Benghazi: one word that has become a political talking point in the last few years and especially as we draw closer to the crucial November 8th election. Many speak of Benghazi as an example of Hillary Clinton's incompetence as a leader, or to paint her as some evil person who purposefully allowed the awful occurrences of that fateful day. Although many people hold such strong opinions on this buzzword, few actually know any of the specifics or even where Benghazi is. In this article I would like to lay out some of the facts about Benghazi and allow you to determine for yourself whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be held accountable.
On September 11th, 2012 a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by an Islamic terror group. For those who do not know, Libya is a country in Northern Africa wedged between Algeria and Egypt. For many years Libya has been a hot bed for political turmoil and in-fighting. Only a few hours after the first attack, another compound not far away was attacked as well. During these horrifying attacks a United States ambassador, along with three other Americans, lost their lives. Immediately after the attacks the speculation was that they were spontaneous in response to some anti-Islamic video. However, it was later discovered that the attacks were in fact premeditated by a group of Libyan rebels.
Now what does this have to do with Mrs. Clinton? During the time of the attacks Hillary was the Secretary of State, which means that one of her jobs was to maintain security at all the U.S. diplomatic locations around the globe. One of the main problems people had was that the consulate in Benghazi was not properly secured; it had a weak perimeter and inadequate security camera coverage. Additionally, the consulate had requested additional security in the months leading up to the attacks. The entire state department decided that the intel was not strong enough to provide additional security for the consulate. However, the notion that Secretary Clinton called off any troops that would have swept in and saved the consulate during the attack is completely false and based in nothing but conspiracy. The state department, along with Secretary Clinton, accepted full responsibility for the attacks and admitted that they made "grave mistakes" in dealing with any intel they might have had. After the state department conducted their own internal investigation, there were seven more investigations launched in a supposed attempt to find any foul play by Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration. None of the investigations found anything to suggest corruption in any way. It seems as though the eight total investigations, which is six more than we had following the attacks on 9/11, were nothing more than a ploy to smear the Obama administration and Democrats as a whole. Although this was a tragedy deserving of media coverage, the Bush administration saw thirteen attacks on U.S. consulates with a death total of eighty-seven. These attacks were seen as nothing more than what they were, horrible sequences of events resulting in American loss of life. The idea that the coverage of Benghazi was only to strengthen support for the Republican party gains ground with this fact.
At the end of the day you must decide for yourself if one sequence of mistakes is enough to condemn someone for being criminally negligent, even when similar attacks have occurred before and no one seemed to care. As always, I encourage you to do your own research and form your own opinions. In a world where every issue is highly polarized, find your own truth.
