The debate "The Benghazi Attack could've been prevented had Hillary Clinton allowed more security at the embassy" was started by
August 26, 2016, 10:05 am.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jack_tim_45, charlieholmes, fadi, north, dalton7532, blakelovesjesus, ElvisKim_22, neveralone and 9 visitors agree.
WBrennan and 1 visitor disagree.
isnt it just wonderful that everybody is firing shots at hillary because 4 f***ing americans died but nobody is firing shit at obama for attacking libya in the first place, where thousands of non americans died? i thought all lives matter?
Well I'm glad you cleared that up. Except for the comment I DIRECTLY RESPONDED TO asking for evidence to back up, you didn't make any claims. Do you now have any way to back up your claim that the state department did a horrible job, or are you going to continue evading?
Apparently you dont understand "beyond the later"........
Apparently you don't understand what a positive claim is. "The state department did a horrid job" is a positive claim. You stated it without support or evidence.
What could/should the state department have done differently?
I never made a positive claim beyond the latest. Do you disagree with the last point?
You are saying that, but from reading this debate you aren't really backing it up with anything. You seem to want it to be personally her fault whether you can justify it or not.
You brought it up, said it was irrelevant, then resurrected it. All im saying is that yhe state department did a horrid job at navigating this situation.
that's not really the issue of this debate. Hilary had no direct impact on the security at that embassy because that was not her job.
Republicans voted down spending for embassy security causing embassies to be less protected than they should have been.
it seems pretty clear where the blame for a lack of security is.
What else was in that bill huh?
I'm saying clinton is not directly linked to the security of any particular embassy. and that funding constraints caused by the GOP certainly undermined the safety of embassies all over the world, including Benghazi.
So the problem is that they didn't get an increase in funding?
do you have any evidence that she was? Republicans have been trying to pin this on her for years. they still haven't come up with any evidence she did anything wrong.
and of course the Republicans voted down increased spending for embassy security so let's not pretend the GOP isn't involved in this.
Do you think she was in no way briefed for an ambassador's secruity detail?
I'm not an expert on the American state department. but you think the Secretary of state personally controls the security at American embassies? her job is as a diplomat, not security.
it would have been prevented had the people at the embassy's requests for more security be granted.
more security wasn't comming since people changed reports to make it look like we were doing better then reality.
whose job was it then, HistoryBuff?
considering it was not her job to do that, this topic mskes no sense.