Posted on Jun 29, 2016
Chris Stevens’s Family: Don’t Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi - The New Yorker
7.34K
44
37
5
5
0
Here 's the view of the Benghazi attack and the House Report from the sister of Ambassador. Stevens. Clearly she understands how the real world works IRT diplomats and the risks and choices they make in the service of their country. A much different take than all the right wingers have.
Chris Stevens’s Family: Don’t Blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi - The New Yorker
Posted from newyorker.com
Politics
Hillary Clinton
Benghazi
Election 2016
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
8
8
0
My issue is when someone says nothing could be done. I say BS to that because they didnt know that as a fact at the time and I have issues with anyone that fails to admit that both HRC and Obama told bold face lies to the American People about the video. That was a lie no matter how you slice or spin it and anyone that defends the lie are no better than the ones telling the lie.
(8)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
PO2 Mark Saffell I say nothing could be done. Look at a map. There were no resources that could gear up, transport out, and apply directed lethal force in just a few hours time, even if we decided to invade and bomb without Libyan permission.
We were attacked. Not the first time. We lost. Not the first time. The sailors who died aboard USS Liberty, USS Cole, USS Pueblo, and PR-21 are prime examples. There have been dozens of embassy attacks for decades, and sometimes the bad guys win.
Trying to pin Stevens' death on HRC was all simply designed for one purpose--to create so much smoke that people will assume there must be fire. The GOP knew they couldn't beat HRC in a fair election, so they "investigated" her over a half-dozen times solely for the purpose of reducing her popularity in the general election.
We were attacked. Not the first time. We lost. Not the first time. The sailors who died aboard USS Liberty, USS Cole, USS Pueblo, and PR-21 are prime examples. There have been dozens of embassy attacks for decades, and sometimes the bad guys win.
Trying to pin Stevens' death on HRC was all simply designed for one purpose--to create so much smoke that people will assume there must be fire. The GOP knew they couldn't beat HRC in a fair election, so they "investigated" her over a half-dozen times solely for the purpose of reducing her popularity in the general election.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Capt Michael Greene But you base your opinion on things that you know today. NONE of that was known that night nor did they have any idea how long this fight was going to last. Its easy to say nothing could be done after the fact, yet there are many experts that would disagree with you on that as well.
Also this post wasnt an attempt to pin anything on anyone except the lie told to us and the families about the video. IMO She is responsible in part for the lack of security and she is fully responsible for the cover up lies told.
Also this post wasnt an attempt to pin anything on anyone except the lie told to us and the families about the video. IMO She is responsible in part for the lack of security and she is fully responsible for the cover up lies told.
(0)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
PO2 Mark Saffell - Your first sentence is a wrong assumption. At the moment the attack was announced on the news ticker, I pulled a map and checked the publicly known assets in the area and also checked the speed and range of the aircraft in the area. As a 20-year aviation guy (both Navy and AF) I know it takes time to launch a properly configured air-to-ground loadout. HRC would have better info, of course, with just a phone call or two. The only expert that has a credible conflicting view says that we might have done a fast fly-by around the time the sun came up, thus hoping to scare the attackers into leaving. Even he admits that we probably couldn't get permission to invade and bomb them before the attackers went home to bed.
Weren't there NINE investigations?
Regarding "the lie." Given that our only viable response was to make an investigation after the fact--and kill the attackers months or years later--it makes sense to publicize a cover story.
Weren't there NINE investigations?
Regarding "the lie." Given that our only viable response was to make an investigation after the fact--and kill the attackers months or years later--it makes sense to publicize a cover story.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Capt Michael Greene But once again you NOW know the time line and how long the fight lasted. BUT at the time that was unknown and to sit and do nothing was wrong.
Its not a cover story when she tells the families it was because of a video as they take the coffins off the plane and then call the families Liars. Thats lower than whale shit in my book.
Its not a cover story when she tells the families it was because of a video as they take the coffins off the plane and then call the families Liars. Thats lower than whale shit in my book.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
I have lived in a world (as a teenager) centered around the US Embassy, heightened security measures (where my father the Military Commander to the Embassy and our Ambassador were considered targets), and the politics of our Ambassadors. Like judicial nominees, Ambassadors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They are also political appointees who tend to share the politics of the appointing president. In some cases, they have no business in the countries they are nominated for but have been given some sort of quid pro quo from the President for their support in some manner. By no means am I trying to say Ambassador Stevens was one of those types of appointees, and in fact I believe he was truly suited for the job. However, I do believe he and his family likely share the politics of Clinton and Obama and would not want to see the party marred by creating more divisiveness and ammunition for those on the right.
So his sister claims she does not blame Clinton for what happened in Benghazi. What about the family members of the other 4 Americans killed? Are their positions on the issue less worthy because they are not the sibling of the Ambassador? The facts of this tragic event confirm Ambassador Stevens needed more protection by his own words, in a war zone and power vacuum Clinton helped facilitate. The facts also prove it was Clinton who also pushed for the increased presence in Benghazi, to which Ambassador Stevens worked to facilitate on her order. Finally, the facts will conclude that while our military may not have been able to respond in time to save the Ambassador, no one knew this at the time and yet we did not get the response off the ground while the attack was playing out. That is not acceptable and I hold Clinton responsible for failing to protect her people. Do not forget; Clinton pushed for the military actions in Benghazi, removing the government from power, Clinton pushed for increased presence in Benghazi, and Ambassador made several requests for additional security (which were essentially ignored). This is Clinton's responsibility.
So his sister claims she does not blame Clinton for what happened in Benghazi. What about the family members of the other 4 Americans killed? Are their positions on the issue less worthy because they are not the sibling of the Ambassador? The facts of this tragic event confirm Ambassador Stevens needed more protection by his own words, in a war zone and power vacuum Clinton helped facilitate. The facts also prove it was Clinton who also pushed for the increased presence in Benghazi, to which Ambassador Stevens worked to facilitate on her order. Finally, the facts will conclude that while our military may not have been able to respond in time to save the Ambassador, no one knew this at the time and yet we did not get the response off the ground while the attack was playing out. That is not acceptable and I hold Clinton responsible for failing to protect her people. Do not forget; Clinton pushed for the military actions in Benghazi, removing the government from power, Clinton pushed for increased presence in Benghazi, and Ambassador made several requests for additional security (which were essentially ignored). This is Clinton's responsibility.
(7)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
I remember looking at a map when the attack happened, and seeing what resources might be available. With just a phone call to DoD and another to CIA, she would have come to the same conclusion I did--we didn't have any resources close enough that could gear up, fly out, then arrive and apply directed lethal force in just a few hours. Even if we had decided to invade and bomb without Libyan permission, the bad guys would be dispersed and home in bed by the time we arrived.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Capt, that is complete BS. Not one account has an official statement saying "we cannot make it there in time so stand down." They had no idea how long the attacks would last and we as Americans do not sit idly by while an ongoing attack is taking place. Furthermore, the reports have already confirmed, Marines were told to change out and into uniforms several times which suggests there was an indecision coming from the State Dept and/or the political end (which would not be the first time). Libya government is not a factor when a sovereign US facility is attacked.
Again you failed to address the elephant in the room. Why did Clinton push for and direct Amb Stevens to increase US presence in Benghazi in the first place? Why did she push for US military actions to take the previous government out in the first place? Why were the calls for increased security not address? Please do not spew the liberal rhetoric that the Republican Congress reduced the funding. If you do this, I refer you back to the question why did Clinton order an increased presence in Benghazi, especially if she did not have the funding to cover the force protection and her Ambassador was already sending requests for additional security.
Again you failed to address the elephant in the room. Why did Clinton push for and direct Amb Stevens to increase US presence in Benghazi in the first place? Why did she push for US military actions to take the previous government out in the first place? Why were the calls for increased security not address? Please do not spew the liberal rhetoric that the Republican Congress reduced the funding. If you do this, I refer you back to the question why did Clinton order an increased presence in Benghazi, especially if she did not have the funding to cover the force protection and her Ambassador was already sending requests for additional security.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Then why lie to the families about the condition of their service members death? Why push the false video narrative and lie to the families and the nation. I am and have personnel serving in areas just like Benghazi, the fact that our leaders will lie to my wife and the other families is enough for me to NEVER trust her or the party. It's wrong, you know it's wrong.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google