Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were 2 facilities in Benghazi, a mile apart? The 30 CIA employees were not at the location where Stevens and Smith were attacked/killed.
Based on my understanding the facility where Stevens and Smith were attacked was not typically staffed by State Dept personnel.
One was a CIA base and the other an annex/safe house.
Neither was built to security standards.
From what I've read there were two possible scenarios happening there, both covert:
1. They were looking for Ghadaffi's weapons to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands
2. They were running arms to Syria via Turkey
Either is plausible. And CIA usually does covert operations so I also can understand why we'll never know all that went on there and can understand why they let the press run with Benghazi described as a consulate.
I think it was a covert operation gone bad since Stevens had just met with the Ambassador from Turkey and it was suspected that guns were going to Syria through Turkey.
I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The U.S. doesn't always have the luxury to operate in totally secure environments. According to Hicks' testimony, Stevens was aware of the dangers in Benghazi. Based on the results the CIA didn't heed its own warnings; 2 of the people killed were at the main CIA facility in Benghazi.
So, are we to blame the victims now? Everyone who serves overseas is aware there may be dangers. Does that mean they are to blame for accepting those dangers? Does that mean that the US isn't required to protect them by sending in help when it is requested?
Besides, this is also an issue of leaving people behind, of abandonment of one's own countrymen. The military did not want to do this, but were directed to "stand down". We've yet to find out where that order came from.
I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The U.S. doesn't always have the luxury to operate in totally secure environments. According to Hicks' testimony, Stevens was aware of the dangers in Benghazi. Based on the results the CIA didn't heed its own warnings; 2 of the people killed were at the main CIA facility in Benghazi.
It was Stevens choce to go to Benghazi, there was a downside if he did not go. The same situation could have happened at Tripoli or many other embassies. Stevens understood that the Libyan Militia was his best defense but he took the risk.
I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The U.S. doesn't always have the luxury to operate in totally secure environments. According to Hicks' testimony, Stevens was aware of the dangers in Benghazi. Based on the results the CIA didn't heed its own warnings; 2 of the people killed were at the main CIA facility in Benghazi.
I'm at a loss as to how you can miss "the point." Didn't Maureen spell it out well enough for you? Try reading it again.
I agree. They shouldn't have been there. The U.S. needs to get it's nose out of the business of other countries. [If we're looking for corrupt regimes and oppression,there's a lot more in Africa than in the Middle East, but, oh I forgot, Africa doesn't have oil.
Actually all we have to do is look towards D.C. If we were to be truly honest.
Hicks is entitled to his opinion and I am sure it was heard and put in with many, many other opinions. Many of which were likely more informed than Hicks. But if his assertions conform to your desired conclusion, feel free to spread "the word". Most of the rest of us will continue to look at the preponderance of what evidence we are allowed to get.
OPINION????? Wouldn't that be exactly the thing that all the people who weren't there OR not talking directly with those under attack have? That's opinion, or lies depending on who's saying what!
If the real issue here is the safety of Americans employed at foreign offices, then why are the Republicans not lobbying like crazy for increased funding for embassy security in hostile countries?
Or are they simply remaining consistent with their previous policy of voting down any increases in funding for embassy security?
So, are we to blame the victims now? Everyone who serves overseas is aware there may be dangers. Does that mean they are to blame for accepting those dangers? Does that mean that the US isn't required to protect them by sending in help when it is requested?
Besides, this is also an issue of leaving people behind, of abandonment of one's own countrymen. The military did not want to do this, but were directed to "stand down". We've yet to find out where that order came from.
Nice leap there, show me where I blamed the victims. The only people I blame are the the people who killed the 4 Americans. The dangers were much higher in Libya and Benghazi in particular. As far as I have heard, those who died knowingly risked their lives in service of the United States. For that they should be admired.
There was very little help available and what was available was sent. The facilities were evacuated within 12 hours. One of the deaths was a member of a response team sent from Tripoli.
Last edited by WilliamSmyth; 05-13-2013 at 06:37 PM..
Nice leap there, show me were I blamed the victims. The only people I blame are the the people who killed the 4 Americans. The dangers were much higher in Libya and Benghazi in particular. As far as I have heard, those who died knowingly risked their lives in service of the United States. For that they should be admired.
There was very little help available and what was available was sent. The facilities were evacuated within 12 hours. One of the deaths was a member of a response team sent from Tripoli.
Our state department had no freaking plan, none. We were attacked by a rag tag group of terrorists with a patch work of weapons, and the Greatest country on earth shrugged and said ooops, guess those US civilians are dead. Our contingency plan was... to enact no plan at all. I'm sure those civilians did not know they were going to be left to die on their own.
Even Maureen Dowd, a died in the wool liberal democrat has finally admitted this. These men did not need to die, our government failed them thru sheer incompetence and stupidity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try to keep up and reduce the repeat talking points (yawn).