In response to:

Benghazi: A Dereliction of Duty

USNbubblehead Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 9:05 AM
I said the same thing on these threads yesterday, and its no hyperbole. From a military and national security standpoint what we're witnessing here is one of the most aggravated and willful cases of dereliction of duty in recent American history. There were some Civil War generals who came close, but never have I heard of anything approaching this at so high a level in American Government, and I doubt anyone can. We should remember the price paid by Admiral Kimmel and General Short for Pearl Harbor. One can argue that they were hung out to dry by the Roosevelt administration, but at least SOMEONE was held accountable.
petroleum engineer Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 12:25 PM
Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short were hung out to dry. They were not given valuable information from Washington and therefore caught flat footed because of it. I did not get on active duty until early 1944, but after spending time in both theatres I read extensively about the Roosevelt's fall guys.

Dereliction

1. Willful neglect, as of duty or principle.

2. a. The act of abandoning; abandonment.

    b. A state of abandonment or neglect.

Within two hours of the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, an email was sent to the White House and State Department.

That first email was sent at 4:05 PM-ET (10:05 PM in Benghazi) and specifically mentioned that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliated group, had claimed responsibility for the attacks. Fox News...