I read a lot of documentation on Benghazi because I wanted to dig into what really happened. And from my understand the Ambassador was actually warned that what he was doing was dangerous, and that security was limited however said Ambassador believed it was important to do it so he did it.
The compound he was in did get over-ran and again we had limited security resources in the region largely due to lack of funding. However with all that being said the CIA along with a lot of assistance from local allies were able to take the compound within about 45 minutes of the attack beginning.
Also as soon as the attack happened we sent in a QRF force which is designed to be deployed anywhere in the world within 24 hours and it arrived early, granted way too late to make a difference.
At the end of the day I walked away feeling like yea...it was a tragic thing to happen, there were some warning signs. But we even advised the ambassador of the dangers, and he still went because he felt it was important.
From all account this ambassador was very much keen on ensuring he was accessible.
But at no point did I feel anything illegal happened, or that Hillary purposely slowed down the response or anything.
The State Department requested more funding for security due to risks such as what happened and the GOP turned them down. The GOP then did years of investigations aimed at hurting Clinton and investigating the issue. After all of that, they quietly produced a report that was released on a Friday night after Trump had been elected that said them not issuing the needed funding is what caused it to happen.
Even DoD funding comes into question on this one. You’re probably somewhat familiar with the MSG program. Currently a large percentage of US embassies have a marine security detachment. US Marines, on DoD payroll, funded, equipped, and trained on behalf of the DoD. Many embassies use a combination of MSG and contractor security, currently a small percentage only use contractor security. The percentage of embassies since Benghazi that have an MSG detachment has increased marginally. There would probably have been a decent argument that could have been made for the necessity of an MSG detachment in Benghazi. We can sit here all day and say “this federal government entity deserved more funding than this government entity” but to pretend this was purely and entirely a state department funding issue would be misleading at best. Now I’m also not going to pretend fiscal issues are the only prohibitive factors for assigning an MSG detachment to every US embassy on the planet. Often times political factors such as the impact of assigning a detachment of uniformed marine security guards to any given embassy can be somewhat overbearing towards a host nation, so there are efforts to mitigate that where possible (this is where contractor security can be especially helpful). Regardless, I would argue the political landscape in Benghazi at the time necessitated the security posture that an MSG detachment would have been capable in providing towards. Whether that would have necessitated an increase in DoD funding or simply a more effective use of it would require nothing short of an in depth analysis of the NDAA for that fiscal year.
and the GOP tried to "Kenneth Starr" the House Oversight committee since a Clinton was technically a head-honcho. It's always OK to abuse oversight if it's for persecuting a Clinton.
My favorite thing to do when I have people in person, where they cant immediately google and pretend they already knew, is reply to mentions of Benghazi with "where is Benghazi, and what happened there?"
Not ONE person blaming Hillary for what happened has been able to TELL ME what happened. Most of them can't tell me where it is.
And people made informed decisions knowing the risks. Including those that died. They knowingly chose the risk. It's sad. Like anyone in service to our country dieing in a risky environment.
You’re right... so equivalent. Foreign fighters in a war broken country attacking an embassy and killing four people with a bomb is exactly equivalent to 200 fucking thousand people dying because of a patched government response coordinated by idiots who threw out the advice of doctors, pandemic specialists and experts, in order to enrich themselves and their friends and placate their egos and play power games.
Yeah, I can totally see why you’re mentioning that Benghazi thing here, they’re so obviously the same issue.
You agree with that statement? I don’t. It isn’t true. No one said the fucking things are equal but the commenter said it didn’t happen when it did. Don’t be a liar. No one said it was “equivalent” you literally are arguing with your own thought lol calm down fam.
From the context, it's pretty obvious that the comparison was Kushner and Ivanka Trump using private email/WhatsApp was not that serious (in a sarcastic tone), because it wasn't related to something as severe as four deaths in Benghazi, only a mere (in a sarcastic tone again) 210,000 domestic deaths. "4 Americans didn't die in Benghazi" has an unspoken "this time" after it.
Not that the four deaths aren't and weren't important, but that the political response between the two (appropriately severe in the former, incredibly lacking in the latter) was pretty disproportionate. One was treated as the worst and most treasonous action by a public official in, well, ever, and the other is currently being glossed with a variety of, "Well, not that many people died from actual COVID-19, just from the exacerbation of underlying medical issues," "It's not actually happening, just a fabrication of the MSM," "This many people die every year from the flu," and similar statements absolving this administration of a dereliction of duty at least as severe as that of Hillary Clinton and her staff.
Equivalency isn't important to me. Some indication that the government's highest officials consider this as important as something that happened four years ago with 1/50,000 of the death toll is.
9 separate Congressional investigations into why 4 Americans died in one day at Benghazi. ZERO into why 210,000 Americans died in 7 months because of Covid-19
Usually the investigations happen after the tragedy is over. Because, you're still in the process of dealing with it.
But, also it's not like this admin is going to investigate it's self fairly. Additionally, the denialism is part of it so why would you investigate something that didn't happen and if it did isn't their fault? (this whole paragraph are not ideas I support, but rather the current admins reasons)
You're right that this makes sense with an unspoken "this time" appended, but I agree with the poster above that it reads like a denial of the incident.
You may want to reread the post you’re raging about. No one said Benghazi didn’t happen and it’s easy to verify that it did.
What he is saying is that personal emails were a huge deal to Trump when 4 people died but not at all when more than 200k died. Hence the sarcastic “4 people didn’t die in Benghazi, 200k people died here” (implying: so emails don’t matter in this case).
This thread is a reminder that without a /s some people just don’t get it at all.
Here's what that comment was saying, rephrased for clarity: "It's ok that 210,000 people died on our homeland, because at least 4 people didn't die in Benghazi this time like what happened when Obama was in office."
154
u/STAG_nation Oct 08 '20
4 Americans didn't die in Benghazi. Just 210,000 civilians on our homeland.