“2. She was SOS, she did not command any military assets
3. The people making the decisions were trying to get the full picture, you could never know how it was.”
Military presence, sponsorship and support of Embassies is not a new phenomenon. The relationship, procedures and protocols have been in place for decades.
As SOS she was absolutely the senior decision maker for commitment of military assets and actions at State Department facilities. Use of military forces at the Benghazi embassy annex, or any embassy complex, required her specific authorization. Your use of the term “command” is a canard in this respect.
The “people making decisions” is also inaccurate as no one could act without the SOS authorizing commitment of military forces. Until that moment the SOS is the acting “commander” of military assets committed to State Department facilities. Those forces are not authorized to act without specific SOS approval.
If you want to defend her you’d do better saying that she was passed-out drunk and unavailable.
Oh I am not defending her at all. I think she is evil incarnate.
What I am doing is trying to think like her and present arguments that the average joe is going to accept as logical.
Just as Obama said the recovery is strong. I guess you could look at some numbers and the masses will accept his premise.
But, if you look at what might be really happening out there...the story is completely different.
I would only defend Hillary like this: Valjar and her puppet boy forced Hill to not get the military help. That is plausible. They had more to lose than she did if the attack was put down. All she wanted was to be President, and saving her Ambassador would have been better for her.