quick to insist American forces could not have rushed to the rescue in time to save the four Americans killed during the Benghazi attack.

"The military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time," Mullen insisted. "It's 2 o'clock in the morning. There are no planes on alert. It's two to two-and-a-half hours to fly there. Tanker support is four hours away."

It is unsurprising how badly conservatives want to milk Benghazi for all it's worth.
 
Back
Top Bottom