A Mother Puts the Benghazi Hearings in Perspective.

[jc456]

It would have been great if the Benghazi Committee had tried to find out why there wasn't any help and what could be changed for the future instead of trying to hurt Hillary's poll numbers.

In the meantime, the GOP will try as hard as they can to abuse this poor woman by parading her around until they forget about her in November of next year.

I think they just wanted the truth....and they got nothing but bullshit from her.

The truth is they were killed by religious lunatics and there was no way to get them help in time. You want to talk about why the 4 victims were at the embassy, or why there wasn't enough security, or what should be done in the future? Then call the office of one of the people in the Benghazi Committee, because none of them seem to give the slightest fuck about those things.

The person is Hillary, period, she was the boss. she lost those four americans. her, period. she failed the lady and she doesn't think it is any big deal. And all of the libs who love Hillary give to shits. Low lifes is all libs are. I as an american want to know why she ignored reports. that's all? What was her plan when she learned four weeks ahead about the attack. Why is that so difficult for anyone to ask her.

Did you watch the hearing? Probably not. Your questions were answered. Turns out Benghazi was a tragedy and a terrorist attack. I wish you low life conservatives showed a fraction of the anger at the terrorists who killed these people as you show HIllary. But you could care less about the terrorists, because this is your chance at winning in 2016. Despicable.

No, we are concerned about how many more lives will be lost by her incompetence if she becomes president. If she couldn't keep 4 people safe. How do you expect her to keep millions safe?

Seems like personal issues are more of her talents. Taking care of old number one and daughter.

 

[Osomir]

Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.

The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.

So let me get this straight:

Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration

But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.

And four americans sacrificed,

A terrible loss, and something to learn from; but far better than the thousands lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well within the hands of the administrative. No reason for the deaths. None, it was a simple extraction. What happened is the administration, i.e, Hillary was lost. Period!!!! Four americans died because of bad secretary of state. BAD......

Well now you're just switching gears into rhetoric that was already disproved by the first Benghazi report.

 

[Osomir]

Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.

The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.

So let me get this straight:

Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration

But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.

And four americans sacrificed,

A terrible loss, and something to learn from; but far better than the thousands lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only thing you seem to have learned is that 4 dead bodies is less important because you side was using you favorite strategies....so there will be a repeat of this until your side gets their butts kicked out of office.

I'd rather a repeat of Libya than a repeat of any stage of Iraq.

 

[jc456]

it may depend if we want to quibble or not; diplomatic missions are usually considered territory of the Body administering that mission.

The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.

Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.

The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.

Who the fuck is "we"? You aren't risking shit. It's every embassador on foreign soil that's at risk of a Democrat not coming to their aid when the shit starts flying. The only thing you're risking in your Mom's basement is gingivitis.

Our actions overseas have very real security impacts for the entire world, and for our own country as well.

yeah, like giving out dates for the world to hear, so ISIS can invade countries. There is a pattern of bad bad policy and bad leadership. Hillary was part of all of it!!!!!

 

[jc456]

The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.

So let me get this straight:

Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration

But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.

And four americans sacrificed,

A terrible loss, and something to learn from; but far better than the thousands lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well within the hands of the administrative. No reason for the deaths. None, it was a simple extraction. What happened is the administration, i.e, Hillary was lost. Period!!!! Four americans died because of bad secretary of state. BAD......

Well now you're just switching gears into rhetoric that was already disproved by the first Benghazi report.

Nope, it's the truth and if you can't handle the truth, get out of the game.

 

[Osomir]

The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.

Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.

The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.

Who the fuck is "we"? You aren't risking shit. It's every embassador on foreign soil that's at risk of a Democrat not coming to their aid when the shit starts flying. The only thing you're risking in your Mom's basement is gingivitis.

Our actions overseas have very real security impacts for the entire world, and for our own country as well.

yeah, like giving out dates for the world to hear, so ISIS can invade countries. There is a pattern of bad bad policy and bad leadership. Hillary was part of all of it!!!!!

I can tell that you're getting flustered due to the increasing number of exclamation points you feel the need to use.

 

[mudwhistle]

Qaddafi was on our side and we killed him. Once we invaded Iraq he switched sides.

Now, who's ever gonna trust us in the Middle East?

That's just naive. Gaddafi was on HIS side. He always was.

Talking about being naive....you wrote the book on it, judging from this ridiculous exchange. Never trust any of these people. Keep your enemies close....and be prepared for a betrayal......but an established dictator is easier to kept track of than a weak interim government that can fall in a day to Islamic radicals.

 

[jc456]

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

They also thought their employer, the State Department, had their backs.

They had warnings about that attack and their bosses did nothing.

If that works for you then you truly are one partisan idiot.

Either way help would not have arrived in time .
We have no us or alied intervention force close enough to have rescued them.
Why, because the necessary funding was voted down .
Without that nothing Hillary could have done would have changed the outcome.
In reality the calvary rarely arrives in the nick of time to save the day.
Own it .

they had weeks bubba!!!!

 

[jc456]

Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.

The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.

Who the fuck is "we"? You aren't risking shit. It's every embassador on foreign soil that's at risk of a Democrat not coming to their aid when the shit starts flying. The only thing you're risking in your Mom's basement is gingivitis.

Our actions overseas have very real security impacts for the entire world, and for our own country as well.

yeah, like giving out dates for the world to hear, so ISIS can invade countries. There is a pattern of bad bad policy and bad leadership. Hillary was part of all of it!!!!!

I can tell that you're getting flustered due to the increasing number of exclamation points you feel the need to use.

just posting the facts bubba, no frustration, making sure you see it. It's sort of like a highlight.

 

[Osomir]

Qaddafi was on our side and we killed him. Once we invaded Iraq he switched sides.

Now, who's ever gonna trust us in the Middle East?

That's just naive. Gaddafi was on HIS side. He always was.

Talking about being naive....you wrote the book on it, judging from this ridiculous exchange. Never trust any of these people. Keep your enemies close....and be prepared for a betrayal......but an established dictator is easier to kept track of than a weak interim government that can fall in a day to Islamic radicals.

Dictatorships like Gaddafi's are ticking time bombs. The US has long known this about him, hell Reagan tried to bomb him too. Gaddafi was given the nickname "mad dog" for a reason, and it wasn't because he was "easy to control."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

it may depend if we want to quibble or not; diplomatic missions are usually considered territory of the Body administering that mission.

The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.

Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.

The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.

Who the fuck is "we"? You aren't risking shit. It's every embassador on foreign soil that's at risk of a Democrat not coming to their aid when the shit starts flying. The only thing you're risking in your Mom's basement is gingivitis.

Our actions overseas have very real security impacts for the entire world, and for our own country as well.

The only real security impact our embassies experience is having a Democrat in office. Since you helped put the Magic Negro in office, I blame you for what happened in Ben Ghazi.

 

[mudwhistle]

And we have been aced out of the region. All of our interests there went poof....thanks to your silly strategy.

That's not true at all.

What was the purpose of killing Qadaffi in the first place?

replacing a regime that has historically promoted warfare, genocide, international terrorism, and the weakening of regional and local institutions. Qadaffi stood directly against most everything that the US stands for, and he was a highly regionally destabilizing element.

Not anymore....not since the invasion of Iraq....12 years ago.

 

[Osomir]

The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.

Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.

The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.

Who the fuck is "we"? You aren't risking shit. It's every embassador on foreign soil that's at risk of a Democrat not coming to their aid when the shit starts flying. The only thing you're risking in your Mom's basement is gingivitis.

Our actions overseas have very real security impacts for the entire world, and for our own country as well.

The only real security impact our embassies experience is having a Democrat in office. Since you helped put the Magic Negro in office, I blame you for what happened in Ben Ghazi.

I guess all of Gaddafi's internationally sponsored terrorist acts didn't kill anyone then? I'll let the rest of the world know

 

[Osomir]

And we have been aced out of the region. All of our interests there went poof....thanks to your silly strategy.

That's not true at all.

What was the purpose of killing Qadaffi in the first place?

replacing a regime that has historically promoted warfare, genocide, international terrorism, and the weakening of regional and local institutions. Qadaffi stood directly against most everything that the US stands for, and he was a highly regionally destabilizing element.

Not anymore....not since the invasion of Iraq....12 years ago.

Again, that's pretty naive. He was still fomenting conflict in Chad and genocide in Darfur 12 years ago. Real tame.

 

[jknowgood]

Hypocritical on your part. I'm certain if the shoe were on the other foot...the media would be up in arms about this travesty.

Hard to believe you actually want to kill more of our diplomatic corps to prove your point. Or is "Oh well .......shit happens "?

So will you then condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan here since they cost thousands of healthy American lives? And tens of thousands of civilian lives? If you can't see the difference then it is willful partisan blindness.

Do you care more about the life of one ambassador over the lives of thousands of US soldiers?

I don't condemn the mission in Libya. The way it was carried out is what deserves condemnation. But, these different missions are like comparing apples and oranges.Bush took out the Taliban in Afghanistan and did pretty much what Obama attempted to do in Libya. He was successful. Iraq was a different story....totally different mission. Afghanistan was the clean war according to Democrats. ....and they, not Bush, turned it into a mess after he left office.

And yet Afghanistan still cost us FAR FAR more in US and civilian lives than Libya did.

Whose fault is that?

Not Bush.

You're an idiot obviously.

It's impossible for you to learn from past mistakes because you're a bean counter...not a military strategist.

lol we lost far more people and suffered far greater civilian casualties in Afghanistan while Bush was in office than we have in Libya. Once again: your double standards are showing.

More soldiers has died in Afghanistan under Obama, than under Bush. You know that don't you?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.

So let me get this straight:

Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration

But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.

How about no costs and no body count.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Remember a simple rule of thumb when you're dealing with foreign governments. .....never leave everything up to them. If you can't protect your people yourself then don't attempt the mission.

Isolationism isn't a winning tactic in our era of globalization. It's cute how you keep dancing around the issue. The simple fact is that our involvement in Libya has been vastly more successful than many of our other modern interventions.

The fact that you need it to be an utter disaster is sad, and plain partisan.

What was the sucess?

Now that Qadaffi is gone what is going on in Libya?

Who controls it?

Hasn't it become the very thing we tried to clear out of and prevented in Afghanistan......a safe haven for terrorists?

Now that Qaddafi is gone, internal nation building is happening. The Libyan people control it, and yes there are significant issues in transition which was expected, but such issues need to be addressed and worked out by Libyans, not by an occupying foreign military force. There is no victory in occupation.

So when can we bring our troops home from Germany, Japan, and South Korea?

*****SMILE*****

 

[mudwhistle]

Qaddafi was on our side and we killed him. Once we invaded Iraq he switched sides.

Now, who's ever gonna trust us in the Middle East?

That's just naive. Gaddafi was on HIS side. He always was.

Talking about being naive....you wrote the book on it, judging from this ridiculous exchange. Never trust any of these people. Keep your enemies close....and be prepared for a betrayal......but an established dictator is easier to kept track of than a weak interim government that can fall in a day to Islamic radicals.

Dictatorships like Gaddafi's are ticking time bombs. The US has long known this about him, hell Reagan tried to bomb him too. Gaddafi was given the nickname "mad dog" for a reason, and it wasn't because he was "easy to control."

Yep.....it was so difficult to control him.

Bombed his house and he settled down.

Invade Iraq and he turns over his wmds.

Yep....difficult to control.

Phfffft....

 

[Osomir]

So let me get this straight:

Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration

But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.

How about no costs and no body count.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Remember a simple rule of thumb when you're dealing with foreign governments. .....never leave everything up to them. If you can't protect your people yourself then don't attempt the mission.

Isolationism isn't a winning tactic in our era of globalization. It's cute how you keep dancing around the issue. The simple fact is that our involvement in Libya has been vastly more successful than many of our other modern interventions.

The fact that you need it to be an utter disaster is sad, and plain partisan.

What was the sucess?

Now that Qadaffi is gone what is going on in Libya?

Who controls it?

Hasn't it become the very thing we tried to clear out of and prevented in Afghanistan......a safe haven for terrorists?

Now that Qaddafi is gone, internal nation building is happening. The Libyan people control it, and yes there are significant issues in transition which was expected, but such issues need to be addressed and worked out by Libyans, not by an occupying foreign military force. There is no victory in occupation.

So when can we bring our troops home from Germany, Japan, and South Korea?

Why would we do that?

 

[Osomir]

Qaddafi was on our side and we killed him. Once we invaded Iraq he switched sides.

Now, who's ever gonna trust us in the Middle East?

That's just naive. Gaddafi was on HIS side. He always was.

Talking about being naive....you wrote the book on it, judging from this ridiculous exchange. Never trust any of these people. Keep your enemies close....and be prepared for a betrayal......but an established dictator is easier to kept track of than a weak interim government that can fall in a day to Islamic radicals.

Dictatorships like Gaddafi's are ticking time bombs. The US has long known this about him, hell Reagan tried to bomb him too. Gaddafi was given the nickname "mad dog" for a reason, and it wasn't because he was "easy to control."

Yep.....it was so difficult to control him.

Bombed his house and he settled down.

Invade Iraq and he turns over his wmds.

Yep....difficult to control.

Phfffft....

Let's just ignore the genocide and regional instability shall we

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.

The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.

Who the fuck is "we"? You aren't risking shit. It's every embassador on foreign soil that's at risk of a Democrat not coming to their aid when the shit starts flying. The only thing you're risking in your Mom's basement is gingivitis.

Our actions overseas have very real security impacts for the entire world, and for our own country as well.

The only real security impact our embassies experience is having a Democrat in office. Since you helped put the Magic Negro in office, I blame you for what happened in Ben Ghazi.

I guess all of Gaddafi's internationally sponsored terrorist acts didn't kill anyone then? I'll let the rest of the world know

The difference is we hit them hard. To date nothing has been done about Ben Ghazi except Bucky threatening to bring the perpetrators to justice (eyes rolling). When Iraqis attempted to assassinate George Bush the Greater, he nailed them with a volley of cruise missiles. Our enemies will never respect us, they can only fear us, and that only happens when a Republican is in office.