Never Forget Benghazi!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**motyak**

So it doesn't matter that people died, just how the administration at the time reacted to it?

**djones520**

motyak wrote:
So it doesn't matter that people died, just how the administration at the time reacted to it?

Weren't you just saying that in light of previous attacks, this doesn't seem that bad?

**motyak**

djones520 wrote:
motyak wrote:
So it doesn't matter that people died, just how the administration at the time reacted to it?

Weren't you just saying that in light of previous attacks, this doesn't seem that bad?

I was saying that the 'this is the worst thing since unsliced bread' response is silly in light of previous attacks, because I thought you yanks were getting up in arms about the deaths. Now its been made clear that many only cared about the response of the administration, it makes more sense.

**djones520**

motyak wrote:
djones520 wrote:
motyak wrote:
So it doesn't matter that people died, just how the administration at the time reacted to it?

Weren't you just saying that in light of previous attacks, this doesn't seem that bad?

I was saying that the 'this is the worst thing since unsliced bread' response is silly in light of previous attacks, because I thought you yanks were getting up in arms about the deaths. Now its been made clear that many only cared about the response of the administration, it makes more sense.

The entire situation was fethed up. The fact that they weren't provided with the security they needed, despite repeated requests for it, the fact that all armed responses were seemingly told to not respond, and the fact that the admin went into full blown up-coming election cover-up mode the second this went down.

There was nothing about this that we shouldn't be angry about. Just because we're discussing one aspect of it does not mean the rest means nothing.

**RiTides**

The ambassador was killed, that's what matters... I can't believe we have done so little to deter such a thing happening again / find the attackers / etc...

**Kanluwen**

RiTides wrote:
The ambassador was killed, that's what matters... I can't believe we have done so little to deter such a thing happening again / find the attackers / etc...

Except as D-USA pointed out, as many as 63 people were killed over a 12 year period of attacks on embassies and other diplomatic installations. What makes the death of Stevens so special and worth getting riled up over but those 63 people were not? The fact that the administration "blamed it on a video"?

All honesty though, if someone wants to attack an installation all the preparation in the world will not matter one damn bit if someone is determined to actually carry out an attack.

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
RiTides wrote:
The ambassador was killed, that's what matters... I can't believe we have done so little to deter such a thing happening again / find the attackers / etc...

Except as D-USA pointed out, as many as 63 people were killed over a 12 year period of attacks on embassies and other diplomatic installations. What makes the death of Stevens so special and worth getting riled up over but those 63 people were not? The fact that the administration "blamed it on a video"?

All honesty though, if someone wants to attack an installation all the preparation in the world will not matter one damn bit if someone is determined to actually carry out an attack.

Well if you'd stop ignoring all the posts pointing out what makes it important, you'd know.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
RiTides wrote:
The ambassador was killed, that's what matters... I can't believe we have done so little to deter such a thing happening again / find the attackers / etc...

Except as D-USA pointed out, as many as 63 people were killed over a 12 year period of attacks on embassies and other diplomatic installations. What makes the death of Stevens so special and worth getting riled up over but those 63 people were not? The fact that the administration "blamed it on a video"?

All honesty though, if someone wants to attack an installation all the preparation in the world will not matter one damn bit if someone is determined to actually carry out an attack.

Well if you'd stop ignoring all the posts pointing out what makes it important, you'd know.

Maybe if you'd actually make a real point about "what makes it important" rather than parroting the Fox and Friends Benghazi Outrage Checklist®, you and the rest of the Dakka Fox Friends would be worth listening to.

**djones520**

And for the record, those 63 deaths, were usually bystanders, or attackers.

Istanbul 2008, 6 dead. 3 attackers, three Turkish Police.
Karachi 2002, 12 dead, all Pakistani's.
Karachi 2003, 2 dead, Pakistani police.
Jeddah, 2004 9 dead, all attackers or Saudi's.

4 of those attacks, half the number of the dead, not a single American casualty.

So stop pushing that number around please.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
RiTides wrote:
The ambassador was killed, that's what matters... I can't believe we have done so little to deter such a thing happening again / find the attackers / etc...

Except as D-USA pointed out, as many as 63 people were killed over a 12 year period of attacks on embassies and other diplomatic installations. What makes the death of Stevens so special and worth getting riled up over but those 63 people were not? The fact that the administration "blamed it on a video"?

All honesty though, if someone wants to attack an installation all the preparation in the world will not matter one damn bit if someone is determined to actually carry out an attack.

Well if you'd stop ignoring all the posts pointing out what makes it important, you'd know.

Maybe if you'd actually make a real point about "what makes it important" rather than parroting the Fox and Friends Benghazi Outrage Checklist®, you and the rest of the Dakka Fox Friends would be worth listening to.

*rolls eyes* So basically your saying that because you don't like our reasoning for it being important, it doesn't matter.

Why have I not put you on ignore yet?

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
And for the record, those 63 deaths, were usually bystanders.

Istanbul 2008, 6 dead. 3 attackers, three Turkish Police.
Karachi 2002, 12 dead, all Pakistani's.
Karachi 2003, 2 dead, Pakistani police.
Jeddah, 2004 9 dead, all attackers or Saudi's.

4 of those attacks, half the number of the dead, not a single American casualty.

So stop pushing that number around please.

Oh, so it only matters when Americans die?

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
And for the record, those 63 deaths, were usually bystanders.

Istanbul 2008, 6 dead. 3 attackers, three Turkish Police.
Karachi 2002, 12 dead, all Pakistani's.
Karachi 2003, 2 dead, Pakistani police.
Jeddah, 2004 9 dead, all attackers or Saudi's.

4 of those attacks, half the number of the dead, not a single American casualty.

So stop pushing that number around please.

Oh, so it only matters when Americans die?

Your the one making an issue about it only being 4 dead Americans.

**motyak**

What about the other attacks?

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
And for the record, those 63 deaths, were usually bystanders.

Istanbul 2008, 6 dead. 3 attackers, three Turkish Police.
Karachi 2002, 12 dead, all Pakistani's.
Karachi 2003, 2 dead, Pakistani police.
Jeddah, 2004 9 dead, all attackers or Saudi's.

4 of those attacks, half the number of the dead, not a single American casualty.

So stop pushing that number around please.

Oh, so it only matters when Americans die?

You're the one making an issue about it only being 4 dead Americans.

Actually I'm "making an issue about it" because where the hell was your outrage when our diplomatic installations were being attacked for 12 years?

Why were you not FURIOUS about that? Where was your call for "more security" then? Why were there not hearings being held over those incidents as well?

It's hypocritical nonsense and despicable for the Republicans to continually harp about this as though it is some kind of atrocity and personal affront.

**djones520**

motyak wrote:
What about the other attacks?

There have been American casualties, but the circumstances were completely different in all cases. One of the higher profile was a large VBIED that caught a diplomat as he was leaving his hotel and heading to the Consulate which was across the street. I just skimmed through some of the higher totals when I dug through that. Other instances, like an attack in Syria that left 4 dead, 3 of them were the attackers. I'm pulling all of this from the list of 63 that I beleive D-USA dug that up from in Wiki. A large number of those casualties were the attackers themselves, which completely skews that argument.

**motyak**

Not really. US people died, no uproar. US people die, slightly different atmosphere, uproar. Just seems silly.

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
And for the record, those 63 deaths, were usually bystanders.

Istanbul 2008, 6 dead. 3 attackers, three Turkish Police.
Karachi 2002, 12 dead, all Pakistani's.
Karachi 2003, 2 dead, Pakistani police.
Jeddah, 2004 9 dead, all attackers or Saudi's.

4 of those attacks, half the number of the dead, not a single American casualty.

So stop pushing that number around please.

Oh, so it only matters when Americans die?

You're the one making an issue about it only being 4 dead Americans.

Actually I'm "making an issue about it" because where the hell was your outrage when our diplomatic installations were being attacked for 12 years?

Why were you not FURIOUS about that? Where was your call for "more security" then? Why were there not hearings being held over those incidents as well?

It's hypocritical nonsense and despicable for the Republicans to continually harp about this as though it is some kind of atrocity and personal affront.

Our missions are attacked all over the place. In nearly all cases they are afforded the security they deserve, which shows in the limited number of casualties inflicted. Those attacks were for the most part not affairs that lasted for hours on end, with situations in which we could have responded and affected the outcome. The CLOSEST situation was an attack in Yemen that had the Yemen military immediately respond and free hostages. None of these attacks were on poorely gaurded embassies in a country that had no central government, torn by war.

Your demanding outrage for things that don't warrant it.

**Maddermax**

Seaward wrote:

motyak wrote:
I knew that US diplomatic missions had been attacked in the past d-usa but I never knew it was on that level. Certainly makes this complaint look a lot sillier.

While it's certainly true that our diplomatic missions were attacked plenty under Bush, that administration's response was never to blame an American and have the Secretary of State get on TV in foreign countries apologizing for the possibility that said American individual might have offended someone.

Yep, there was no reason at that time that anyone could possibly think the video was involved in an attack on a diplomatic mission.

Egypt

In Egypt, the protest was organized by Wesam Abdel-Wareth, a Salafist leader and president of Egypt's Hekma television channel, who called for a gathering on September 11 at 5 pm in front of the United States Embassy, to protest against a film that he thought was named Muhammad's Trial.[44][45] However, Eric Trager, an experts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has said that the protest was in fact announced on August 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.[46] After the trailer for the film began circulating, Nader Bakkar, the Egyptian Salafist Nour Party's spokesman, and Muhammad al-Zawahiri, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawihiri, called for Egyptians to assemble outside of the American embassy.[47]

About 3,000 demonstrators, many of them from the ultraconservative Salafist movement, responded to his call. A dozen men were then reported to have scaled the embassy walls, after which one of them tore down the flag of the United States of America and replaced it with a black Islamist flag with the inscription of the shahada: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God". Some of the protesters also wrote "There is no God but Allah" on the compound walls. According to Sherine Tadros of Al Jazeera, the protestors demanded that the film be taken "out of circulation" and that some of the protestors would stay at the site until that happens. Thousands of Egyptian riot police were at the embassy following the breach of the walls; they eventually persuaded the trespassers to leave the compound without the use of force. After that, only a few hundred protesters remained outside the compound.[25] Reports that the United States Marines were not allowed to carry live ammunition by the State Department were later proven to be incorrect.[48]

Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate.[49] He did not say whether the government knew or suspected who paid the protesters.

On September 14, in the town of Sheikh Zuwayed in the Sinai Peninsula, protesters stormed a compound of the Multinational Force and Observers, designed to monitor the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The peacekeeping force opened fire on the protesters. Two members of the peacekeeping force were wounded.[50][51]

Ahmad Fouad Ashoush, a Salafist Muslim cleric, issued a fatwa saying: "I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film."[52] Another Muslim cleric, Ahmed Abdullah (aka Abu Islam) tore up the Bible and threw the torn pages on the ground during the September 11 embassy attack.[53][54]

Yemen

In Yemen, the protests started on September 13, after Abdul Majid al-Zindani, a cleric and former mentor to Osama bin Laden, called on followers to emulate the attacks in Egypt and Libya.[55]

Hours later, protesters had stormed the grounds of the U.S. embassy in Sana'a. Police fired into the air in an attempt to hold back the crowds, but failed to prevent them from gaining access to the compound and setting fire to vehicles. Guards in Sana'a used tear gas and a water cannon to drive back the crowd. At least 4 protesters were killed and 11 others injured; 24 guards were also injured.[5][56]

The U.S. responded by sending a Marine FAST unit to Yemen.[57]

Greece

About 600 Muslim protestors in Athens tried to march on the U. S. Embassy, but were stopped by Greek police. No injuries were reported, although three cars were damaged and three storefronts were smashed. The protestors chanted "we are all with Osama" and called on the US to hang the filmmaker.[58]

Sudan

In anticipation of protests, Sudanese authorities deployed "many, many riot police" near the American embassy. Nevertheless, on September 14, protesters breached the outside wall of the compound and clashed with guards; three people were killed.[59]

Also after Friday prayers on September 14, protesters started fires and tore down the flag in the German embassy. Demonstrators hoisted a black Islamic flag at the German embassy, which read in white letters "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet".[60] Although it was initially assumed that the attacks were to a target of opportunity related to the protests against the film Innocense of Muslims, the incident is now reported as a long-planned deliberate attack against Germany; preachers encouraged the riots by referring to Germany's defending Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in 2012 during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[61] Referring to a demonstration in August 2012 by right-winged German protesters during which pictures of Mohammed were shown, the Sudanese foreign minister justified the attacks by saying that German chancellor Angela Merkel had allowed these demonstrations to proceed and had thereby encouraged "an insult to Islam and clearly violated all rules of religious coexistence and tolerance."[60]

The neighboring British embassy was also attacked,[62] with two people killed in clashes with the police.[63]

Tunisia

In Tunis, on September 14, protesters entered the compound of the U.S. embassy after climbing the embassy walls and set trees inside the compound ablaze. The protesters attacked the American Cooperative School of Tunis and set it on fire.[59] At least 4 were killed and 46 injured during protests near the embassy on September 15. The U.S. government pulled out all non-essential personnel and urged its citizens to leave the city.[6][64]

India

On September 14, the U.S. consulate in Chennai, India, was attacked, with protestors throwing stones and footwear at the consulate. Police dispersed the crowd, causing minor injuries to 25 protesters. The Consulate asked American citizens to enroll in the STEP program, asked American citizens to follow the local news and media and ceased the consulate's operation temporarily. Additional Police protection for the consulate was also granted by the Tamil Nadu Government.[14][65]

Indonesia

On September 17, up to 500 protesters, many of whom were part of the Islamic Defenders Front and Majelis Mujahideen Indonesia attacked the United States embassy in Jakarta by throwing stones and loose pavement, some reports also state that petrol bombs were used in the attacks. In addition to attacking the embassy, protesters attacked the local police force and embassy guards.[66]

Pakistan

Pakistan has witnessed widespread protests all across the country.[67] On September 14, security forces clashed with demonstrators outside the U.S. embassy in Islamabad over the anti-Islam film.[68] Protesters called for the execution of the filmmaker and urged Islamabad to close the US Embassy and expel its diplomats.[69] In the eastern city of Lahore, demonstrators burned the US flag outside the U.S. consulate and shouted slogans against the United States and Israel. On September 16, Voice of America News reported that police fired tear gas and water cannon at hundreds of demonstrators as they approached the heavily guarded consulate in the southern city of Karachi.[70] On September 19, a businessman who was unwilling to participate in the protests was charged for blasphemy.[11] On September 20, CNN reported that protests continued in Karachi, where according to a police official about "100 small children" repeated anti-American slogans during a protest.[71] Video showed children repeating an adult voice, "Death to America" and "Any friend of America is a traitor." The children, between the ages of 6 and 8, demonstrated across from the Karachi Press Club, led by "at least four teachers."[72] In Islamabad, police used tear gas and fired warning shots into the air to disperse the crowd. Islamabad Police Chief Bin Yamin said eight police were injured.[citation needed] On September 21, a public holiday was held in Pakistan as protests under the banner of "Love our prophet" were held across the country. The newspaper Dawn reported that at least 23 people were killed during the day.[73][74] In Karachi, a crowd of 15,000 torched "six cinemas, two banks, a KFC and 5 police vehicles" whilst some fired on police, killing two police officers.[75] It was further reported that 10 of the protesters were shot dead afterwards.[75] Meanwhile in Peshawar, four protesters and a policeman were killed.[3] Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, a Pakistani cabinet minister has announced a $100,000 bounty for killing Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. The Pakistani government has sought to distance itself from this award. Some British MPs have called for a ban on Bilour's visits to Britain.[76] On September 23, a rampaging mob of protesters in Mardan reportedly "set on fire the church, St Paul's high school, a library, a computer laboratory and houses of four clergymen, including Bishop Peter Majeed." and went on to rough up Zeeshan Chand, the pastor's son.[12][77]

no reason at all.

Honestly, the Benghaziphiles are becoming hilariously deluded, seeing how far they'll try to bend the situation to make a scandal out of it. "It's the response and blaming it on the Video that's the problem !!! IT'S A COVERUP!!11!ELEVENTY!!". Yeeeeeeaaaaah, Obama decided to "cover up" an attack by Al Qaeda by blaming on it a video tape to help his polls before the election. That makes perfect sense if you have no grasp of reality, and didn't understand that as the President who is very well known for killing Osama Bin Laden (not personally, but you know what I mean) he could run with it being an Al Qaeda attack easily enough without worry, and probably could have done even better out of the situation ("We'll track down and kill these bastards like we did Osama!", ect). There's no good reason for him to try to deliberately mislead anyone on the matter - it gains him nothing. That's the thing that they miss - zero motivation, but like conspiracy theorists everywhere they ignore that, as it gets in the way of their imagined cover-up. Was the information on the attack somewhat mangled and unclear to start with? Yep, but that's what happens when stuff goes down in a clusterfruk like this, and saying it was related to the video, which had been directly linked to many other attacks at the same period of time, wasn't an outlandish claim made on a whim, nor a deliberate cover up.

**djones520**

motyak wrote:
Not really. US people died, no uproar. US people die, slightly different atmosphere, uproar. Just seems silly.

Slight different atmosphere?

Ok, I'm going to stop this because if that is how you see it after all of this discussion, then there is no point in continuing it.

**Seaward**

motyak wrote:
Not really. US people died, no uproar. US people die, slightly different atmosphere, uproar. Just seems silly.

I'd say the uproar has little to do with the casualty lists and much more to do with the form of the response. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in putting heads on spikes if you attack our gak, rather than trying to get you to not do it again through saying sorry.

Give peace a chance.

When that doesn't work, there's always guys willing to fly a strike package.

**Easy E**

@Whembly, considering point A about sending all resources in, are their any other factors that should be considered before deciding the resource response, or should it be an automatic standing order type situation?

**djones520**

Easy E wrote:
@Whembly, considering point A about sending all resources in, are their any other factors that should be considered before deciding the resource response, or should it be an automatic standing order type situation?

All resources would probably be over the top, considering everything we could bring to bear. We probably could have had cruise missiles levelling the place if we had wanted.

I still think not scrambling fighters from Aviano was a horrible call. They could have been there in time to save lives, and would have been a solid response, and limited the risk of sending in ground personel who are blind to the situation.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
It's a lost cause...

Hey... I'm blinker'ed... right?

edit: wait... I think that was kanwulen... o.O

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
@Whembly, considering point A about sending all resources in, are their any other factors that should be considered before deciding the resource response, or should it be an automatic standing order type situation?

All resources would probably be over the top, considering everything we could bring to bear. We probably could have had cruise missiles levelling the place if we had wanted.

I still think not scrambling fighters from Aviano was a horrible call. They could have been there in time to save lives, and would have been a solid response, and limited the risk of sending in ground personel who are blind to the situation.

E... basically this. I'd go even further that if the host country can't step in.... like Libya had already said. Then, at THAT point, it becomes a very viable option.

**Seaward**

djones520 wrote:
I still think not scrambling fighters from Aviano was a horrible call. They could have been there in time to save lives, and would have been a solid response, and limited the risk of sending in ground personel who are blind to the situation.

Yup. Even if there was an extremely remote chance they could've done anything useful, you still send 'em. Worst case scenario, you burn several thousand pounds of JP-8 and get eyes on the scene. Plus, people tend to lose their enthusiasm for even ranting against the imperialist western pigdogs and decide it's time to quietly go indoors and be unnoticeable when there are JDAMs getting toted around overheard.

Dunno if that call can realistically be attributed to Obama, though.

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I still think not scrambling fighters from Aviano was a horrible call. They could have been there in time to save lives, and would have been a solid response, and limited the risk of sending in ground personel who are blind to the situation.

Yup. Even if there was an extremely remote chance they could've done anything useful, you still send 'em. Worst case scenario, you burn several thousand pounds of JP-8 and get eyes on the scene. Plus, people tend to lose their enthusiasm for even ranting against the imperialist western pigdogs and decide it's time to quietly go indoors and be unnoticeable when there are JDAMs getting toted around overheard.

Dunno if that call can realistically be attributed to Obama, though.

Obama personally, no.

**whembly**

@djones520 and @Seaward...

Obama has repeatedly stated at the night of the event, he said he ordered "all and necessary means to defend and rescue" those mens.

Is it true that when a President (or high ranking officer?) issues an order like that, there's a paper trail?

If there is a paper trail like that... is it accessible to the public?

The reason I'm asking is that, to my knowledge, no one has providee the paper "proof" that such order was given.

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
@djones520 and @Seaward...

Obama has repeatedly stated at the night of the event, he said he ordered "all and necessary means to defend and rescue" those mens.

Is it true that when a President (or high ranking officer?) issues an order like that, there's a paper trail?

If there is a paper trail like that... is it accessible to the public?

The reason I'm asking is that, to my knowledge, no one has providee the paper "proof" that such order was given.

That is so far above my pay grade I won't even hazard a guess.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
whembly wrote:
@djones520 and @Seaward...

Obama has repeatedly stated at the night of the event, he said he ordered "all and necessary means to defend and rescue" those mens.

Is it true that when a President (or high ranking officer?) issues an order like that, there's a paper trail?

If there is a paper trail like that... is it accessible to the public?

The reason I'm asking is that, to my knowledge, no one has providee the paper "proof" that such order was given.

That is so far above my pay grade I won't even hazard a guess.

Ah... okay... then I'll drop it. Thanks.

**Seaward**

whembly wrote:
@djones520 and @Seaward...

Obama has repeatedly stated at the night of the event, he said he ordered "all and necessary means to defend and rescue" those mens.

Is it true that when a President (or high ranking officer?) issues an order like that, there's a paper trail?

If there is a paper trail like that... is it accessible to the public?

The reason I'm asking is that, to my knowledge, no one has providee the paper "proof" that such order was given.

Dunno. No idea, in fact.

And I'm not sure it matters all that much. Ramming the former secret squirrel guys sitting in Tripoli into the fray could very well have turned the tide, for example, but no one could have known that at the time. And, even with the benefit of hindsight, we don't know for sure it would have done any such thing. Telling six or whatever guys to go into a chaotic situation completely blind is not something that's generally considered good decision-making, in most circumstances. It's still probably even odds they just would've wound up dead, too.

And even though I absolutely think the Air Force should've gotten the go to tear ass out of Italy, the realistic assessment is that, if buzzing the site didn't scare everybody off, there's not much else they could have done. It's a populated area, with a confused mess of people doing gak on the ground. Those are not pleasant circumstances to dump ordnance into. Even with a forward air controller on the ground who knows who everybody is and where they are, there's still a lot of white-knuckle "Jesus Christ I hope I'm not about to strafe our guys" terror when you're shooting into that sort of situation. They wouldn't have had that, and it's extremely unlikely they would've gotten clearance to engage even if they were dead certain of what they were looking at through a LITENING pod or whatever.

Most of my criticism's in the post-eight hours after response. The stuff that happened or didn't happen during the duration of the attack I can understand.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
....5) lastly, I'd ask for Hillary Clinton resignation.

I never quite got this. Why would you do that? I wasn't really paying attention to the news at the time so I'm quite sure what she didn't/did do. Please enlighten me.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
....5) lastly, I'd ask for Hillary Clinton resignation.

I never quite got this. Why would you do that? I wasn't really paying attention to the news at the time so I'm quite sure what she didn't/did do. Please enlighten me.

She's was the Secretary of State... meaning, she's in charge and bears all responsibility.

Fortunately, she did say it's her respsonsibility, (during an interview in South America if I remember right), so give her kudos for that. But, it's one thing to say "it's my fault" and keep the job, than to say... "I fethed up and here's my resignation letter".

That one good thing you can say about Donald Rumsfeld... he TRIED to submit is resignation after the Abu-Gharib incident knowly that it falls to him,.. but, Bush wouldn't accept it (which was a huge mistake imo).

In many ways, I feel like Hillary (and Kerry) is treating this position as " a stepping stone " and not treating it with the respect it deserves.