The Battling Boys of Benghazi
We're the Battling Boys of Benghazi ,
no fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
Just a fiery death in a blazing hell
defending the country we loved so well.
It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,
fought to the consulate and scaled the wall.
We pulled 20 countrymen from the jaws of fate,
led them to safety and stood at the gate.
Just the two of us, and foes by the score,
but we stood fast to bar the door.
Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,
so we fought and we fought and we fought till we died.
We gave our all for our Uncle Sam
but Barack Obama didn't give a damn
just two dead Seals who carried the load
no thanks to us - we were just "bumps in the road".
Hillary should have been fired...but they were able to stall & stall...and float 'spin' 7 video...and Hillary escaped -to run in 2016 ...( "what difference does it make" !! 4 dead is 4 dead...just bodies...bumps in my road to the Presidency...inconveniencies for the rich and powerful).
You really are an idiot Clyde. She said whether they died because of a anti Islamic video or not they were still dead and we had to get to the bottom of it. I understand your frustration with the clowns the Republican party has to offer and realize that Benghazi is perhaps your only hope to stop Clinton but the problem for you is there's NOTHING there.
& too bad they don't hold people accountable in D.C. the way they have in New Jersey...They're still running that story on Maddow/NBC...beating a dead horse....anything to get away from Ocare / Bengazi / IRS / fast-furious / NSA / Solyndra / healthcare waivers for friends and Congress...and on and on...NO ONE FIRED IN THAT CITY...THE LEFT IS SO HYPOCRITICAL...ALMOST EMBARRASSING...ARE THEY BLIND? SELECTIVE?...but it is what it is...I've given up for at least 3 more years...nothing surprises me as the inmates run the madhouse.
During the early days of the Libyans’ fight to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, Christopher Stevens wrangled a ride on a Greek cargo ship and sailed into the rebels’ stronghold city of Benghazi. He arrived at a time when the crackle of gunfire could be heard each night.
Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was literally on the rebels’ side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by Gadhafi’s troops who were moving on the city. The threat was pushed back at the last minute by the intervention of NATO planes which began bombing Gadhafi’s tanks and troops.
Ordinarily, I don’t like to speak ill of the dead, especially since they can’t defend themselves.
#$%$ was Ambassador Chris Stevens doing at an unsecured consulate in Benghazi — “this hottest of hot spots” — on September 11?
In fact, Chris Stevens was a hotdogger who put himself, his staff and his security personnel at undue risk. He is a tragic figure only in the classical sense: he was responsible for his own death and — the deaths of three others. The accountability review board "arb" for benghazi obliquely acknowledges this: “Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi” and describes the facility as having an “insufficient … security platform.” The Benghazi staff consisted of relatively inexperienced American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less…. Plans for the Ambassador’s trip [to Benghazi] provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature….
Notice how the report employs the passive voice and substitutes “Embassy Tripoli” for “Stevens.” What the Board means is that Stevens put inexperienced temps in a dangerous facility with an “insufficient security platform,” then popped off to join them (or whatever) without a proper security detail and without even telling staff where he was going and what he was doing because, you know, he just didn’t think anybody in an unstable Muslim country would want to kill an American ambassador on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The evidence is that Chris Stevens saw himself as a modern-day Lawrence of Arabia, with “his knowledge of Arabic, his ability to move in all sectors of the population, and his wide circle of friends, particularly in Benghazi.” Well, maybe not “all sectors” and maybe his circle of friends was not quite as wide as he imagined. As the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Stevens had a primary responsibility to protect Americans in Libya. But that responsibility conflicted with his dream of a horde of enthusiastic Libyans shouting, “Ste-VENS! Ste-VENS! Ste-VENS!” He put his personal ambitions before the safety of those in his charge.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?? We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 because of that moron you guys wanted to elect so bad that the Supreme Court had to rig it for you. And now 4 diplomats die because they left the safety of the embassy to go to Benghazi and you guys act like it's another catastrophe.
You need to go back and study your geography. Benghazi is in Libya. That is North Africa. It has nothing to do with Iraq. The relevance of what happened in Benghazi would be the same had 1 person or 1 million people died in Iraq. They are not related. You simply don't allow people to die because you are worried that to save them would have implications that would be inconsistent with statements that you have made in the past about the relevance of Al Qaeda. The fact is that their intensions were either corrupt or really dumb. Take your pick. They were willing to gamble the lives of diplomats because if they had sent a seal team down there and it turned out to be a minor demonstration then it would have given the world the impression that we still believed Al Qaeda was a threat which the Admin. had claimed was no longer the case.
They were more concerned about their image than the lives of diplomats. This is not a matter of making a mistake. It is a matter of can your judgment be trusted. Will you do the right thing when put in circumstances that require an ethical response or will you go into the cover your #$%$ mode and allow others to die for the sake of your personal image. It is a matter of who can be trusted. Certainly not Hillary Clinton. We know what she thinks. "Who cares?" What I don't understand is how she can imagine that no one would care about this. It seems to imply that she has a disconnect with the basic morality of most Americans and what we care about. We do care when you make decisions to allow people to die unnecessarily. We care a LOT.
Yes, I know, Bush made a decision to attack Iraq which caused a lot of people to die but that wasn't right either. That would like saying that it is OK to commit one murder because there are people who have committed multiple murders. That is not sound logic. You go to jail if you commit a murder and it does not matter who else has committed a murder or how many people they murdered.
Agreed. In both cases politics took priority over right and wrong. It basically boils down to who can you trust to do the right thing and who can you trust to own up to their mistakes.
I have noticed that the people who usually do things right most of the time are willing to admit to their mistakes. it's the people who are doing things wrong most of the time who try to cover everything up. You really get tired of it after a while. You just wish they would leave and craw back into the hole they came out of so they can stop embarassing us.
I think this is about as corrupt as I have ever seen it since I have been paying close attention. Well, you can't get much more corrupt than President Johnson but that was so long ago that no one remembers the details anymore. Some might argue that he was just doing what Texans always did and didn't know any better. He knew. He was just used to doing it as if it didn't matter. There is a lot of that going on lately.