Originally
posted by
Schilling:
Originally
posted by
Atryn:
Originally
posted by
Uncle James:
She should be in jail for failing to send troops to Libya when requested by the Ambassador instead of sitting on her big but and letting our people get killed because she was to stupid to take care of business.
Wait, what? Are you saying the Ambassador to a foreign country should be the only one with say on how many troops should be sent to that country? And if they ask for more they should just be sent immediately without any decision process?
Essentially, yes. We aren't talking about a sustained military operation here. We're talking about a hot extract. Very different scenario and one that FAST/QRFs train for (at least in the USMC).
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. We aren't talking about extraction. That happened incredibly fast. What we are talking about is the request to strengthen security at the embassy made well before the attack by the ambassador due to concerns about changing dynamics on the ground.
For more background:
Hillary's Testimony:
http://www.nydailynews.com/...-attack-article-1.1246025
Lieberman's Report:
http://www.collins.senate.gov/...cial%20Report%20final.pdf
In the second link, read starting page 5 (key findings and recommendations). Specifically, Finding 3 on page 9 and Finding 5 on page 13:
"Finding 3. The absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack should not have prevented the Department
of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi."
"Finding 5.The Benghazi facility’s temporary status had a detrimental effect on security decisions, and that fact was clearly known by DS personnel in Benghazi and to their superiors who nevertheless left the American personnel in Benghazi in this very dangerous situation.The Department of State did not take adequate measures to mitigate the facility’s significant vulnerabilities in this high-threat environment. "
OK, once you have read the background, here is the matter at hand WRT Hillary Clinton... Her claim is that these decisions have been (and were also in this case) made at the level of the regional officer (in this case Charlene Lamb). (read her statements about trust in the security apparatus and that they get it right 99% of the time). The counter claim is that this incident happened on her watch and therefore the buck stops with her regardless of where below her the decisions were being made.
Reports of "inadequate security" exist at A LOT of foreign installations run by State. State has requested, repeatedly, additional funding for security at these facilities and been denied such requests. This has led to State having a culture of reluctance to acquiesce to requests for additional security (i.e. - you'll just have to make do), which are too common to routinely respond to.
2011 (before the incident), Clinton:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...clinton-house-republ.html
Here is a pretty even view of this component:
http://www.politifact.com/...te-security-funding-cong/
Basically, the administrations over a long time have requested additional security and Congress has never really funded at the levels requested by State or the President (regardless of party over the years).
I think, in hindsight, it is easy to conclude that State should have taken this request more seriously. But there are other situations that also should then be taken more seriously by the same standard where incidents like this have NOT occurred. So either we fund initial security at a level commensurate with the requests or we pay for "emergency" security on a more routine basis (which is actually more expensive). But holding Clinton responsible for the actions of these terrorists in this case and saying she is criminally liable is, frankly, just politics. It reflects a very narrow view of a very complex issue that has stretched across many administrations, many congresses and many Secretaries of State.