So Hillary let them die? - 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016) Discussion

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

There have been multiple tax payer paid republican led Benghazi witchhunts/ investigations and none of them could find that Hillary was at fault.

reply

[–] Prototype_v076 9 years ago

though the survivors don't recommend HC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOlgAK5iAtI

"WorldTradeForce???"

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

They want to sell books,be on fox news,be paid for speeches etc like Marcus Lattrell,Rob O'Neil etc.The best way to profit from their Benghazi experience is selling books,speeches,being a paid fox news guest etc to conservatives.

reply

[–] kprdvr 9 years ago

I am a Marine. My friends were contractors there. State tied their hands all around. If anything this movie was soft. There was a FAST Co of Marines in Rota, Spain 3 hrs away that responded instantly, but State (HC) made the call to delay them...they changed uniforms for over 3 hrs because State didn't want them coming into country looking aggressive. This is all documented in Congressional testinony and you can read the reports online so don't call it a witch hunt or books sales when you don't know what your talking about.

This sort of game playing with State is exactly the sort of issues we get when people in charge have never served their country or been in combat. Too much of our public and govt have no perspective of what the world is really like. I'm convinced if the ambassador or HC had ever dawned a uniform they would have understood more about OPSEC and this *beep* show would never had happened...

reply

[–] kprdvr 9 years ago

What do you think 300 Marines from FASTEUR would have done when arriving in country 3 hrs after the call??

What do you think would have happened if private countractors hadn't been the only ones in country? What if the ones who were there didn't have their hands tied? What if it to death.

Bottom line she is responsible and she doesn't know what she's doing because she doesn't have the qualifications to run an op like this, much less the State Dept, or our country.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (7282253) 8 years ago

So you'd rather support the guy who has disrespected fallen soldiers and made off hand comments about POWs being weak? The guy who literally knows nothing about sacrifice because he's too busy sucking money from his casinos and flirting with scantily clad women?

There are no winners in these types of tragedies. But please go ahead and continue your rhetoric. In this modern era there will always be red tape amongst western leaders, because as history has proven, any quick response will be scrutinized and could escalate to something much worse. I don't think Trump has ever opened a history book.

reply

[–] One-Eyed_Jack 8 years ago

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is Clinton's actions in this case are quite irrelevant. It's not like these CIA operatives and contractors were fighting the war on terror. They were merely overseeing the international arms trade. That was the sole reason they were stationed in Libya. The CIA and, of course, the US government make quite a lot of money off the international arms trade because, well, they control it for the most part. And that's the only reason they were in Benghazi in the first place. These contractors did not believe they were being patriots and defending the freedom of Americans. They aren't that naive. They knew exactly what they were defending and that is the international arms trade, and that is precisely what makes this movie so great. It's about a bunch of hired hands defending nothing and just trying to survive.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hathawayj1 8 years ago

You are out of your mind. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

reply

[–] dealey52 8 years ago

Speaking of mental disorder you're off your meds again. What "normal" person would make such a comment. You don't know the meaning of liberalism except for what you've heard on AM hate radio.

reply

[–] kmd11 8 years ago

So if there is an investigation into the deaths of four Americans, one of which was an Ambassador, that is a witch hunt? You seem to have come into this forum to spew your love of Killery. She indeed let them die.

reply

[–] WinterGardenTheatre 9 years ago

The CIA annex was the first point of contact according to the Benghazi mission's emergency plan. The parts of the plan that didn't work as expected were that the Libyan police parked outside the front gate took off once the attack started, and the diplomatic security agents in the tactical operations center couldn't reach the February 17 Martyrs Brigade guards (although the guards were still there and doing their jobs). The ambassador called Tripoli three times before they picked up his call. The military assets that would have responded ordinarily either were not available or did not deploy as ordered. There is a video on Youtube in which Rep. Peter Roskam of House Select Committee on Benghazi explains what happened using a map animation with timeline.

As for spin, I really don't believe that it was spin. If protests are happening at other diplomatic facilities and violence happens at your facility the same day, it's human nature to link them in your mind. The public demands answers right away even if it isn't reasonable. There's no political benefit to saying the attacks weren't terrorism, even if some people want us to think there is.

reply

[–] vandutran 9 years ago

Your last paragraph contains lots of false information.

"Initially, top U.S. officials and the media reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the incident started as a premeditated attack that was quickly joined by rioters and looters enraged by the video."

and Hillary didn't link the two incidents.. she KNEW it was a terrorist attack, she told that to 3 people, at the same time told the media that it was a protest from a video.

reply

[–] Hassan_Scarborough 9 years ago

That CIA op was supposed to be a secret to everyone who would have shut it down.

It was going to get raided no matter what.

A bunch of White people in a large area isn't hard to miss and the people there aren't stupid.

reply

[–] Penhall99 9 years ago

Yes. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama let these men die in Benghazi.

reply

[–] dealey52 8 years ago

B.S. Did it escape you that the Ambassador was urged to leave. If you did indeed see the film you took your preconceived notions in and ignored everything that didn't fit your ideas.

reply

[–] parkerlgl 9 years ago

So Hillary had to balance the lives of the diplomats, state department personnel, and CIA....with the politics of sending military aircraft into a sorta sovereign country without permission. If this country were Germany...I don't see how she can send the air support. I see this differently because it's Libya.

So, if a US Embassy is attacked...I can see this as an act of war and the US can reply w military force. In this case, the attackers are not official state actors...so it isn't as clear-cut.

I think a Republican Administration would have sent air support, especially since the equivalent of the US embassy was attacked by a bunch of punks...it wasn't just a CIA complex. However, because we elected a Democrat President with ZERO qualifications...the response is the bare minimum.

Think about the history of the US but switch the party in power during each defining moment. How would things be different today?

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

I'd take a Democrat over a Republican anyday

BUSH

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bd/0e/da/bd0eda7847e61594f405d9082e9c24ac.jpg

REAGAN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing

The April 18, 1983, United States embassy bombing was a suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 63 people, including 17 Americans. The victims were mostly embassy and CIA staff members, but also included several U.S. soldiers and one U.S. Marine. It was the deadliest attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission up to that time, and is considered the beginning of Islamist attacks on U.S. targets.

And lets not forget the biggest terrorist attack against the US happened under a Republican President on US soil with 3000 dead and 6000 wounded.

reply

[–] TxMike 9 years ago

It has become fashionable among FOX News fans to blame Hillary. But how many embassies do we have? It is impossible to guard and guarantee that each one will not be vulnerable to a surprise attack by terrorists or rebels. My understanding that the host country assumes most of the blame for letting this happen anywhere.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

I'm not sure if the host country assumes the blame but you're right that there are always attack attempts and some will succeed.The only thing new is how republicans are now pathetically using them for political gain.

reply

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

It has become fashionable among FOX News fans to blame Hillary. But how many embassies do we have? It is impossible to guard and guarantee that each one will not be vulnerable to a surprise attack by terrorists or rebels. My understanding that the host country assumes most of the blame for letting this happen anywhere.

From a reliable source:
Hillary wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, but she was in charge, so everything eventually rests at her feet. Charlene Lamb was the person in State most directly responsible for the lack of security. She was trying to earn brownie points by keeping costs down, and sending people to Benghazi was expensive, and she didn't want to spend a lot of money hardening a facility that likely wouldn't be used for very long.

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] dblake78250 8 years ago

Reviewed your supposed Bush crimes link. Randomly picked the US Embassy at Syria on 9/12/2006 where the link states 4 died. A quick search shows your link a fraud. It blames Bush for an attack where one Syrian security guard was killed, 3 assailants stopped dead and another critically injured, in the effort that stopp the planned attack.

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

It was a poorly thought out effort to 'defuse' the Benghazi incident that released things like the case you mention. I think it came from 'Dailykos' or something like...I guess the authors of those stories expected Bush to stop the bullets from flying out of the gun that fired them. The theme seems to be 'Bush did nothing during the 15 seconds that the attack took place'...

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

So, if a US Embassy is attacked...I can see this as an act of war and the US can reply w military force. In this case, the attackers are not official state actors...so it isn't as clear-cut.

I think a Republican Administration would have sent air support, especially since the equivalent of the US embassy was attacked by a bunch of punks...it wasn't just a CIA complex. However, because we elected a Democrat President with ZERO qualifications...the response is the bare minimum.

All the calls for military response from outside of Libya are silly. No one would have gotten there in time. We could have dispatched people from Tripoli, but just sending bodies into a situation where you have very little knowledge of the facts on the ground is extremely dangerous.

The COVERT CIA Annex had been using Drones sometimes armed sometimes not, that Annex was secure because of the GRS Operators. The Compound was a TEMPORARY DIPLOMATIC OUTPOST! It wasn't even an Embassy nor a Consulate. It was the Republicans that cut the State Department spending on security measures of US Embassies and Consulates around the World not Hillary and the Democrats!

The CIA nor the Diplomatic Security Service had no prior Intelligence of a planned, coordinated terrorist attack on the Compound that Ambassador Stevens was only going to spend a minimal amount of time in therefore there was no need to have a QRF of an Aircraft Carrier in the Mediterranean, F-16s and refuelling tankers as a show of force or even staging an AC-130 Spectre gunship based in either Aviano AFB or NAS Sigonella in the off chance the Temporary Outpost gets attacked.
They had the heavily armed, heavily armoured, very well trained and very experienced GRS Operators a mile away to back up the DS Agents and Ambo!

Besides the radical Islamic Jihadis, the Libyan public in Benghazi were happy to see US Ambassador Stevens in their city!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] parkerlgl 9 years ago

Airplanes could have provided some support in this case. The CIA base was obviously no longer covert...it was being attacked.

It was a temporary outpost but still served a very important function.

reply

[–] bubblenator 8 years ago

Airplanes could have provided some support in this case.

What type of "Airplanes" could support the GRS operators on the ground in that 8 Hours not 13?

http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/06/16/benghazi-the-mystery-of-the-missing-air-support/

Like I said the F-16s at Aviano AFB couldn't even get from northern Italy to Benghazi without either being refuelled in the air or on the ground at NAS Sigonella:

The official word on this question is that it wasn’t possible to get air-cover in Benghazi due to a lack of tankers available to refuel F-16 from the nearest air base in Aviano, Italy. And, since Benghazi was beyond the combat radius for an F-16, this became the limiting factor which prevented F-16s from being launched.

So, By What Time Could the F-16s Have Arrived in Benghazi?

Going back to our timeline of the attack (which started at 21:42), we can see that by 21:59 DOD had already redirected a surveillance drone to Benghazi. This quick response is important because is shows us how efficiently orders could get relayed through the DOD chain of command. By 23:00 it was clear to DOD that the attack involved U.S. casualties and was ongoing. In my mind, there is no reason not to have scrambled the F-16s at this point. After all, the worst case would be that the situation resolved and the F-16s would turn around and go home. There was simply no reason not to deploy the F-16s and, conversely, every reason to do so.

Hindsight is 20/20 and sending in military assets like Fighter Jets or Troops into another Sovereign Nation is not something you do lightly and immediately when there is VERY LIMITED Intelligence on the ground at TEMPORARY DIPLOMATIC OUTPOST not an Embassy nor Consulate of how many Tangos (Jihadis) and what weapons when there is a purpose built bulletproof Safe Haven with DS Agents and 6 heavily armed GRS Operators less than a mile down the road and supposed support from the scattered 17 Feb Martyrs Brigade!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] nakedgirl 8 years ago

the stab in the back

reply

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 8 years ago

Why do you assume they wouldn't have permission? Just tell the Libyan government "our embassy is being attacked and we are sending in some forces to stop it".

reply

[–] calcaneus67 8 years ago

Just a wild guess, or maybe not so wild, but the "go, no-go" decisions were made far below the Secretary of State level.

reply