Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Galraedia

(5,022 posts)
Thu May 9, 2013, 09:46 PM May 2013

The Last Word - Chilling details of what happened in Benghazi






"What emerged clearly in the hearing today is that there were no military assets within range that could have prevented what happened in Benghazi that night." ~ Lawrence O'Donnell
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Last Word - Chilling details of what happened in Benghazi (Original Post) Galraedia May 2013 OP
Possibly could have been avoided if only Politicalboi May 2013 #1
Exactly. The real scandal here is the GOP's refusal of the State Dept.'s full funding request. nt SunSeeker May 2013 #2
I also think the real story is the cutting of funding... onpatrol98 May 2013 #3
Wasn't the asset they needed on the tarmac in Italy? nt MADem May 2013 #4
I guess my point is... onpatrol98 May 2013 #5
My understanding is that by the time they realized a problem was at hand, unless MADem May 2013 #6
sad state of affairs onpatrol98 May 2013 #7
Agree wholeheartedly. I hate the fact that this tragedy is being politicized, too. nt MADem May 2013 #8
My take on this is this: jjewell May 2013 #9
Benghazi liberal from boston May 2013 #10

onpatrol98

(1,989 posts)
3. I also think the real story is the cutting of funding...
Fri May 10, 2013, 12:30 AM
May 2013

I'm actually hoping they drop that whole...no one could have gotten there in time meme.

I mean...when something is in the "process" of happening. You really don't have a clue as to whether or not assets will arrive "in time".

That's like me calling 911 because of a home invasion and being told..."Well, we're not going to arrive in time...so, we're just not coming at all."

But, the recommendations for improvements for the future will cost serious money. So, I think highlighting the cuts makes a lot of sense.

onpatrol98

(1,989 posts)
5. I guess my point is...
Fri May 10, 2013, 08:01 AM
May 2013

I guess my point is, no matter where the asset is, usually you don't know exactly how long an attack is going to last while you're in the middle of it. So, saying it wouldn't have helped may be technically accurate, but that's kind of knowledge after the fact. And, if one of these young people that died is a child of mine, I'd rather hear that you sent help as soon as you heard, but unfortunately, they didn't make it in time rather than, no we didn't bother to send any help and it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.



But, in order to protect diplomats in the future, they need to have security and that takes funds or just don't send them.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. My understanding is that by the time they realized a problem was at hand, unless
Fri May 10, 2013, 09:14 AM
May 2013

light speed travel were possible, they were screwed anyway--it was done before they could get a bird in the air. There needed to be protection in situ, which there would have been had funding not been gutted.

Also, the situation in that end of the world wasn't one of striped morning coats, diplomatic briefcases and letters of introduction; it was closer to the Wild Wild West than a sedate State Department assignment. I'm sure more than a couple of actors assigned to that consulate and the embassy in that nation were, shall we say, dual hatted. And it's entirely likely their families didn't know it, either.

In the end, the only thing that we know is that no US citizen in any position of authority "wanted" this to happen. Protocols were in place to mitigate against this sort of thing, they just weren't good enough,, unfortunately.

Once upon a time, we never had 'bollards' or enormous planters in front of federal buildings, and when they were added on, everybody thought they looked strange and defensive and somehow wrong--but now they're so well designed that they're part of the architecture. As threats change, we change to mitigate them. We've learned much from this sad event and it will be incorporated into protocols. That's the best anyone can do; there's no bringing back the dead.

jjewell

(618 posts)
9. My take on this is this:
Fri May 10, 2013, 05:13 PM
May 2013

Ambassador Stevens left the security of the US Embassy in Tripoli for a 630 mile trip to the Consulate in Benghazi, with an inadequate security detail, given the turmoil in country at the time. Terrorists utilized the disturbances caused by the "video" as a cover to proceed with a pre-planned plot to attack and kill him and his group. They knew he was coming, it wasn't a secret.

Ambassador Stevens, as the the top US official in the region, best knew the security situation in the area, but decided to make the trip anyway. He sadly underestimated the size of the security detail he would need to accompany him on the trip, and tragically died as a result. Had he stayed in Tripoli, all four would be alive today.

There IS NO scandal, just the tragic loss of four lives. Once the Ambassador and his party arrived in Benghazi with inadequate security, the die was cast and their fate was sealed. There was NOTHING an F-22 based in Italy, or anything else the State Department or the military could have done to avoid the ultimate outcome.

This Republican "snipe hunt" is nothing but politicized bullshit.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»The Last Word - Chilling ...