This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
But that would having lower level State Dept people testify, which would not only prove Hillary's point but also reveal that the real culprit here was Republican led budget cuts to embassy security. So they're not going there.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that would be a good thing to get out of this. Gowdy didn't ask - and Hillary didn't say.
But SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL!!!!
Hypothetically that might also mean he did not have her email.
If there is evidence that Sid's business interests had influence on policy then they drive that...else wise, we get it, Sid had extensive access....just move on
There's really nothing to "handle" at this point...I'm not sure anyone here thought there would be as it pertained to Benghazi. I think all interest went out the window with the claim that there would be no "server" talk during this session. At least "interest" from an information perspective. The body language is fun to watch as is all the
between the dummies on the committee. Goat rodeo at best.
People might be surprised to know we had hired Blackwater to provide security at the CIA Annex. That's who showed up to try to save Stevens, against orders. - eta - Supposedly that was the kind of private security work that Blumenthal and Co. were angling for.
They are fixated on the video thing, they are trying to catch her in some manipulation of the message for political reasons (hers, but I guess theirs too). I think it's bad enough she says she was relying on what they were saying on tv and the internet instead of her own Asst SOS Nuland.
The mission was just a CIA post? So the mission was there to cover the annex, not the other way around?
It's purpose was to work the CIA contacts in the eastern parts that were under different control than Tripoli- call it a mission, embassy. post whatever you want - but it was put there to be the front for the CIA work. The "locals" more than likely double crossed us. My guess is we put out the BS film story while we figured out who was doing the dirty double cross so we could "fix" it.
About Sidney Blumenthal? About her people promoting Hillary afterwards?
The only new info I've seen / heard was the 9/11/12 Nuland email saying there was "no connection" between the attack and the movie.
You can add everyone running for President right now. Had Biden run, he may have matched her on foreign policy. Nobody else comes anywhere close.
Earlier Saints either you or someone else made the point that she should be questioned about US policy in Libya which ultimately led to these attacks. I think that's a very fair criticism of her and Obama, and one that could have a damaging effect on her overall credibility. Why DID she push to use our air force to help the Libyan rebels? Why not either send in ground troops and finish the job, or stay the hell away in the first place? These would not be easy questions for her to answer, and she really SHOULD answer them.
The questions have been plenty clear
Because we were "asked" by the French to do it? And if we said no then we would have kissed French support in future coalitions bye-bye. At least this effort was a better coalition than the sham one in Iraq II.
Russians were too smart to communicate with Hillary via email, they knew any 6th grader could hack into it.
Trump isn't a viable candidate (even though he actually is to quite a large %) to me. He has no policy solutions. He's an embarrassment to the Republican party, yet is dominating the establishment.
Hah! That's funny! It's awesome that the deaths of 4 Americans has become a punchline for the left.
Do they honestly believe they're going to hurt her by this? The last woman, trying to claim she didn't care about her personnel? I mean what the hell is this? The other day I wrote that these committee members should apologize to the American people and resign, and that was a little tongue in cheek. But now I kinda mean it. This is really shameful.wdcrob said:
is that what this hearing is about? Couldn't tell from the questioning.
The committee that has run 9 1/2 hours (and counting) today asking the same questions over and over and over again is the punchline.
