2 to the body 1 to the head

jj20030

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLZCb3A3QJU

The_Kid

After watching this, I was confused, as I wasnt aware of the Navy Seal aspect linked to the Benghazzi attack
This explains it a bit,, I do believe the State Dpt notably Secretary of State Clinton failed miserably in doing her job, and am pleased by the news of her stepping down

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-media-news-cia-request_n_2066651.html

Gaetano7890

I am surprised they are comparing it to black hawk down. Her husband failed miserably on that one too. We lost a lot of good men thanks to Clinton he sent the elite into battle way under armed so he wouldn't look bad. Hopefully we learn from this in 2016

The_Kid

Gaetano7890:

I am surprised they are comparing it to black hawk down. Her husband failed miserably on that one too. We lost a lot of good men thanks to Clinton he sent the elite into battle way under armed so he wouldn't look bad. Hopefully we learn from this in 2016

Yea I dont know bout comparing the two. And I wouldn't blame Bill personally for what happened in mogadishu, IMO more responsibility falls on the unit commanders and theatre commanders that were involved. With that being said I believe the CIA holds some accountability/responsibility for the Benghazzi incident as well.

Gaetano7890

I agree with you, not trying to blame bill completely for it there r probably many people that made the final decision. I did think and I might be wrong but he did not want to cause a panic and that's why they went in with hum vs instead of tanks.

JDH

Gaetano7890:

I am surprised they are comparing it to black hawk down. Her husband failed miserably on that one too. We lost a lot of good men thanks to Clinton he sent the elite into battle way under armed so he wouldn't look bad. Hopefully we learn from this in 2016

We lost over 200 dead Marines in Beiruit, killed by a terrorist truck bomber at the Beiruit airport where the Marines were stationed, and Ronald Regan just walked away from them. Additionally, it was Bush Sr. that sent the trops to Somalia in 1992.

Gaetano7890

JDH:

Gaetano7890:

I am surprised they are comparing it to black hawk down. Her husband failed miserably on that one too. We lost a lot of good men thanks to Clinton he sent the elite into battle way under armed so he wouldn't look bad. Hopefully we learn from this in 2016

We lost over 200 dead Marines in Beiruit, killed by a terrorist truck bomber at the Beiruit airport where the Marines were stationed, and Ronald Regan just walked away from them. Additionally, it was Bush Sr. that sent the trops to Somalia in 1992.

That is very true and then Clinton pulled them out in 93 and then in August of 93 sent Army Rangers and Special forces back in to take down Warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid. The special forces asked for Abrams tanks and Bradley assault vehicles and a gunship. Those requests were denied by the Clinton administration. Secretary of defense Les Aspin resigned two months later due to his decision to deny the heavy armor.

JDH

Gaetano7890:

JDH:

Gaetano7890:

I am surprised they are comparing it to black hawk down. Her husband failed miserably on that one too. We lost a lot of good men thanks to Clinton he sent the elite into battle way under armed so he wouldn't look bad. Hopefully we learn from this in 2016

We lost over 200 dead Marines in Beiruit, killed by a terrorist truck bomber at the Beiruit airport where the Marines were stationed, and Ronald Regan just walked away from them. Additionally, it was Bush Sr. that sent the trops to Somalia in 1992.

That is very true and then Clinton pulled them out in 93 and then in August of 93 sent Army Rangers and Special forces back in to take down Warlord Mohammad Farrah Aidid. The special forces asked for Abrams tanks and Bradley assault vehicles and a gunship. Those requests were denied by the Clinton administration. Secretary of defense Les Aspin resigned two months later due to his decision to deny the heavy armor.

My point is that too often judgements are made and voiced based strictly on partisan preferences. Too many conservatives claim that Dems are always and immediately wrong, and too many liberals claim the same about Republicans. I think the criticism from the right of Ms. Clinton is just one more in a long string of examples of this kind of thinking.

The fact of the matter is that the world is a dangerous place, and the US has many enemies that wish us harm. Personally, I would prefer to see our Defense budget get smaller and our State Dept budget get bigger. History has proven that the only way to defeat insurgent and guerilla fighters in the modern era is not necessarily with armies, but with ideas. Cutting the State Dept. budget isn't smart.

Gaetano7890

I never made my judgement on a partisan preference. I have views that fit in both catergories and will vote to either. I based my comment on facts, I like history and like to read and hate it when people make descions from their comfy offices that put are boys in danger. Some people may want to make everything about Republican or Democrat. I do think that if were going to make points about history we need to have the right facts so that people don't get confused.

raisindot

I don't think it's fair to blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi any more than it's fair to blame Reagan for Beirut or Dubya Bush for ignoring 9/11 threats or for all of the soldiers who fell to car bombs and suicide attacks in Iraq.

The point is, the US probably has 400 or more full embassies and consulates around the world, and probably a third or more are in countries harboring terrorists or significantly anti-US populations. And probably a third or more receive terrorists warnings every day. Considering that it's impossibly to provide adequate military protection to all of these hotspots, plus the fact that purpose of an embassy or consulate is not to be a moated defense perimeter but to serve as a place that encourages better relations between the U.S. and other countries, then the question we have to ask is, Do we pull out our people out of every single consulate every time some kind of threat occurs? If we did that, then we'd have no diplomatic presence at all in many countries (and, in the case of Benghazi, no center for intelligence activities). People who choose to serve as diplomats in these places know the risks. When you add a CIA presence to these consulates, the risks are even higher. Given the amount of unrest in the Arab countries in the past few years, it's amazing that similar tragedies haven't occurred at even more US diplomatic stations.

In any case, it's not fair to compare Benghazi to Mogadishu. The latter was a poorly thought out and incompetently executed offensive military operation, much like Jimmy Carter's disastrous attempt to free the Iranian hostages. Benghazi was not a military operation; it was a tragedy born of people working in a secondary diplomatic station who had risky jobs being targeted by terrorists who were given good cover (that stupid anti-Mohammed video) to join angry mobs in mounting the attack. These kinds of attacks have been launched on US diplomatic stations for years and years and years. We've forgotten about the other ones because most of them did not result in US casualties.

JDH

raisindot:

I don't think it's fair to blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi any more than it's fair to blame Reagan for Beirut or Dubya Bush for ignoring 9/11 threats or for all of the soldiers who fell to car bombs and suicide attacks in Iraq.

The point is, the US probably has 400 or more full embassies and consulates around the world, and probably a third or more are in countries harboring terrorists or significantly anti-US populations. And probably a third or more receive terrorists warnings every day. Considering that it's impossibly to provide adequate military protection to all of these hotspots, plus the fact that purpose of an embassy or consulate is not to be a moated defense perimeter but to serve as a place that encourages better relations between the U.S. and other countries, then the question we have to ask is, Do we pull out our people out of every single consulate every time some kind of threat occurs? If we did that, then we'd have no diplomatic presence at all in many countries (and, in the case of Benghazi, no center for intelligence activities). People who choose to serve as diplomats in these places know the risks. When you add a CIA presence to these consulates, the risks are even higher. Given the amount of unrest in the Arab countries in the past few years, it's amazing that similar tragedies haven't occurred at even more US diplomatic stations.

In any case, it's not fair to compare Benghazi to Mogadishu. The latter was a poorly thought out and incompetently executed offensive military operation, much like Jimmy Carter's disastrous attempt to free the Iranian hostages. Benghazi was not a military operation; it was a tragedy born of people working in a secondary diplomatic station who had risky jobs being targeted by terrorists who were given good cover (that stupid anti-Mohammed video) to join angry mobs in mounting the attack. These kinds of attacks have been launched on US diplomatic stations for years and years and years. We've forgotten about the other ones because most of them did not result in US casualties.

That's a very thoughtful, accurate, and well stated observation, and it gets to the heart of what I was driving at.

The_Kid

JDH:

raisindot:

I don't think it's fair to blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi any more than it's fair to blame Reagan for Beirut or Dubya Bush for ignoring 9/11 threats or for all of the soldiers who fell to car bombs and suicide attacks in Iraq.

The point is, the US probably has 400 or more full embassies and consulates around the world, and probably a third or more are in countries harboring terrorists or significantly anti-US populations. And probably a third or more receive terrorists warnings every day. Considering that it's impossibly to provide adequate military protection to all of these hotspots, plus the fact that purpose of an embassy or consulate is not to be a moated defense perimeter but to serve as a place that encourages better relations between the U.S. and other countries, then the question we have to ask is, Do we pull out our people out of every single consulate every time some kind of threat occurs? If we did that, then we'd have no diplomatic presence at all in many countries (and, in the case of Benghazi, no center for intelligence activities). People who choose to serve as diplomats in these places know the risks. When you add a CIA presence to these consulates, the risks are even higher. Given the amount of unrest in the Arab countries in the past few years, it's amazing that similar tragedies haven't occurred at even more US diplomatic stations.

In any case, it's not fair to compare Benghazi to Mogadishu. The latter was a poorly thought out and incompetently executed offensive military operation, much like Jimmy Carter's disastrous attempt to free the Iranian hostages. Benghazi was not a military operation; it was a tragedy born of people working in a secondary diplomatic station who had risky jobs being targeted by terrorists who were given good cover (that stupid anti-Mohammed video) to join angry mobs in mounting the attack. These kinds of attacks have been launched on US diplomatic stations for years and years and years. We've forgotten about the other ones because most of them did not result in US casualties.

That's a very thoughtful, accurate, and well stated observation, and it gets to the heart of what I was driving at.

LMAO^^^
... Too bad we dont use this same logic " The world is a dangerous place and we cant predict what bad people will do and all that when we are discussing gun control laws... NO,, the viewpoint is we should error on the side of caution and take every measure to protect our citizens.. Constitution be damned
Just what in the hell do you think the CIA, NAvy Seals and the US embassy were doing??? For our intelligence agencies who are in country not to be aware of the impending attack is ridiculous. Boy that would make our intellegence gathering pretty piss poor if you ask me. The Fact is we were collecting intel on Al queda and probably terminating all Al queda operatives, or hoping to follow the little fish to the big fish. In any event I'd be willing to bet that Secretary Clinton was fully aware of the operations that were being conducted as were other high ranking officials. We probably had a few choices, Pull out and stop our operation. WHich would propbably result in us not being able to get back in for some time, Reinforce our operation, which would undoubtedly tip our hand, or chose to stick our head in the sand and hope for the best.. Well you tell me, which one did we choose???
Now we are increasing drone operations/attacks in Northern Africa,, wonder why????
Furthermore I guess I was wrong and in some ways you can compare the two Mogadishu and Benghazzi, Both had piss poor contingency plans and exit strategies

fla-gypsy

There is a keen difference in responsibility and accountability that I feel is missed in this discussion. The accountability for military failures always rest with the President, the responsibility of field operation failures rest with those who planned the mission or ignored the warnings. In any case, brave Americans died and that is a tragedy which may have been prevented in all of these cases. If you are going to a dangerous place to do harm to bad guys you better be prepared for all contingencies.

The_Kid

fla-gypsy:

There is a keen difference in responsibility and accountability that I feel is missed in this discussion. The accountability for military failures always rest with the President, the responsibility of field operation failures rest with those who planned the mission or ignored the warnings. In any case, brave Americans died and that is a tragedy which may have been prevented in all of these cases. If you are going to a dangerous place to do harm to bad guys you better be prepared for all contingencies.

If we cant rely on our Govt to protect and support our armed forces when in a known hot zone, how can we rely on them to protect us when and if the *** really hits the fan here.

fla-gypsy

The Kid:

fla-gypsy:

There is a keen difference in responsibility and accountability that I feel is missed in this discussion. The accountability for military failures always rest with the President, the responsibility of field operation failures rest with those who planned the mission or ignored the warnings. In any case, brave Americans died and that is a tragedy which may have been prevented in all of these cases. If you are going to a dangerous place to do harm to bad guys you better be prepared for all contingencies.

If we cant rely on our Govt to protect and support our armed forces when in a known hot zone, how can we rely on them to protect us when and if the *** really hits the fan here.

I don't feel I can rely on or trust my Fed govt at all when it concerns my welfare in any matter. I am forced to tolerate it but I never rely on it having my best interests at heart and find it's actions in many things to be suspect.

The_Kid

Watching the cspan repeat of the Senate Armed service comittee on the Benghazi Consulate attack... Sen Lindsey Graham S Car was asking alot of good questions in which Sec of Def Panetta and Gen Dempsey JCOS chairman started squirming in their seats.
The attack went on for 8 hours and no support forces were deployed, until after the conclusion of the attack. Even though they had no Idea how long the attack would last. Nor did the president contact the Sec of Def during the eight hours to inquire on the status of the attack, after being initially briefed on the onset of the attack.
Sad really