Previous post
Next post
Liberal radio host Leslie Marshall was on Fox News’ “America’s News Room” Sunday to talk about the 60 Minutes report on Benghazi. Because the President and SecState Hillary Clinton can do no wrong in the eyes of the myopic Left, Marshall needed to dump the blame for Benghazi somewhere. She chose Chris Stevens himself.
“No matter how much security we have, things like this can happen,” Marshall said in defense of President Obama. “Let’s keep in mind, Ambassador Stevens was the one who wanted to be in Benghazi; Ambassador Stevens was the one who wanted to branch out from Tripoli to Benghazi.”
Stevens obviously should carry the blame for being raped, dragged through the streets and murdered, according to Marshall. He knew it was bad there and yet he “was the one who wanted to be in Benghazi,” therefore it’s his own fault. In related news, the families of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims can thank Leslie Marshall for explaining why their loved ones got attacked, tortured, and killed in Dahmer’s apartment. They went there willingly, after all.
Note that the rest of the media doesn’t even find this to be a blip on the radar. They are far too busy telling us that we should care about whether Will Smith is getting a divorce.
Catherine Wilkinson says: No words for this. Or the ones I have, I cannot type without my fingers bursting into flames.
Kevin says: If you’re making the connection of what Leslie Marshall said (assuming what see said is in the green box above) and interpreting that as … “Stevens obviously chose to be raped, dragged through the streets and murdered”, that’s messed up.
Do you ever wonder why when you heard “he asked to be raped and murdered” and no one in the entire U.S. media (as incompetent as they are) decided to report on that story? I know why … because you didn’t accurately comprehend what she said.
Just out of curiosity, how did you rank on those “reading comprehension” exams we were all given in school (even though they were probably a “tool for the man”)?
I notice that you don’t offer an alternate explanation. You do, however, fall into the typical, unoriginal, and even mentally lazy practice of insulting your opponent. So tedious. Your entire comment is basically this:
“You don’t understand what she really meant. And you’re stupid. And I’m not going to tell you what she really meant. And you’re stupid. And a poor reader.”
Bravo. Way to represent the Left. Next time, try bringing an actual argument.
Jodi Giddings says: And…Ambassador Stevens was the one who believed his President and the SecState would have his back. That was his fatal mistake. Leslie Marshall should be ashamed of herself. But I highly doubt she is.
Kevin says: Here’s my explanation … Kit.
Ambassador Stevens, knowing the risks, decided to take them. Given his years of experience in the Middle East, he knew what could happen. Every foreign service officer (including Ambassadors) are given information about their assignment(s) and their living conditions, the community, and safety. He had Marines/CIA professionals at the Embassy. I have served the United States overseas and even I, a lowly Peace Corps Volunteer, was given days of training and tons of reading material about what might happen and how to prevent certain things. I’m assuming an Ambassador is the one writing the manuals for everyone else to read and train from. I also witnessed a fellow volunteer who was attacked and badly injured and the U.S. government came to her rescue (not that night) but the following morning with a private medical jet to return her to the United States.
I am also absolutely positive that Ambassador Stevens was told “we got your back” and didn’t happen.
What happened was not his fault nor did he ask for it. That’s not what “understanding the risks” means. He understood, in a worst case scenario, what could happen and unfortunately, it did.
I’m sure that explanation is not anywhere near good enough for you Kit. Nothing I could would be good enough for you.
Kevin says: Nothing I could write would be good enough for you.
Kevin,
If you’re here for validation, you’re in the wrong place. Contrary to your “echo chamber” assertions (which you’ll never live down, by the way), we don’t even validate each other sometimes. 😉
Your last comment sounds like something my son told me at age 10 in defense of poor grades. I’m guessing you’re over 10, so how about we start over and you give me something to actually work with besides your toxic mix of victim mentality and intellectual superiority?
First off, I don’t care if you’ve served overseas. Half the writers here have too. It’s a logical fallacy to use that to bolster what is a really poor argument.
Secondly, the amount of training given to Chris Stevens most certainly did NOT include a class on what to do when your President and Secretary of State say, “Sorry, Chris, because…F you, that’s why.” He may have wanted to go to Benghazi, but any discussion of that is completely and utterly irrelevant to a discussion about his murder.
I’m curious. Who exactly do YOU think should pay for Benghazi?
Jennifer says: In a word-disgusting.
.
“Let’s keep in mind, Ambassador Stevens was the one who wanted to be in Benghazi; Ambassador Stevens was the one who wanted to branch out from Tripoli to Benghazi.”
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Assuming that this is true, and I don’t, a consulate doesn’t get established because “the Ambassador” wants it. And if it couldn’t be adequately protected or secured, then it shouldn’t have been set up. Period.
The explanation that says he was supposed to be captured and traded for the blind sheik seems to be more credible all the time.
“Stand down”? “What difference does it make?” if they had souls, Lord Zero’s and Hillary’s should be haunted for the rest of their miserable lives.
Catherine Wilkinson says: And here we have it…this isn’t a conservative or liberal political policy issue…it’s a moral issue. They (Clinton, Obama, and Jarrett) watched and debated the political outcome of this before they made the call to NOT send in help. Wait. I guess it is a liberal thing.
Kevin says: Really Kit …
Where did you serve overseas? What’s your experience with embassies, foreign service, or living in another country (for longer than passing through an airport)? My guess is nil. I’ve been through the foreign service training protocols … if you don’t like what I have to say, share your own experience and justify it; don’t rip down others to bolster yourself. That was my response to your “First off …” comment.
Secondarily (if you’re not following along this comment is meant to address your other overly aggressive critical point), you asked for my response about my interpretation of Leslie Marshall’s point. You don’t want to know my perspective, then don’t mask your pathetic excuse for “interest or curiosity or confusion” or whatever it is when trying to get me to explain my position. Next time, don’t bother asking; just spew your bile on the page and the echo chamber will clap and scream and wet themselves in euphoric excitement.
Kevin says: Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic … the echo chamber is working overtime tonight.
LOL. Okay I get it now. You’re just drunk and lonely. Never mind then. Come back after you sleep it off.
Kevin,
1. If you are offering me a job, you’re more than welcome to a copy of my resume. Until you’ve seen it, don’t presume to know what is or is not on it. Rest assured, however, that I don’t claim things on the internet that I can’t back up.
2. You started down this path. You and I have disagreed plenty of times on this blog, and I have always been blunt yet respectful with you. You get what you give. If you have now decided that you’re going to dispense with the niceties and try to play hardball liberal-style, know that I give as good as I get.
3. I’m not going to respond to your insults, your immaturity, or your ridiculous attempt at debate until you can answer the question I asked you simply, maturely, and concisely.
Who should be held responsible for Benghazi?
Have a good day.
GWB says: “Who should be held responsible for Benghazi?”
Let’s clarify for the benefit of those with low critical thinking skills: the badguys who actually attacked the facility and killed the Americans bear the primary responsibility, and they should be hunted down and have their contributions to greenhouse gases eliminated.
What Kit (and everyone else here who has more than feelings upon which to base their argument) is asking is “Who has responsibility for the failure to protect those who have an implicit promise of protection provided to them based on their job and for whom they work?”
I know that should be obvious, but all too often dim people will try to obfuscate by attempting this flea-flicker maneuver.
Kevin says: Kit,
You responded to my “insults” (your word) by responding. You are a wise woman … too smart for me to take on. (Did I use the correct form of “too?”)
Thank you and I look forward to your next response 😉
XXOO
Kevin
Kevin says: Kit,
Opps, again I mess up … I just don’t know what to do I’m so flustered … I meant to say, “Thank you and I look forward to your next non-response 😉
XXOO
Kevin
Still waiting for an answer to that question. Did you plan to answer it or are you just going to hide behind poorly executed snark and far-too-feminine air kisses?
Kevin, I had direct experience with our embassy in Ottawa while I interned across the street in the Canadian House Of Commons. I’m quite certain that the Ambassador is NOT the one writing the manuals everyone else is reading from, especially since many ambassadors are political appointees being paid off for their service to the party, friendship with the President, or significant campaign donations.
Kate says: Benghazi.
It’s about 4 Americans left to die a horrible death with no answers, only lies, from this Administration.
Anything else is drivel and obfuscation.
Jodi says: This ^^^
GWB says: BIW,IC – you are absolutely right that the Ambassador is NOT the one who writes the manuals. That is a bureaucratic job.
As to overseas assignment: how many countries do you have under your belt, Kevin? I have thirty (30). (Besides all 50 states and two territories.) Everywhere from the Middle East to East Asia to South America to Europe to Oz. I’ve spent nights in some places, spent weeks in others, lived in yet others. I used to read the State Dept notes on various countries all the time.
To blame the late Ambassador for what happened to him is grotesque – obscene even.
Kate says: To blame the late Ambassador for what happened to him is grotesque – obscene even.
yes. but it’s the liberal way.
Kit says: Ha! GWB has me beat and then some. I have only 46 states and 6 countries. I know a few writers here with more than I.
I STILL read the State Dept notes on countries (and the Economist, religiously).
GWB says: Oh, and most of the seven seas, too! Along with five of the six major lines on the globe. 😉
26 Comments