**************
My wife and I attended a showing of “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” today.
My wife and I attended a showing of “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” today.
And while
one particular movie critic praised it for its authenticity, and willingness to
“let the chips fall where they may,” I’m not so sure.
Oh, it was
definitely a “shoot ‘em up” and “kill ‘em by the hundreds” production. And it
was wildly entertaining, and authentic, as far it goes. But I think it leaves
something to be desired.
There was no
overt reference to Christopher Stevens’ attempt to solicit more security for
the Benghazi ambassadorial mission. Granted, the CIA operatives referred to a
lack of security there, but a scene in which Stevens’ calls or emails the State
Department about this deficit would have been preferable; given this is a
strong variable surrounding the attack on our mission, and an issue which
continues to plague Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, in her
presidential campaign. Hillary, herself, is not characterized in the movie by
a supporting actress.
During the
course of the movie, there is one reference to POTUS; (the President of the
United States), and his knowledge of the scenario unfolding in Libya. There is
a corresponding undercurrent of confusion that the government of the United
States is being unresponsive to the eminent danger to its employees at the
mission, and CIA base. However, the connection seems weak, and no specific
blame seems to be levied. Obama also goes unrepresented by a character in the
movie.
To be fair,
there are a couple of scenes which depict the preparation of our naval and air
assets, and “the order which never came.” But again, the connection to those
who had the immediate power to command a military response is insufficient.
Granted, before
I saw the movie I had already formed an opinion about the response, or lack
thereof, to the attack in Benghazi, and the strong connection to Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, and President of the United States Barack Obama.
The movie
failed to conclusively assign specific blame for our government’s failure to
send help to the participants of the attack on Benghazi. Its implications were
both weak and non-specific in nature.
Whether,
indeed, the movie “hit the nail on the head,” or simply skirted the primary
issues is, ultimately, unimportant. What is, after all, crucial is that we, the
American public, is given sufficient information about what occurred on
September 11, 2012, and that we are provided an understanding of who was directly
responsible for our government’s failure to exercise an appropriate response to
the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
Let the
chips fall where they may.
By William McDonald, PhD. Excerpt from "(Mc)Donald's Daily Diary" Vol. 23. Copyright pending
Click on 2015 in the index to the right of this blog. When my December 31st blog, "The Shot Must Choose You" appears, click on the title. All my 2015 blog titles will come up in the index.
By William McDonald, PhD. Excerpt from "(Mc)Donald's Daily Diary" Vol. 23. Copyright pending
If you wish to copy, share or save this blog, please include the credit line, above
*****************
If you would like to see the titles and access hundreds of my blogs from 2015, do the following:
*****************
If you would like to see the titles and access hundreds of my blogs from 2015, do the following:
Click on 2015 in the index to the right of this blog. When my December 31st blog, "The Shot Must Choose You" appears, click on the title. All my 2015 blog titles will come up in the index.
No comments:
Post a Comment