Why did the "commander in chief" drop the ball on Benghazi?
wow don thanks for the accusations Proves that you are weak and ignorant!!!
uh mentally ill is being obsessed over someone you know nothing about!!!
rotflmao the idiot sheep now blame fox and cry budget cuts!!!! 0bama loves the stupid,...that is who supports him!!!!
- wtincLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
Because he does not care about Americans or America
- 8 years ago
Let's play a game. Assume EVERYTHING you know about Benghazi is from what Clinton and Obama said. Here's what you KNOW - incontrovertibly:
The Commander in Chief took steps to FACILITATE a strike(1) by a hostile military force;(2) TOOK STEPS to prevent that attack being balked or repelled;(3)and took steps to prevent the aggressors being identified or held accountable.(4) This is simply not subject to dispute in as much as the Administrations' OWN STATEMENTS tell us these things were done.
In other words, the Commander in Chief was VERY ACTIVE in MAKING the situation play out as it did. How is that "dropping the ball?"
(1) Located in a terrorist-controlled area, this facility was singled-out to have LESS security than any U.S. government facility of any kind anywhere in the World - including in the continental U.S.
(2) The enemy "at war" with us - as the Democrat-led 9/11 Commission describes it - HAS ONLY "paramilitary" forces so setting Western definitional conventions aside, this was a MILITARY force that executed the attack.
(3) Clinton said air-support was approved by Libya - which means it was coming - then got ordered away else would have showed-up.
(4) "This arose from a spontaneous protest of a video not seen outside of the U.S. by anyone (total hit count at the time this claim is made ~ 19 - all from inside CONUS) until after I make this announcement - and people milling about town spontaneously protesting a video they didn't know existed suddenly decided to deploy the rockets, mortars and other indirect fire-support they were carrying around while shopping." Case closed. No need to identify any organization - none was involved - just random people.
- 8 years ago
Government-shrinking conservatives cut $11B from the State Departments budget. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-01/worl...
“In May 2012, Ambassador Stevens replaced Ambassador Cretz and continued to make requests for additional security. In an email in early June, he told a State Department official that with national elections occurring in Libya in July and August, the U.S. Mission in Libya “would feel much safer if we could keep two MSD teams with us through this period [to support] our staff and [personal detail] for me and the [Deputy Chief of Mission] and any VIP visitors.”16 The State Department official replied that due to other commitments and limited resources, “unfortunately, MSD cannot support the request.” http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013...
When State robbed Peter to pay Paul, the cons complained that Peter was being whacked. “Why didn’t Obama do something?” “other commitments and limited resources”. Missing $11B!
The Benghazi “consulate” was an important CIA operation under command of the ambassador. The object was to purchase weapons captured by militias from the previous regime. Was the caper important enough to require the approval of the President or of the Secretary of State? Or did they just get approval to purchase weapons? We don’t know.
In any case, they had all the protection that the State Department could afford without that missing $11B, a fraction of 1% of the cost of “EYE-RACK”. When the “consulate” was attacked, they called for help.
The CIA’S problem is that they don’t tell anyone what they are doing. When they call for help, there are no fully-loaded planes ready for take-off. Resources have to be gathered and deployed. Preparation is the only substitute for time. The rescue failed.
Foreign Policy published an interesting item from Billy Birdzell, a retired Marine Corps infantry officer and special operations team leader, responding to Fox's secret informant. http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/02/be... His conclusion:
“Even if the CIF was on ready 5 (fully armed, sitting in the aircraft with pilots at the controls) in Sigonella (the closest European base to Benghazi) with advanced warning of an attack but unsure of the time, and they launched at 2232 on only-in-Hollywood orders from someone other than the president, they would not have been able to do anything about Stevens and Smith's deaths, nor stopped the mortar rounds.”
Mr. Petraeus said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/ben...
The other problem with the CIA is that they always need a cover story in case their operation is blown. So they OK a story that conceals whatever they want to conceal. And everyone on the team goes along with the story. That’s the entire story. End of story.
But if you are a conservative, then it’s a new story and all Obama’s fault. Why was he sleeping on the job? Why did he refuse to act in time to save the ambassador? Why did he lie about what happened. Why doesn’t he let the truth get out? Etc., etc.
Politicians (and some journalists) get away with that crap because half of all adults have below-average IQ. And only a small fraction of the other half has any military experience. They have a cartoon view of a world in which the President is omniscient and can push a button and counter attacks arrive on time.
The Commander-in-Chief does not direct a platoon. That is done by a lieutenant, far down the line. The C-in-C gets a report concerning one of dozens of simultaneous emergencies. He orders a fix and then turns away to the next emergency in line, expecting to eventually get an update from his next-in-command. It is only in the very rare Kill Ben Laden operation that the C-in-C observes the progress. That’s the real world, beyond the comprehension of a conservative.
The naïve view of the conservative is fed by visions of GWB landing on the deck of the Lexington, fresh from the combat zone where he personally directed the defeat of Saddam. Conservatives live in a cartoon world.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Because republicans cut the budget to the embassies in an effort to make the president look weak.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous8 years ago
There is no evidence that he did. If there were such evidence, Fox would have put in on the table months ago. It has been nothing but speculation and innuendo.
- Anonymous8 years ago
I don't see where at any point the Commander in Chief was even holding the ball so he COULD drop it.
- Common SenseLv 78 years ago
Perhaps it has something to do with his middle name.