Forum Thread

Who has ultimate responsibility?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Control of anything resides with the signature on the paycheck. Hillary worked with what she had. The GOP said she didn't need anything else.

    Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy ...

    www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/.../jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.htm...

    Oct 10, 2012 - ... Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since ...

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Control of anything resides with the signature on the paycheck. Hillary worked with what she had. The GOP said she didn't need anything else.

    Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy ...

    www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/.../jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.htm...

    Oct 10, 2012 - ... Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since ...

    Chet, Yes. If that was the case why even consider to have an Consulate there? So someone screwed up!!!
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Was it a consulate? A rw rag in 2012 noted that Benghazi didn't appear on a list of consulates and embassies. There have been claims that there was a cia station very close to it. There have been claims that Stephens was communicating or doing something with rebels in Benghazi. So this begs the question: what, exactly, was this complex/building? If it's purpose was not official u.s. government business but related instead to establishing relations with the rebels as well as espionage then perhaps the question of security revolves attempts to be low profile and the ambassador knew this and was playing a dangerous game. I don't know but I doubt if a scenario like this is the case that the actual facts and truth will ever be stated. Beyond that the republicans are grandstanding and they know it.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Was it a consulate? A rw rag in 2012 noted that Benghazi didn't appear on a list of consulates and embassies. There have been claims that there was a cia station very close to it. There have been claims that Stephens was communicating or doing something with rebels in Benghazi. So this begs the question: what, exactly, was this complex/building? If it's purpose was not official u.s. government business but related instead to establishing relations with the rebels as well as espionage then perhaps the question of security revolves attempts to be low profile and the ambassador knew this and was playing a dangerous game. I don't know but I doubt if a scenario like this is the case that the actual facts and truth will ever be stated. Beyond that the republicans are grandstanding and they know it.
    Lonely indeed you are asking the right questions; which did not during this wasted hearing.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Stephens was doing his job as diplomat. His Libya interests for continuity in the Libyan nation involved a mission in Benghazi. Stephens was not ordered to go there. Stephens chose to go there, which he arranged for security for his travel and sty in Benghazi. While in Benghazi he looked for establishing contacts, trade, business, discussions with Benghazi community leaders. Since no formal government ruled in Benghazi, I believe Stephens did not correctly calculate the threat-level for this part of Libya. It has not been reported that Stephens had contingency planning arranged if things went wrong like it did. If proper planning was conducted, the Benghazi thing would not have happened. The truth of why Stephens was there may not have been disclosed, but as diplomacy is done, establish contacts, meet with local officials, and arrange for future trade and business relations. Benghazi was part of an overall plan for the continuity of the Libyan nation.

    I totally agree on the subpar funding for Depart of State in developing diplomacy around the world. Funds for security is paramount for success in dangerous areas. Danger is no excuse for not going to a country, which diplomats will accept, but they anticipate have professional and highly skilled security forces protecting them. Apparently, Stephens did not have the appropriate security for the threat level they encountered. This is because a GOP-lead appropriations committee rejected needed funds for the Depart of State to conduct business around the world. That GOP-lead appropriations committee should be setting where Hillary sat and asked, "Why did you not give the needed funds for missions like Benghazi?". The Contract Officer for the Department of State would only select the lowest bidder for security, which is what Stephens received.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Looks looks like funding is the key issue. As far as Stephens remaing there with less than sufficient security I think that is human nature. We have grown up with risk and assessing risk. In order to accomplish tasks we have learned and been taught to disregard the reality of risk materializing. Instead of after the fact reactions to risk materialization Benghazi should have been evaluated prior to personnel occupation. Unfortunately risk assessment was already exactly prescribed. The budget determined the probability of risk. Benghazi was one of the most dangerous places on earth to place identifiable foreigners. The budget determined that was not the case. The budget was to blame for the outcome in Benghazi. Have you ever been along the main route that the President travels when he visits a city. My business takes place on the route from the NAS where the President lands to the main part of town. For days prior to there are multiple black SUVs speeding up and down the road. On the day of there is a large caravan of black SUVs speeding down the street with all side streets blocked. I suppose the President was in the caravan, I am extremely patriotic and the evolution of the entire event made me feel proud and impressed. Pensacola is a military town filled with patriotic citizens. There is no doubt that the US knows how to provide security. There is no doubt that the Republicans that cut the security budget were aware of how to provide security. There is no excuse for the budget to arbitrarily determine the level of security needed at Benghazi. I believe those people are directly and knowingly responsible for the outcome of Benghazi. Especially when you consider that the GOP can't throw enough money fast enough at defense spending. I will spend some time looking at the record of the GOP involved in the State Department security budget cuts. The pattern I expect to discover is that State Department Security Budget cuts are contrary to their record on defense spending. If that is in fact the case then I think their actions can be shown to actually precipitate undesirable consequences. Is that actionable on a criminal level?