Was that part censored or was it never filmed intentionally? We all know what she did but I felt it should have been addressed in the movie. I know the media censors stories to make her look better but this is a movie so that could have at least been shown.
shareIf you listen closely enough, they imply it two or three times.
shareYes, they should have totally made that part up to just to feed the Fox News frenzied anti-Hillary trolls.
The actual people involved have said several times any 'stand-down' order did not come from that high up.
Yes, they should have totally made that part up to just to feed the Fox News frenzied anti-Hillary trolls.
The actual people involved have said several times any 'stand-down' order did not come from that high up.
Have you read the reports of the investigation? There is absolutely no evidence that anyone issued an order to stand down. How is it a "simple fact" when the investigation stated that none was given? Where is your evidence? Is it from the guys who wrote the book? Because that's the only place where any mention of a stand down order is cited. You don't suppose that information might be biased, do you? You'd believe the guys profiting from the story over the FBI, Senate, and House investigations?
It's extremely common in the military for a subordinate to be told to stand down when he's attempting to interject himself or force an discussion. As "Bob" and Rone were discussing how to handle the situation and Tig and Tanto kept trying to interject and assert themselves, arguing to get a move on, it's highly probably that "Bob" told one of them to stand down. In other words, stop interrupting and wait for your orders. Having seen Tanto interviewed numerous times, it's not a stretch for me to think that he is purposely misapplying that for the story. Was he told to stand down? Probably. Was it some official order from a high-ranking individual in DC? Not even.
But, for the sake of your hypothesis, let's say that someone in DC did issue an order to stand down - to not go to the aid of the State house. Who would that come from? If you think that order comes from the SOS, you have a complete misunderstanding of that role. The SOS has zero authority to issue any kind of orders in that scenario. Neither to act or to not act. You really don't understand how these things work.
You don't think it's suspicious that she KEPT with the story about that attack being a "spontaneous angry protest about an anti-Islam video that got out of hand", even after her office had been informed as to the planned nature of the 9/11 attack, and she had already sent an e-mail to her husband about them being "attacked in Benghazi"? You don't think it's likely she might have tried to "calm the hysteria" a bit by not choosing to scramble fighters and assets? Sort of aligns with her and Barack's obvious intention to arrest that poor idiot with the Youtube video and placate America's concerns about Al Qaeda, a group Obama assured everyone was "on the run and decimated", so soon before the election?
No, I can't prove she gave the order to hang them out to dry like that for 13 hours, but she DID try to mislead the public about the nature of the attack, once she was informed of it! The rest is simply a reasonable guess considering this obvious intention to deceive and distract.
Ya. I definitely think it's lame that she was slow to call it a planned and organized attack. Keep in mind, though, that a lot of posts were attacked that day and the information was that there was unrest due to the release of the movie combined with it being 9/11. Plus, the Libyans attacking the embassy were heard saying that they were pissed about the movie. On top of that, one of the top apprehended ring leaders said that they were responding to the movie. So there was a lot of bad information and misinformation going around. Mostly, though, they probably didn't want to admit that they didn't have enough intelligence to know that it was an organized attack by a splinter group they knew about. A bit of "calming the nerves of citizens", too, I'm sure. But mostly embarrassed that they didn't have the intel.
Again, the SOS does not give orders. She doesn't choose to send fighters. That's a call that Panetta makes. She has nothing to do with it at all. BTW... the closest available fighters were a couple hours away and a couple hours to get in the air. On top of that, you don't just fly them over Libya air space. They have to coordinate that with Libyan officials. In all that time, they have to work on getting Libyan support forces on the scene since that would be faster. A fighter wouldn't actually be able to provide any offense - just try to scare them with a fly-by (the nearest gunship was 10 hours out). So boots on the ground has to be the best option. Even still...that's not a call for the SOS to make. So how did she "let them die"?
Keep in mind, though, that a lot of posts were attacked that day and the information was that there was unrest due to the release of the movie combined with it being 9/11.
I've always said I don't blame her or anyone else for that initial reaction or her first press conference. Nobody can be expected to know everything that soon after a confusing emergency. BUT, she WAS very soon informed as to the planned nature of the attack, and yet her next conferences doubled-down on it being a result of that "vile Youtube video". And that video was NOT released around 9/11. That is a common misconception. The video had been on Youtube for about 9 months already, and it just upset everyone 9 months later on 9/11? Please. These attacks were planned months in advance to coincide with the COVER of a planned "outrage" protest all over the middle east. They publicized this obscure video a few days before 9/11 to the common rabble as cover.
But again, I'm not complaining about mistakes made early on. I don't blame anyone for making an error or acting under bad information. I DO condemn those who - once they find out the TRUTH - choose to perpetuate "bad intel", particularly when doing so is politically expedient, and I ABSOLUTELY condemn such crass political chicanery when it puts American lives at risk. That's the absolute worst. If Hillary or Barack actually made a little "head-shake" to a State Dept. or military official about "risking assets" right away, and risking "inflaming" the situation? That's unforgivable IMO, and pretty close to treasonous.
Yes I know the SOS doesn't handle these things personally, and I'm not specifically blaming Hillary here. I'm blaming Obama who almost certainly made the decision to do nothing and stick with the Youtube video protest explanation as long as possible, it's just that blame always rolls downhill and someone has to stand before a committee.
Do you really think Hillary or Barack did not have ANY say in sending assets right away as were requested repeatedly? It was out of their hands? Please.
And yes I know that only fighter planes were available quickly and that fighters are not tactically useful in this situation, but the outpost was repeatedly requesting they be sent to do low fly-bys anyway, under the theory that this would put the fear of Allah in the attackers and get them to retreat. The enemy would be unlikely to know that ONLY fighters were available right away, right?
"Not permitted to do fly-bys" over Libyan airspace? Are you kidding me? After an embassy has been attacked and an ambassador taken or killed? And are you really trying to argue that neither Clinton nor Obama COULD have ordered some help sent earlier? It was out of their hands?
Again - with the benefit of hindsight - I doubt that anything either the White House or State could have done would have made much difference that night, it just seems to me that Barack and Hillary conspired to whitewash this attack and try to make it all go away as an "understandable protest of a terrible Western anti-Muslim video". You know, it was basically America's fault for being so homophobic, and that Obama really DOES have Al Qaeda "decimated" this close to the election.
But what do I know? I'm not even American:)
"I'm blaming Obama who almost certainly made the decision to do nothing"
And your proof is what? And what in your superior opinion could Obama have done? Order the attackers to retreat?
Excellent responses.
"You don't suppose that information might be biased, do you?"
You mean the recollection of hired contractors don't supersede the actual testimonials of CIA/State Dept/entire chain of command? You mean we should based the entire perceived narratives on a few people external to the decision making rather that the complete picture of everyone involved?
"It's extremely common in the military for a subordinate to be told to stand down when he's attempting to interject himself or force an discussion."
Read ANY hostage rescue stories. There are always multiple stand-up/stand-down orders as the fluid situation develops and windows for rescue open and close. During Operation Red Wing the rescue forces went in immediately - and got 16 more Americans killed trying to rescue 1-3. To rush in is not always brave, it's stupidity.
In any case, it's not the military that responds to embassy attacks. External security for diplomatic facilities are the responsibility of the host nation. Libya, believe it or not, is an actual sovereign country with it's own border and security forces.
The CIA (which rarely comments on things due to secrecy) came out STRONGLY denying the version portrayed in the film.
"If you think that order comes from the SOS, you have a complete misunderstanding of that role."
Wow you mean the CIA is a separate dept doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the State Department?
Hey brainwashed Obama/Killary apologist, I suggest you watch the program No Man Left Behind that features three of these guys who said they were told to "stand down" and the CIA Chief told them it came from the top. Sorry, that doesn't fit your narrative, but who else exactly do you think would give the order? Can you possibly be this clueless? I wonder if one of those men were your father or brother if you would still be sitting here making excuses for Killary.
shareWhat is it that you think she did? And what authority do you think she has that would have prevented anyone's death?
shareClinton's decision to have a private email server in the basement of her house put the Americans in Benghazi in harms way. Her email was hacked during the time when Ambassador Stevens notified Clinton of his travel plans and location. He also sent numerous emails detailing his concerns about the lack of security, and requested more security. These requests went unanswered. Clinton later claimed she never received them, even though there was proof that they were indeed sent. Clinton is either a liar, a complete incompetent or both. Her choice to spin a story about the entire incident being about objections to a video are a slap in the face to all Americans.
shareYou're mistaken. Clinton's email server was never hacked. Please cite your evidence to back your claim that it was.
It was not uncommon for the SOS to use a personal mail server. Clinton wasn't the first and was following standard protocol and practice of officials in her position in the past. Please explain how having done so would have put Americans in harms way (keeping in mind that none of the email was "confidential" or "classified" while transacting).
Stevens emailed people within the State Department (not Clinton, herself) regarding security issues in Libya. That would be pretty standard protocol. And, as everyone knows, congress cut embassy security funding making it virtually impossible to beef up security to the measures required. Pretty much all of the foreign posts were underfunded (hence the need for contractors, many times) but all the State Department can do is request more money from Congress.
These are all known facts available to anyone who cares to know the truth.
Hillary Clinton is the only Secretary of State to never use an @state.gov email address, to use a private server exclusively, opting out of a government account, despite official recommendations.
She deleted over 30,000 emails without any governmental oversight.
She is the only Presidential candidate in American history to be the center of an ongoing FBI investigation.
It is fairly common knowledge that Clinton's email was hacked at the very least by Romanian hacker Marcel Lazar " Guccifer".
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hacker-guccifer-i-got-inside-hillary-clintons-server
An April 11, 2011 email from State Dept official Timmy Davis, confirming Stevens location and titled " Stevens Update" was forwarded from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton.
Clinton and the Obama administration attempted to mislead the public by blaming the attacks in Benghazi on an anti Muslim video, and continually downplayed the fact that it was a premeditated terrorist attack.
It's common knowledge that Guccifer claimed to have hacked her mail server. But it's also commonly (or should be) known that he was completely discredited:
Washington Post (May 5, 2016) ("U.S. officials also dismissed claims by a Romanian hacker now facing federal charges in Virginia that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server. The officials said investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion by Marcel Lehel Lazar to Fox News and others, and they believed if he had accessed Clinton’s emails, he would have released them — as he did when he got into accounts of other high-profile people.").
And, again, plenty of officials have used their personal address as their primary communication. Why even bring that up? Please explain how doing so puts people in harm's way. The title of this thread is "how Hillary let them die". And so far nobody has explained how she "let them die".
An April 11, 2011 email from State Dept official Timmy Davis, confirming Stevens location and titled " Stevens Update" was forwarded from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton.
You're mistaken. Clinton's email server was never hacked. Please cite your evidence to back your claim that it was.
It was not uncommon for the SOS to use a personal mail server. Clinton wasn't the first and was following standard protocol and practice of officials in her position in the past
[deleted]
Early in the movie they were talking about why they didn't have more security and one of the guys mentioned budget cuts.The budget cuts were from the Republican led House
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
[deleted]
How many Ranger battalions did Hillary command when this went down? How many fighter wings? How many warships? That's what I thought - just more right-wing Republican bullsh*t. The Clinton's raised taxes on the wealthy back in 1993, and have been hounded by Republicans ever since. 😠
shareThey did, you just have to know all the facts before hand. It perfectly illustrates what went on and why Hillary and the Obama administration in general screwed the pooch.
[deleted]