U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[squistion]

RBM your version of the truth IMO is heavily skewed by what I would call the right wing bubble. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or anyone else deliberately lied and I don't believe they did. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or a one close to her level is to blame for the lack of security at Benghazi and I don't believe she was.

Didn't she admit that she lied in the hearing the other day? Wasn't there email from 9/12 from her admitting it was a terrorist attack and not a video protest?

Not sure how much more concrete you can get than that.

No.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised he didn't get it right, considering he admitted earlier today:

I missed the hearings. I'm guessing Hillary must have had brilliant answers for the alleged incompetence leading up to the attack and the blatant dishonesty immediately after the attack. Everyone in the media has been talking about how great she was and how embarrassing the R's were but I haven't seen anyone providing any actual content.

Were these issues even addressed, and if so how did Hillary turn them from her looking like a dishonest fool to looking like a stunning and brave hero?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fwiw here's the transcript.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

 

[squistion]

Hillary's exchange with Congressman Jim Jordan over video and emails.

This is the complete exchange, one I posted earlier did not include Hillary's final response after Jordan concluded his questions for that session:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc

 

[Todd Andrews]

lol ...... Kooks gonna KooK

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's exchange with Congressman Jim Jordan over video and emails.

This is the complete exchange, one I posted earlier did not include Hillary's final response after Jordan concluded his questions for that session:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc

I'm going to say something in defense of Hillary here but also critical of her. In the face of repeated documentation of internal reports that the attacks were terrorist/militia related, she he never does point to any one single internal report that related that the movie was the cause of a spontaneous report. This is the Democratic Staff report which Tobias posted:

It was not until September 13 that the Intelligence Community issued its “first thorough, fully coordinated, assessment of what happened in Benghazi.” The title of this assessment was: “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests.” Although the full assessment remains classified, it contained the following now-unclassified analysis from the Intelligence Community:

·“We assess the attacks on Tuesday against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi began spontaneously.”

·“[T]he attacks began spontaneously following the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.” “Extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida were involved in the attacks.”

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Written Statement of Michael Morell, Deputy Director of the CIA, Hearing on the Benghazi Talking Points and Michael J. Morell’s Role in Shaping the Administration’s Narrative (Apr. 2, 2014)

This is about September 12th:

On that same day, however, Ansar al-Sharia reportedly disavowed responsibility for the attacks, claiming that they were spontaneous protests against the video and its maker. The group reportedly posted a video on YouTube that praised the attacks in Benghazi, referencing the “American pastor who is known for his animosity to Islam and Muslims.” It also reportedly stated: The Ansar al-Shari’ah Battalion did not participate in this popular uprising as an independent entity.... Rather it was a spontaneous and popular uprising in response to what the West did.

Putting aside the fact that accepting an internet posting by a terrorist group as evidence or source for information is a really bad idea.... In my humble opinion it would be good if Hillary didn't reference "reports" and her book as sources for her contention that there was confusion. It would be good if she pointed to actual sourced documents.

Go ahead, look the report, especially pp. 25-32, see what else you see. Aside to the other discussion re: social media posts, I don't see anything else but there might be.

Obviously the GOP causes this problem as well by trying to prove the unprovable and which they have not proved, that there was a decision to fix the message.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I also find this quite startling now, as opposed to the first hearing:

None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex. There were probably a number of different motivations.

- Hillary

That is not the contention of the US government at this stage. The US government does not hold, state or believe in any way that there were protests or that there was a spontaneous mushrooming of violence. Khtalla has been captured, he has been charged in US District Court in Southern District of NY and there is absolutely no allegation of a movie, any movie or any protest, having any role. The intelligence community and the military have not had any confusion on this point for some time now. - The best that can be said is that they took advantage of the chaos in Cairo surrounding the Innocence movie.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?

Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

 

[The Commish]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

not all that different than her supporters mocking the event on Twitter. Squishy has the Twitter tags

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?

Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

Is that like when Hillary mentioned the video to the families of the victims when they brought their bodies to the US?

 

[timschochet]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

Is that like when Hillary mentioned the video to the families of the victims when they brought their bodies to the US?

No, because when she mentioned the video she honestly believed at that time that it was to blame for what happened. Because that's what the experts in our government thought then. They didn't think it the day after, when Hillary contacted her daughter and the Egyptians, and they don't think it now, but they thought it then for about 8-10 days. No matter how you try and spin this into a lie by Hillary Clinton it wasn't one.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

Is that like when Hillary mentioned the video to the families of the victims when they brought their bodies to the US?

No, because when she mentioned the video she honestly believed at that time that it was to blame for what happened. Because that's what the experts in our government thought then. They didn't think it the day after, when Hillary contacted her daughter and the Egyptians, and they don't think it now, but they thought it then for about 8-10 days. No matter how you try and spin this into a lie by Hillary Clinton it wasn't one.

Bull s##t Tim. Go ask the families of the victims of how they feel about Hillary and what she said that day. It's one thing to defend her at all costs like you do but in this case this is pathetic. There was no reason to bring up the video days later to the families of the victims. And as far as the experts......the CIA chief on the ground, many other witnesses, and over 100 classified documents state they knew what was happening that night. Your 8-10 days BS is an insult to our intelligence community.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

not all that different than her supporters mocking the event on Twitter. Squishy has the Twitter tags

Oh, please. The "event" (read: clownshow with incompetent clowns) is deserving of some degree of mockery. You don't get to cheerlead this hyperpartisan exploitation of a real tragedy for 100% political purposes, then stand back and complain when supporters of Clinton want to poke fun at Gowdy and his fellow idiots. I'm not indulging in it myself, because the whole deterioration of the Republican party into a shockingly ignorant kookfest is more disturbing than amusing, but here you go again with the false equivalency. You're very skilled at it, if "skilled" is the right term.

 

[Johnnymac]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

Is that like when Hillary mentioned the video to the families of the victims when they brought their bodies to the US?

No, because when she mentioned the video she honestly believed at that time that it was to blame for what happened. Because that's what the experts in our government thought then. They didn't think it the day after, when Hillary contacted her daughter and the Egyptians, and they don't think it now, but they thought it then for about 8-10 days.No matter how you try and spin this into a lie by Hillary Clinton it wasn't one.

Bull s##t Tim. Go ask the families of the victims of how they feel about Hillary and what she said that day. It's one thing to defend her at all costs like you do but in this case this is pathetic. There was no reason to bring up the video days later to the families of the victims.

With all due respect, it really doesn't matter how they feel about Hillary. Maybe they didn't like her before this event happened, in that case nothing would change their feelings toward her. Maybe they believe the republican rhetoric and blame her for their loved ones deaths. That still does not change the FACT that she did nothing wrong.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

Is that like when Hillary mentioned the video to the families of the victims when they brought their bodies to the US?

No, because when she mentioned the video she honestly believed at that time that it was to blame for what happened. Because that's what the experts in our government thought then. They didn't think it the day after, when Hillary contacted her daughter and the Egyptians, and they don't think it now, but they thought it then for about 8-10 days.No matter how you try and spin this into a lie by Hillary Clinton it wasn't one.

Bull s##t Tim. Go ask the families of the victims of how they feel about Hillary and what she said that day. It's one thing to defend her at all costs like you do but in this case this is pathetic. There was no reason to bring up the video days later to the families of the victims.

With all due respect, it really doesn't matter how they feel about Hillary. Maybe they didn't like her before this event happened, in that case nothing would change their feelings toward her. Maybe they believe the republican rhetoric and blame her for their loved ones deaths. That still does not change the FACT that she did nothing wrong.

We can agree to disagree but bringing up that video to those families when anyone with common sense knows Hillary knew the video wasn't the issue was wrong.

 

[Chaka]

There was no reason to bring up the video days later to the families of the victims.

You're right. We should demand in investigation! We must know the truth!!!

 

[Ookie Pringle]

There was no reason to bring up the video days later to the families of the victims.

You're right. We should demand in investigation! We must know the truth!!!

 

[The Commish]

Still haven't heard what the "GET HER!!!" crowd wants to see happen from these hearings/investigations/committees.

Pretty sure it is all based on scoring political hits for 2016 but I would like to believe that it wasn't something so obvious and petty but I still haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Nothing tangible was ever going to come from it, but if it damages her credibility for some voters who may have considered her then I guess there's that?Really don't know what they wanted from these. I and most people I know would never vote for her no matter what.

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

not all that different than her supporters mocking the event on Twitter. Squishy has the Twitter tags

Oh, please. The "event" (read: clownshow with incompetent clowns) is deserving of some degree of mockery. You don't get to cheerlead this hyperpartisan exploitation of a real tragedy for 100% political purposes, then stand back and complain when supporters of Clinton want to poke fun at Gowdy and his fellow idiots. I'm not indulging in it myself, because the whole deterioration of the Republican party into a shockingly ignorant kookfest is more disturbing than amusing, but here you go again with the false equivalency. You're very skilled at it, if "skilled" is the right term.

Of course it is...who said otherwise? There's plenty of mockery to go around, but you don't have to use the deaths as the punchline. Low class at best I'm also beginning to understand you don't know what "false equivalency" is (or at best don't know it when you see it) because I have yet to equate anything. Is this a TGunz alias I didn't know about?

 

[Chaka]

We can agree to disagree but bringing up that video to those families when anyone with common sense knows Hillary knew the video wasn't the issue was wrong.

Well, was the other information that you say she possessed at the time classified?

 

[RBM]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

 

[RBM]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

 

[squistion]

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

not all that different than her supporters mocking the event on Twitter. Squishy has the Twitter tags

Oh, please. The "event" (read: clownshow with incompetent clowns) is deserving of some degree of mockery. You don't get to cheerlead this hyperpartisan exploitation of a real tragedy for 100% political purposes, then stand back and complain when supporters of Clinton want to poke fun at Gowdy and his fellow idiots. I'm not indulging in it myself, because the whole deterioration of the Republican party into a shockingly ignorant kookfest is more disturbing than amusing, but here you go again with the false equivalency. You're very skilled at it, if "skilled" is the right term.

No one was ever mocking the deaths of the four Americans. It was this 8th uncessary committee on Benghazi, in which the only intent, was to bring down Hillary's popularity and poll numbers, as admitted by three prominent Republicans.

 

[Johnnymac]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

 

[Chaka]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

 

[Chaka]

I wish the "GET HER!!!" crowd would wake up and realize that Hillary does a perfectly suitable job of smearing her own name and they are not helping the cause with these ridiculous witch hunts.

If you really want to hurt her you should be throwing all your resources behind Bernie Sanders and make her have to fight a protracted battle for the democratic nomination in advance of having to fight one for the White House.

You should also get your house in order because she will wipe the floor with guys like Trump and Carson. Seriously, what is wrong with the Republican Party (the once proud party of Ronald Regan, who would be castigated as too liberal by the current party leadership) that those two jokers are able to lead the polls for even a minute let alone several weeks/months?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Secretary of State.

 

[Johnnymac]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

 

[The Commish]

Nice admission of the exploitation of a tragedy in which people lost their lives.

Guess that about sums it up

not all that different than her supporters mocking the event on Twitter. Squishy has the Twitter tags

Oh, please. The "event" (read: clownshow with incompetent clowns) is deserving of some degree of mockery. You don't get to cheerlead this hyperpartisan exploitation of a real tragedy for 100% political purposes, then stand back and complain when supporters of Clinton want to poke fun at Gowdy and his fellow idiots. I'm not indulging in it myself, because the whole deterioration of the Republican party into a shockingly ignorant kookfest is more disturbing than amusing, but here you go again with the false equivalency. You're very skilled at it, if "skilled" is the right term.

No one was ever mocking the deaths of the four Americans. It was this 8th uncessary committee on Benghazi, in which the only intent, was to bring down Hillary's popularity and poll numbers, as admitted by three prominent Republicans.

I guess you left of some important context then. Shocking

 

[RBM]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

What are you bangin her?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

Correct. You dont have a lot in regards to "security" for the Sec of State. You have a lot of politicians, not security people.

Besides Colin Powell (who got ran out of office) it doesnt seem to be the stated requirement. It seems you need to know how Washington DC works... or be in good with the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States

 

[Ookie Pringle]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

I know she was the Secretary of State. It was my auto spell. And I suggest you Google what the Secretary of State responsibilities are.http://m.state.gov/md115194.htm

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

I know she was the Secretary of State. It was my auto spell. And I suggest you Google what the Secretary of State responsibilities are.

#1 is diplomatic issues.

You may want to google it for yourself.

 

[Johnnymac]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

I know she was the Secretary of State. It was my auto spell. And I suggest you Google what the Secretary of State responsibilities are.http://m.state.gov/md115194.htm

I'm not going to google it, but if you are suggesting the SOS should have a background in security operations, I'm not sure that we have had many of those. My understanding is that person is the chief diplomat. Diplomacy and security are two different things.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

I know she was the Secretary of State. It was my auto spell. And I suggest you Google what the Secretary of State responsibilities are.http://m.state.gov/md115194.htm

I'm not going to google it, but if you are suggesting the SOS should have a background in security operations, I'm not sure that we have had many of those. My understanding is that person is the chief diplomat. Diplomacy and security are two different things.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

I know she was the Secretary of State. It was my auto spell. And I suggest you Google what the Secretary of State responsibilities are.

#1 is diplomatic issues.

You may want to google it for yourself.

Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;

 

[Bucky86]

Security of State.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Lol at either side worrying about tax payer money.

I guess you have missed congress unable to agree on a government spending bill for almost a decade now, or sequestration. Or the Tea Party or the state of Illinois unable to pay their lottery winners.

Yeah, what's $20 million on a witch hunt?. :X

 

[Doctor Detroit]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

What are you bangin her?

Why you jealous? Seems like it.

 

[Bucky86]

Israeli troops are entering Syria.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

It would surprise me. What does Hillary know about security? It's like she has said, I leave that up to the security professionals. I believe her when she says that and it makes total sense. She knows nothing about those matters and frankly it's not her job.

Is this a joke? She was the Security of State.

No it's not a joke. I will ask you this, if you needed security is Hillary the person you are combing through the yellow pages to find? Or would it be someone who, you know, actually knew about security stuff? The security questions need to be handled by security experts. And she was not "security" of state, she was "secretary" of state.

I know she was the Secretary of State. It was my auto spell. And I suggest you Google what the Secretary of State responsibilities are.http://m.state.gov/md115194.htm

I'm not going to google it, but if you are suggesting the SOS should have a background in security operations, I'm not sure that we have had many of those. My understanding is that person is the chief diplomat. Diplomacy and security are two different things.

Not taking a position here, just trying to answer the question.

This is the ARB:

As the President’s personal representative, the Chief of Mission bears “direct and full responsibility for the security of [his or her] mission and all the personnel for whom [he or she is] responsible,” and thus for risk management in the country to which he or she is accredited. In Washington, each regional Assistant Secretary has a corresponding responsibility to support the Chief of Mission in executing this duty. Regional bureaus should have augmented support within the bureau on security matters, to include a senior DS officer to report to the regional Assistant Secretary.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

I'm not sure who the Chief of Mission was. As you may know the Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks was demoted. It's not clear why.

Other persons punished are described below by FP:

Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell resigned. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Embassy Security Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Raymond Maxwell, and a third as yet unidentified diplomatic security official were placed on "administrative leave" pending further action.

"The ARB identified the performance of four officials, three in the Bureau of the Diplomatic Security and one in the Bureau of Near East Asia Affairs," State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement late Wednesday evening. "The Secretary has accepted Eric Boswell’s decision to resign as Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, effective immediately. The other three individuals have been relieved of their current duties. All four individuals have been placed on administrative leave pending further action."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/20/mid-level-officials-take-the-fall-for-benghazi/

As Hillary implied - and as the VA scandal shows - it's nearly impossible to fire civil service federal employees. (I might be corrected on that but again look at what has happened with the VA - nothing).

The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.

"Cheryl Mills directed me to remove you immediately from the [deputy assistant secretary] position," Jones told Maxwell, according to Maxwell.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

For all intensive purposes Mills is Hillary. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Maxwell reported to Jones who reported to Hillary. But that does not mean that Hillary crafted the policy at issue here.

People like Boswell and Lamb being suspended or punished makes sense to me, they appear by title to be in charge of security. On the other hand it seems really, really hard to believe they could or would resist so many requests for security without some policy from higher up being implemented. To me it makes sense that the administration did not want any military interaction with Libyans on the ground. That may have even been a condition of our bombing Libya at the beginning. Obviously we bombed Khaddafi's forces - and Khadaffi himself - but it seems logical to me that the administration from the beginning never wanted any appearance of actual military presence on the ground in Libya. This was true even after our allies' pulled their own missions out. That decision stemming from broader policy would not have come from Hillary is my guess. And I say that not just because of the nature of the decision but also because we know Hillary was pro-intervention, my guess is in reality she would have liked to have had boots on the ground but could not say that in the hearings because it wasn't her decision. Also as the ARB points out the Chief of Mission is the President's representative, not the SOS's. Again I don't see who that was after all this, maybe it was Stevens himself, but the ARB makes clear also that it is the regional Assistant Secretary's duty to support the chief of mission in his requests. It seems to me that should have been Beth Jones, but she still would have had to follow White House policy.

Pure speculation I know, but again it's good to look at the facts from what we know.

 

[RBM]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

What are you bangin her?

Why you jealous? Seems like it.

Uh oh, you got me.

 

[Bucky86]

Israeli troops are entering Syria.

Israeli pilot hostage rescue

 

[cubd8]

RBM your version of the truth IMO is heavily skewed by what I would call the right wing bubble. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or anyone else deliberately lied and I don't believe they did. There's no conclusive proof that Hillary or a one close to her level is to blame for the lack of security at Benghazi and I don't believe she was.

Didn't she admit that she lied in the hearing the other day? Wasn't there email from 9/12 from her admitting it was a terrorist attack and not a video protest?Not sure how much more concrete you can get than that.

No.

She was clearly full of crap about the video being the reason for the attack.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

What are you bangin her?

Why you jealous? Seems like it.

Uh oh, you got me.

I thought so.

 

[Chaka]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

What are you bangin her?

No, I am not.

What I am is someone who foolishly believes that one should stand up for their values and not make them subservient to "scoring points" against the "other side". I am someone who believes that well founded principles make their own arguments and standing by them demands no chicanery to diminish the opposition. I am someone who recognizes that political parties as they exist today are destroying our republic and that we are, today, far closer to the ideals of Idiocracy than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

I am prepared for the that will follow such a "foolish" and "idealistic" post but I think that most of the sincerely politically active/interested people in here would prefer to follow my vision if they didn't feel so defeated by the lowest common denominator. But IMO gaining "wins" through those means are just giving in to slower defeats for everyone and it becomes just a matter of trying to be the last one who drowns.

Reap it.

 

[timschochet]

And let's be honest, I bet she knew about the security requests and had no interest. Would that really surprise anyone? She is pretty vile.

That was your attempt at "lets be honest" to go full conspiracy mode and then levy an insult?

Conspiracy is a bit much.

Perhaps but throwing out completely unsubstantiated accusations, particularly accusations of such a heinous nature and likely motivated by the same desire to smear her name exclusively for political as you acknowledged earlier could also be considered pretty vile.

What are you bangin her?

Why you jealous? Seems like it.

Well I am if he's not.

 

[RBM]

Goes without saying Tim

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's exchange with Congressman Jim Jordan over video and emails.

This is the complete exchange, one I posted earlier did not include Hillary's final response after Jordan concluded his questions for that session:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PLNngNtQc

This is the text of the exchange. I am leaving out a fair bit of what Jordan said, leaving in the evidence he was pointing to and the main questions, but I'm leaving in all of Hillary's response, but I am also going to include the prior discussion with Sanchez which Jordan follow up on:

SANCHEZ: ...So, can you describe for us what the initial hours of that night were like for you and how you learned about the attacks? And what your initial thoughts and actions were?

CLINTON: Well, Congresswoman, I learned about the attacks from a State Department official rushing into my office shortly after or around 4 o'clock, to tell me that our compound in Benghazi had been attacked. We immediately summoned all of the top officials in the State Department for them to begin reaching out. The most important, quick call was to try to reach Chris himself. That was not possible. Then to have the diplomatic security people try to reach their agents. That was not possible. They were obviously defending themselves, along with the ambassador and Sean Smith.

We reached the second in command in Tripoli. He had heard shortly before we reached him, from Chris Stevens, telling him that they were under attack. We began to reach out to everyone we could possibly think who could help with this terrible incident.

During the course of the, you know, following hours, obviously I spoke to the White House. I spoke to CIA Director Petraeus. I spoke to the Libyan officials because I hoped that there was some way that they could gather up and deploy those who had been part of the insurgency to defend our compound.

I had conference calls with our team in Tripoli. I was on a -- what's called a SVTS, a, you know, videoconference with officials who had operational responsibilities in the Defense Department, in the CIA, at the National Security Council.

It was just a swirl and whirl of constant effort to try to figure out what we could do. And it was deeply -- it was deeply distressing when we heard that the efforts by our CIA colleagues were not successful, that they had had to evacuate the security officers, our diplomatic security officers, that they had recovered Sean Smith's body and they could not find the ambassador.

We didn't know whether he had escaped and was still alive or not.

...And also the Defense Department was doing everything it could possibly do. We had a plane bringing additional security from Tripoli to Benghazi. There was an enormous amount of activity, everyone. It was all hands on deck, everyone jumped in to try to figure out what they could do. The attack on the compound was very fast.

...JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You just gave a long answer, Madam Secretary, to Ms. Sanchez about what you heard that night, what you're doing. But nowhere in there did you mention a video. You didn't mention a video because there was never a video-inspired protest in Benghazi. There was in Cairo but not in Benghazi.

Victoria Nuland, your spokesperson at the State Department, hours after the attacks said this, "Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators." ...

...At 10:08, on the night of the attack, you released this statement, "Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

At 10:08, with no evidence, at 10:08, before the attack is over, at 10:08, when Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are still on the roof of the annex, fighting for their lives, the official statement of the State Department blames a video.

Why?

CLINTON: During the day on September 11th, as you did mention, Congressman, there was a very large protest against our embassy in Cairo. Protesters breached the walls. They tore down the American flag. And it was of grave concern to us because the inflammatory video had been shown on Egyptian television, which has a broader reach than just inside Egypt.

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.

I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

And, in fact, during the course of that week, we had many attacks that were all about the video. We had people breaching the walls of our embassies in Tunis, in Khartoum; we had people, thankfully not Americans, dying at protests. But that's what was going on, Congressman.

JORDAN: Secretary Clinton, I appreciate most of those attacks were after the attack on the facility in Benghazi. You mentioned Cairo. It was interesting what else Ms. Nuland said that day.

She said, "If pressed by the press, if there's a connection between Cairo and Benghazi," she said this, "there's no connection between the two."

...I want to show you a few things here. You're looking at an e- mail you sent to your family.

Here's what you said at 11:00 that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group."

...Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him.

"Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility."

It's interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group.

And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister.

You told him this, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

Let me read that one more time.

"We know," not we think, not it might be, "we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

...Why didn't you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?

...

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, there was a lot of conflicting information that we were trying to make sense of. The situation was very fluid. It was fast-moving. There was also a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia. And when I talked to the Egyptian prime minister, I said that this was a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia, by a group that was affiliated -- or at least wanted to be affiliated -- with Al Qaida.

Sometime after that, the next -- next day, early the next morning after that, on the 12th or 13th, they retracted their claim of responsibility.

...And I think if -- if you look at what all of us were trying to do, and we were in a position, Congressman, of trying to make sense of a lot of incoming information...

...... and watch the way the intelligence community tried to make sense of it.

JORDAN: Madam Secretary, there was not...conflicting -- there was not conflicting information the day of the attack, because your press secretary said, "if pressed, there is no connection between Cairo and Benghazi." It was clear. You're the ones who muddied it up, not the -- not the information.

...Let me show you one more slide. Again, this is from Victoria Nuland, your press person. She says to Jake Sullivan, Philippe Reines. Subject line reads this: Romney's Statement on Libya.

E-mail says, "This is what Ben was talking about." I assume Ben is the now-somewhat-famous Ben Rhodes, author of the talking points memo. This e-mail's at 10:35, 27 minutes after your 10:08 -- 27 minutes after you've told everyone it's a video, while Americans are still fighting because the attack's still going on, your top people are talking politics.

It seems to me that night you had three options, Secretary. You could tell the truth, like you did with your family, like you did with the Libyan president, like you did with the Egyptian prime minister -- tell them it was a terrorist attack.

You could say, "you know what, we're not quite sure. Don't -- don't really know for sure." I don't -- I don't think the evidence -- I think it's all in the person (ph) -- but you could have done that.

But you picked the third option. You picked the video narrative. You picked the one with no evidence.

...GOWDY: Madam Secretary, you're welcome to answer the question, if you would like to.

CLINTON: Well, I wrote a whole chapter about this in my book, Hard Choices. I'd be glad to send it to you, Congressman, because I think the insinuations that you are making do a grave disservice to the hard work that people in the State Department, the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the White House did during the course of some very confusing and difficult days.

There is no doubt in my mind that we did the best we could with the information that we had at the time. And if you'd actually go back and read what I said that night...I was very -- I was very careful in saying that some have sought to justify. In fact, the man that has been arrested as one of the ringleaders of what happened in Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khattala, is reported to have said it was the video that motivated him.

None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex. There were probably a number of different motivations.

I think the intelligence community, which took the lead on trying to sort this out, as they should have, went through a series of interpretations and analysis. And we were all guided by that.

We were not making up the intelligence. We were trying to get it, make sense of it, and then to share it.

When I was speaking to the Egyptian prime minister or in the other two examples you showed, we had been told by Ansar al-Sharia that they took credit for it. It wasn't until about 24 or more hours later, that they retracted taking credit for it.

We also knew, Congressman, because my responsibility was what was happening throughout the region, I needed to be talking about the video, because I needed to put other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us, as they did in Tunis, is they did in Khartoum.

And in Tunis there were thousands of protesters who were there only because of the video, breaching the calls of our embassy, burning down the American school. I was calling everybody in the Tunisian government I could get, and finally, President Marzouki sent his presidential guard to break it up. There were -- is example after example. That's what I was trying to do, during those very desperate and difficult hours.

JORDAN: ...Secretary Clinton, you said my insinuation. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm reading what you said. Plain language. We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. That's as plain as it can get; that's vastly different than vicious behavior justified by Internet material.

Why didn't you just speak plain to the American people?

CLINTON: I did. If you look at my statement as opposed to what I was saying to the Egyptian prime minister, I did state clearly, and I said it again in more detail the next morning, as did the president.

I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, Congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were. And the facts, as the Democratic members have pointed out in their most recent collection of them, support this process that was going on, where the intelligence community was pulling together information.

And it's very much harder to do it these days than it used to be, because you have to monitor social media, for goodness's sakes. That's where the Ansar al-Sharia claim was placed. The intelligence committee did the best job they could, and we all did our best job to try to figure out what was going on, and then to convey that to the American people.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Hillary destroyed Jordan in at exchange. Have no idea how he will be elected after bein undressed like hat, but I'm sure his district is full of true believers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary destroyed Jordan in at exchange. Have no idea how he will be elected after bein undressed like hat, but I'm sure his district is full of true believers.

Which evidence did Hillary point to which you think really sealed it for her?