{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Diplomat:
1/16/2014 9:13:20 PM
11
Senate Intelligence Committee: Benghazi was likely preventable
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/senate-benghazi-report/]Recent findings from[/url] the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the attack on Benghazi (I'm assuming that this meant the outcome, not physical attack) could have been prevented had the U.S. government taken more precautions. The report partly blamed the State Department, stating that it should have increased its security measures due to warnings that U.S. personnel were at risk. It then went onto to say that the Intelligence Community provided "ample strategic warning" that U.S. facilities were at risk. But condemned them for being able to do more. Had they done "extremist-affiliated social media analysis", then information pointing towards a potential attack against the compound might have been found.
-
1 ReplyThat's almost a month old...
-
3 RepliesMeh. What isn't preventable? Sure, a tragedy happened. Live were lost. Pretty much every event in human history is preventable. Bush had a briefing given to him 2 weeks before 9/11 that was titled: "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack the US using Airplanes." No shit. Had they directed the FAA to act on that, how would the world be different? There was an imminent threat of war in November of 1941. The Roosevelt administration had notice that the Japanese would attack in the Pacific. The analysts thought Manilla was the most likely target, but couldn't rule out Pearl. Imagine if that had been acted on. How is Benghazi a big deal if you don't hat Obama? Comparatively, how many people died? Its a sick math, but how did that day balance against any other random day in the US and the world? Are those diplomat's lives more important than the soldiers who died trying to take Baghdad due to piss poor planning? Why is this still news?
-
1 ReplyThis little report is worth bumping this thread for.
-
1 ReplyWe need Captain Hindsight.
-
1 ReplySaw this on CNN today "Obama spend less money on military" "Nooo we need more defense!"
-
1 ReplyI'm pretty sure anything is preventable once you can carefully look back at the situation with 20/20 hindsight. I mean Hitler was preventable too, they should've just let him continue with his art. Or his parents should've been wearing a condom lol. Or the Germans could've not listened to him! But the problem is that we're human, it is our nature to not be perfect.
-
Why aren't the 99% protesting this?
-
1 ReplyHow much of this can we blame on Clinton?
-
2 RepliesEdited by Mags: 1/16/2014 10:34:13 PMThe report was rather good and it finally closes the book on several key things in the whole situation. 1: The State. Dept, the IC, and the current administration are all to blame. 2: The edits to the "CIA talking points" seemed to have changed whenever new information came in. 3. Members of al-Qaeda did, in fact, take part in the attack. 4. A response team from a few undisclosed locations simply would not have made it in time. 5. There were no protests at Benghazi. 6. The attack fed off of animosity from Cairo demonstrations and not so much a "spontaneous" thing. and the last is what the title of this thread says.
-
Liberals don't want to talk about this. At all. Hillary2016!
-
2 RepliesSo are we done with this yet? Or do we need a couple more years?
