Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Email shows Pentagon was able to respond as soon as Benghazi started
Judicial Watch, a government watchdog, had obtained and released a new email regarding the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. In this email, a Pentagon official offered immediate military help to the top deputies of Secretary of State Clinton. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified saying that there was not enough time to get troops into Benghazi. The newly obtained email, which was sent early in the long fight, contradicts this testimony. Do you believe that the Obama administration, especially Hillary Clinton, properly handled the situation in Benghazi? Should Panetta face repercussions for falsely testifying? What is your overall opinion on the whole Benghazi situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to this artcile, there were three waves of attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the email was sent after the second attack had already started. If Obama administration had decided to send troops, and even if they were sent immediately after the email was received, it would probably have been too late to stop the second wave and prevent the third wave. Therefore, I think the Obama administration (including Hillary Clinton) handled the situation in Benghazi as well as they could given the circumstances, and Panetta should not face repercussions for falsely testifying becaus I don't think he did falsely testify. "Time" and "distance" did prevent a more immediate response.
ReplyDeleteIf troops were ready to be sent to defend the consulate, I think they should have been. However, there may have been other circumstances that could have prevented this from happening. If Panetta did falsely testify, which according to the article he did, then I think that he should have faced repercussions.
ReplyDeleteJudicial Watch is a conservative propaganda organization which skews facts to stir up controversy (some liberal websites to the same). The entire Benghazi investigation is nothing more than a Republican mission to harm the credibility of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration. The evidence and multiple testimonies show that while the response may not have been perfect, it does not warrant the attention and scrutiny it has received. If someone lied under oath, then of course there should be repercussions. But until there is solid evidence of any crime or negligence, we need to stop hearing about Benghazi.
ReplyDeleteIf Panetta falsely testified, he should have definitely faced repercussions. Benghazi is a subject in which we are not fully informed and aren't sure what are truths versus lies. Until it is situated where the government knows exactly what happened, and that is backed up with fact and evidence, I believe Benghazi shouldn't be debated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Seth in the fact that until there is more evidence, Benghazi provides no beneficial information as it only allows Republicans to attempt to destroy Clinton's credibility. Individuals who falsely testify under oath should face repercussions but at this point, it's very difficult to determine what testimonies are truthful. While the situation wasn't handled flawlessly, there is no sound evidence that proves any illegal actions occurred. This effort in "finding the truth" is nothing but an opportunity for unnecessary slander.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Obama administration may not have made perfect moves during the attack, they did what they could. Mistakes may have been made, but lingering on them won't get the country anywhere. The continued mention of Benghazi is obviously a ploy to throw dirt on Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. If Panetta did falsely testify he should face some repercussions, but honestly it would just be best if the whole Benghazi thing was dropped. Benghazi has been continuously brought up for way too long.
ReplyDeleteThe situation with Benghazi seems to have been handled imperfectly; according to the emails, action could have been taken immediately, but this did not happen. I do think, however, that there were many factors that would have affected the ability to act quickly enough to deescalate the conflict. And even if the State Department had acted and moved to send troops as soon as it received word of the attacks, perhaps it would not have been enough.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Panetta should face consequences for "falsely testifying," as the factors he listed - "time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning," etc. - do seem to have been a factor in the failure to dissolve the conflict in Benghazi. Generally, I think the Obama administration acted as well as it could have, given the circumstances.