Quote (Beowulf @ Mar 5 2019 09:13am)
Explain your Benghazi and Uranium One talking points in the russia"nothingburger" thread Mr. Centrist if I'm wrong about you
Benghazi1. The Clinton State department played a leading roll in taking down Khaddafi, causing mass instability, and a multi-sided struggle for power throughout Libya.
2. Ambassador Stephens was sent to Libya with no more than 6 other staffers. This is well below any form of acceptable embassy security anywhere in the world, and hotspots, by state department policy, require MORE security, not less.
3. Ambassador Stephens requested multiple times for increased security, and never received it.
4. When first the embassy, then the CIA annex were attacked on September 11th, 2012, immediate requests were sent for aid.
5. Going against orders, a rescue team was sent from the CIA Annex. That team rescued all but Sean Smith and Ambassador Stevens. Smith was dead, Stevens was missing in an area that was covered in impenetrable smoke. The rescued persons and team returned to the Annex, and prepared for the worst.
6. The Annex was attacked just after midnight, and were assaulted with machinegun, rockets, and mortars. This fight lasted for around 4 hours.
7. Still no response from the State Department. The pentagon cannot act without authorization from the State Department.
8. Glen Doherty arrives with 7 other reinforcements from Tripoli. Note that this team disobeyed stand down orders to attempt to relieve the Annex, and they flew in on a private jet. This part right here is evidence that every single idiot who claims help couldn't have arrived is an idiot or a liar.
9. At a bit after 5am local time, the annex is hit with by another assault of heavy machinegun and mortar fire. At this time, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed. Defense against this attack, however, is successful.
10. Following the final mortaring of the Annex, a heavily armed and armored caravan of Khaddafi loyalists, members of the military that was overthrown shows up and transports the Americans to the airport.
11. Outside note: Nearly all combat at the Annex was witnessed by the DoD via an unarmed drone.
Several things to note here: Everyone at the Embassy should be dead. Had the quick response team from the Annex not directly disobeyed orders, everyone at the embassy would certainly have died. Two, without the support of the extra team that arrived from tripoli, there's a very good chance the annex would have been overrun. They would all have died. Most of those CIA agents were not combat trained. They were simple annalists. Once again, that team from Tripoli violated orders. Third, were it not for Khaddafi loyalists who had no reason to like Americans at all by this point intervening, another mortar attack would have been sufficient to overrun the annex.
Now, do I believe any crimes were committed by the State Department? No. I read the report from the House Select Committee on Benghazi. No direct evidence or accusation of crime was ever mentioned. There were several absolute lies put out, however:
1. The claim was made by the administration that this attack was caused by a video. This was patently false.
2. The claim was made by the administration that there were riots in Benghazi due to the video prior to the attacks. This was also false. The closest riot was in Cairo.
3. The claim was made that nothing could have been done. Yet there were plenty of bases within less than 2 hours flight from Benghazi. And a full team and heavy equipment could have been sent from Tripoli, had they the authorization.
4. The DoD and Pentagon had no authority to authorize any sort of force to relieve either the Embassy or the Annex. The State Department or the President directly were the only people who had the authority to provide authorization to the Pentagon.
5. In spite of being in constant contact with the State Department, as well as nearly every nearby base, neither the Embassy or the Annex could get any authorization for relief.
6. The overall result of the Benghazi investigation was to point out that while the State Department's primary duty is to insure the safety of Americans on foreign soil, it failed to do so, both by failing to provide adequate, or much of ANY security to the Embassy, directly in contrast to policies regarding hot zones, and that they failed to provide ANY response or ANY authorization that may have saved American lives. Had the State Department (or President) given the Pentagon authorization during the attack on the Embassy, multiple forces were prepared from multiple locations to provide relief.
Now, the point of the Benghazi Investigation was to determine why there were 4 dead Americans, and why the first US Ambassador had been killed in the line of duty since 1979. If there were crimes uncovered, the investigation would recommend they be prosecuted. If there were policies discovered that prevented proper aid to the Embassy and Annex, proper recommendations could be made to resolve those policy issues. As a point in fact, MANY policies were changed at the State Department and DoD both as a result of the investigation. It yielded a lot of great change. However, that investigation was sparked not in an attempt to find crime, but to discover why we lost 2 assets (embassy and annex) and 4 Americans died on foreign soil.
Now, folks on the right were hounding for blood during this investigation, and again, after the report came out. Why? I don't honestly know. No crimes were committed. However, as regards to Clinton, it was shown that when the scenario arises, and Clinton can either play politics or act to save American lives, it turns out that Clinton will play politics. On the other hand, the left cried witchhunt regarding the investigation from the start, and demanded it be disbanded from the start. What they failed to understand was the purpose of the investigation had nothing to do with Clinton personally, nor was Clinton directly called out anywhere in the report.
I believe we can both agree that the fact that there were a total of 10 investigations into Benghazi was crazy and a waste. The 2 by democrat committees DURING the House Committee's investigation WHILE shouting about that investigation costing too much and needing to be shut down are clearly absurd. The other 5 by republicans, same thing. The FBI investigation was clearly required. The one by an independent board hired by the State Department is questionable. While that one yielded results that helped change some policy, it smacked more of damage control than fact finding.
From a personal standpoint: As an American, an average American with friends and family active in the military and government, I want to know why government and military personnel die in action. I want to know what government officials die in the line of duty. I want to know how they could fail to receive support. These things very intensely matter. I'm less interested in pointing fingers, but when the conclusion seems pretty clear that those who had the power to change the outcome were more interested in playing politics than saving American lives, this is a problem, and I'd prefer not to trust those specific politicians in high office again. This is not me saying, "I would not vote for a Democratic Candidate." This is me saying, "I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. She cannot be trusted to put American lives first."
Uranium OneI'm not entirely certain why you are pointing to me for this. I've not used this particular subject as some kind of go-to talking point. But okay. I did mention in passing that if doing business with Russia was so terrible, why was Uranium One allowed. Clinton's State Department signed off on it. There is a ton of Uranium that has gone missing. Where did it go? How could American Uranium interests be sold to Russians, if democrats are claiming that somehow Russia is our enemy? I have never claimed anything criminal occurred regarding Uranium One. Nor have I claimed any massive investigations should have occurred. As a point in fact, any investigations, should they have happened, should have been done by the FBI and intelligence community. And quite likely still is being done. There is still missing uranium as a result of this "scandal". It's rather important we know where it went.
Now, let's see if you're as open to questions as I am:
1. How do you justify the Russian Collusion investigation? There was no evidence of collusion, a crime, or any wrongdoing prior to the investigation, nobody was killed, nothing. So, why has $27 million (according to politifact) been spent on this investigation?
2. How can you justify your seeming claim that anyone who voted for or supports any of the policy actions of Trump that would directly benefit their economic status must be a conservative? Don't you like money?
3. At what point are you willing to take an objective look at issues, toss the bullshit to the side, and stop with the petty... Insults I guess? Whatever it is you're trying to do.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.