Benghazi U.S. Amb. Christopher Stevens turned down offers of more security twice

[theeedude]

The complex in Benghazi was not an Embassy. Also most embassies do not have CIA gun running operations taking place. Another point is the military did not know the extent of the CIA operations from Benghazi.

That's right. It was not an embassy and did not have same level of security as one. Stevens knew that and chose to take his chances and stay in Benghazi, even as the Brits moved their people to Tripoli. Bad move.

 

[michal1980]

the lengths the left goes to defend Hilary... blaming the dead guy.

 

[theeedude]

the lengths the left goes to defend Hilary... blaming the dead guy.

Pulling the "dead guy" card?

 

[CitizenKain]

the lengths the left goes to defend Hilary... blaming the dead guy.

The lengths the idiot right go to pin this is amazing. But you people will believe everything your masters tell you to.

 

[theeedude]

The lengths the idiot right go to pin this is amazing. But you people will believe everything your masters tell you to.

Koch suckers will swallow anything.

 

[bshole]

Well this is the entirety of the Republican strategy for winning the White House in 2016 after all. Whining about an embassy attack that happened years ago.... a sure recipe for success! Talk about a vision for America, that one is REAL hard to beat. ROFLMFAO at their complete and utter partisan idiocy.

 

[michal1980]

I wonder why the left wants this story buried. Why do they feel the failure of government should be ignored? What are they afraid of?

You keep saying its a non-story? Why? Because you dont like it.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think you need to look at the date of the article that quote came from as it was debunked in the latest article. Nice try anyway.

What is it you think is debunked, exactly? General Ham twice offered military support to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens declined. This is confirmed in the new Senate Intelligence Committee report (page 20). The fact that USA Today doesn't mention this is unsurprising. They are trying to summarize a long report in something easy to read.

Note that I don't blame Stevens for his own death. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I'll presume he had good reasons for turning Ham down. Nonetheless, it raises an interesting question I've asked several times before (with predictable silence from those who are trying to use this tragedy to attack Obama, Clinton, and Rice). Given that Stevens knew the situation in Benghazi as well as anybody, why did he decide to take the risk? It seems that he must have felt the risk was reasonable. Granted he wasn't as omniscient as those who now bleat that "we knew we were going to be attacked" (with their 20/20 hindsight), so it's probably Obama's fault that Stevens didn't have a perfect crystal ball.

One other finding, quoted from the Washington Post article since I haven't had time to read the whole report yet:

"The committee described the attacks as opportunistic and said there was no specific warning that they were about to be carried out."
​

This is consistent with the CIA analysis, administration statements, and the New York Times investigation all stating that other protests about the anti-Islam video were one of the factors in the attack. That does not mean they "caused" the attack, but it could have triggered the timing.

 

[theeedude]

I wonder why the left wants this story buried. Why do they feel the failure of government should be ignored? What are they afraid of?

You keep saying its a non-story? Why? Because you dont like it.

Who wants this story buried except the Republicans who don't like the facts emerging that contradict their anti-Hillary conspiracy theories?

 

[thraashman]

What is it you think is debunked, exactly? General Ham twice offered military support to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens declined. This is confirmed in the new Senate Intelligence Committee report (page 20). The fact that USA Today doesn't mention this is unsurprising. They are trying to summarize a long report in something easy to read.

Note that I don't blame Stevens for his own death. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I'll presume he had good reasons for turning Ham down. Nonetheless, it raises an interesting question I've asked several times before (with predictable silence from those who are trying to use this tragedy to attack Obama, Clinton, and Rice). Given that Stevens knew the situation in Benghazi as well as anybody, why did he decide to take the risk? It seems that he must have felt the risk was reasonable. Granted he wasn't as omniscient as those who now bleat that "we knew we were going to be attacked" (with their 20/20 hindsight), so it's probably Obama's fault that Stevens didn't have a perfect crystal ball.

One other finding, quoted from the Washington Post article since I haven't had time to read the whole report yet:

"The committee described the attacks as opportunistic and said there was no specific warning that they were about to be carried out."
​

This is consistent with the CIA analysis, administration statements, and the New York Times investigation all stating that other protests about the anti-Islam video were one of the factors in the attack. That does not mean they "caused" the attack, but it could have triggered the timing.

I'm pretty sure the people you're trying to reach in here won't be swayed by magical things like facts.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What is it you think is debunked, exactly? General Ham twice offered military support to Ambassador Stevens, and Stevens declined. This is confirmed in the new Senate Intelligence Committee report (page 20). The fact that USA Today doesn't mention this is unsurprising. They are trying to summarize a long report in something easy to read.

Note that I don't blame Stevens for his own death. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I'll presume he had good reasons for turning Ham down. Nonetheless, it raises an interesting question I've asked several times before (with predictable silence from those who are trying to use this tragedy to attack Obama, Clinton, and Rice). Given that Stevens knew the situation in Benghazi as well as anybody, why did he decide to take the risk? It seems that he must have felt the risk was reasonable. Granted he wasn't as omniscient as those who now bleat that "we knew we were going to be attacked" (with their 20/20 hindsight), so it's probably Obama's fault that Stevens didn't have a perfect crystal ball.

One other finding, quoted from the Washington Post article since I haven't had time to read the whole report yet:

"The committee described the attacks as opportunistic and said there was no specific warning that they were about to be carried out."
​

This is consistent with the CIA analysis, administration statements, and the New York Times investigation all stating that other protests about the anti-Islam video were one of the factors in the attack. That does not mean they "caused" the attack, but it could have triggered the timing.

I don't believe the video had any marked effect on the attack and the date (9/11 anniversary) was the driving factor for the timing of the attack. I believe this attack was planned. Not sure if you ever served in the military or done any diplomatic service but for the biggest part they tend to hunker down when danger is perceived and hope it blows over without deaths or injuries. I believe that is why Stevens choose to stay in Benghazi. I do question why the State Dept pulled their security forces and military contingent were pulled yet no orders from the State Dept were given to Stevens/his staff should evacuate at that time as well.

As for blaming the President and Secretary of State I don't see how they could have known this attack was eminent. Had this happened to a military commander of force or captain of a ship they would have been relieved of their command as it took place on their watch.

I hope that things are done much differently from this point heading forward.

 

[michal1980]

As for blaming the President and Secretary of State I don't see how they could have known this attack was eminent. Had this happened to a military commander of force or captain of a ship they would have been relieved of their command as it took place on their watch.

I hope that things are done much differently from this point heading forward.

So they were asleep at the wheel? The leadership is never to blame as long as there is a -D behind their names?

 

[theeedude]

So they were asleep at the wheel? The leadership is never to blame as long as there is a -D behind their names?

The equivalent of military commander of force or captain of a ship in this case was the Ambassador. But he has a -D(eceased) by his name, so we are supposed to pretend like he had nothing to do with putting himself and his men in harms way.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't believe the video had any marked effect on the attack and the date (9/11 anniversary) was the driving factor for the timing of the attack. I believe this attack was planned. Not sure if you ever served in the military or done any diplomatic service but for the biggest part they tend to hunker down when danger is perceived and hope it blows over without deaths or injuries. I believe that is why Stevens choose to stay in Benghazi. I do question why the State Dept pulled their security forces and military contingent were pulled yet no orders from the State Dept were given to Stevens/his staff should evacuate at that time as well.

As for blaming the President and Secretary of State I don't see how they could have known this attack was eminent. Had this happened to a military commander of force or captain of a ship they would have been relieved of their command as it took place on their watch.

I hope that things are done much differently from this point heading forward.

And there it is folks! He believes! He has zero evidence to back up his belief but when has that ever stopped the believers?

The spaghetti monster does exist!!

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't believe the video had any marked effect on the attack and the date (9/11 anniversary) was the driving factor for the timing of the attack. I believe this attack was planned. Not sure if you ever served in the military or done any diplomatic service but for the biggest part they tend to hunker down when danger is perceived and hope it blows over without deaths or injuries. I believe that is why Stevens choose to stay in Benghazi. I do question why the State Dept pulled their security forces and military contingent were pulled yet no orders from the State Dept were given to Stevens/his staff should evacuate at that time as well. ...

What do you mean by Stevens chose to "stay" in Benghazi? It is my understanding that he was stationed in the embassy in Tripoli, but chose to travel to Benghazi for meetings. Is that not correct? My question is why Stevens made that choice if the known threat was unreasonably high.

I hope that things are done much differently from this point heading forward.

Exactly. While I agree there should be accountability for anyone who truly screwed up, I also recognize the Middle East can be a nasty place where bad stuff often happens in spite of reasonable precautions. So, more than anything, I want to be sure we understand exactly what went wrong and how we can better prevent it in the future. We can never remove all risk from the world, but we must continually improve or ability to manage it.

 

[werepossum]

Shens. Sure, he may have asked for security in writing, but we offered it verbally and he turned us down.

 

[Bowfinger]

Shens. Sure, he may have asked for security in writing, but we offered it verbally and he turned us down.

Don't be such a knee-jerk hack. Not all forms of security are identical. It may well be that even as Ambassador Stevens wanted more security of one sort, he did not want combat troops. The two are not mutually exclusive, and he was there first and foremost as a diplomat, not a military force.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What do you mean by Stevens chose to "stay" in Benghazi? It is my understanding that he was stationed in the embassy in Tripoli, but chose to travel to Benghazi for meetings. Is that not correct? My question is why Stevens made that choice if the known threat was unreasonably high.

I think the Ambassador can and does move between the Embassy and Consulates in countries where there are both. I've met the US Ambassador to Indonesia in the Consulates in Surabaya and Bali even though he's stationed in the Embassy in Jakarta.

Exactly. While I agree there should be accountability for anyone who truly screwed up, I also recognize the Middle East can be a nasty place where bad stuff often happens in spite of reasonable precautions. So, more than anything, I want to be sure we understand exactly what went wrong and how we can better prevent it in the future. We can never remove all risk from the world, but we must continually improve or ability to manage it.

Agree with this wholeheartedly

 

[werepossum]

Don't be such a knee-jerk hack. Not all forms of security are identical. It may well be that even as Ambassador Stevens wanted more security of one sort, he did not want combat troops. The two are not mutually exclusive, and he was there first and foremost as a diplomat, not a military force.

I suppose we can posit any reason we want as long as we agree it's the fault of the dead guy, huh?

 

[Bowfinger]

I suppose we can posit any reason we want as long as we agree it's the fault of the dead guy, huh?

Your words, not mine, troll boy. I explicitly stated, "I don't blame Stevens for his own death" and "I'll presume he had good reasons for turning Ham down." It's a shame you seem increasingly incapable of engaging honestly and reasonably.

 

[werepossum]

Your words, not mine, troll boy. I explicitly stated, "I don't blame Stevens for his own death" and "I'll presume he had good reasons for turning Ham down." It's a shame you seem increasingly incapable of engaging honestly and reasonably.

I do not consider turning someone down in writing then after his death claiming you offered and he turned down what he had been requesting to be either honest or reasonable. It is merely convenient.

Had this situation happened under Bush you'd be among the loudest of squealers. As it is, you're claiming to not blame Stevens for his own death in literally the same breath as you're claiming that it's his own fault he's dead, just with the platitude that you presume he had good reasons.

 

[Bowfinger]

I do not consider turning someone down in writing then after his death claiming you offered and he turned down what he had been requesting to be either honest or reasonable. It is merely convenient.

Fact vs. faith. I am basing my position on the evidence presented. You're basing yours on your gut belief this is all some ebil conspiracy. The Senate Intelligence committee report presents Ham's offers as confirmed fact, no matter how much that counters your faith.

Had this situation happened under Bush you'd be among the loudest of squealers.

Is that so? Feel free to quote my squeals in response to the many attacks on our facilities during his term. I'm sure that would be easier than you growing up and actually engaging in honest discussion.

As it is, you're claiming to not blame Stevens for his own death in literally the same breath as you're claiming that it's his own fault he's dead, just with the platitude that you presume he had good reasons.

I cannot help you with your reading impairment. Perhaps you should contact Sylvan.

As I stated twice, I presume Stevens had good reason for turning Ham down. I am categorically NOT blaming him for that decision, nor do we even know if it would have made a difference. You are the one who's making this some simple-minded, black and white dichotomy, where the two options are either ebil Democrats or Stevens' fault. There are countless other options, but you have to remove your RNC blinders to consider them.


Oh, and for the record, I blame the attackers for Ambassador Stevens' death and the deaths of our other three men. It's a pity you RNC drones can't put country over party long enough to do the same.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And there you go folks. A little glimpse into the progressive brain. Yes, it's ugly in there.

Hey, did Stevens deserve to get fucked in the ass too? Not sure if it was prior to his death or afterwards so if you think that's relevant include it in your reply.

Umm, do you have to lie to make your argument?

 

[Matt1970]

Well this is the entirety of the Republican strategy for winning the White House in 2016 after all. Whining about an embassy attack that happened years ago.... a sure recipe for success! Talk about a vision for America, that one is REAL hard to beat. ROFLMFAO at their complete and utter partisan idiocy.

They should take a trick or two out of Obama's playbook and just lie their collective asses off to get elected and then just do damage control afterwards.

 

[boomerang]

Umm, do you have to lie to make your argument?

No, I'm not a progressive. It was reported that he was sodomized. The government has not released any official explanation regarding his death and I expect we may never hear one.