Benghazi Commission: The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Political Career

Bring on the laughing loon, Joe Biden. I don't think Hillary will have the stomach to run after this.

 

You might be on to something....

 

Now be fair. He obviously was using that new Common Core math to figure out the time; you know the stuff that does not require the student to come up with the correct answer, just to generally comprehend in a vague sort of way what the end goal is supposed to be . . .

 

Classified briefings wrt what the CIA was doing and what Stevens was doing.

weren't. Page 27 Senate intell report:

FINDING #5: There were "tripwires" designed to prompt a reduction in
personnel or the suspension of operations at the Mission facility in Benghazi
and although there is evidence that some of them had been crossed, operations
continued with minimal change. Some nations closed their diplomatic
facilities in Benghazi as the security conditions deteriorated during the
summer of 2012, but other nations stayed along with the United States,
contrary to some public reports and statements that the U.S. was the last
country represented in Benghazi.

Pages 12 thru 22 of the Senate Intell committee report

FINDING #2: The State Departmegt should have increased its security .
posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security
sltu~tion on the ground and IC threat re~orting on the ·P-rior attack$ against
West~tners in Bengha~i-i~cluding two incidents at the Temporary Mission
Facility on April 6 and June 6, 2012.

Q4. Do you know why an Ambassador asking for more security days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do YOU know the reason why those requests went unheeded? [/quote]

See Q3. Also take particular note of the timeline and the resulting recommendations.

pages 28 thru 31 senate intell committee report:

FINDING #7: There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene
in short order in Benghazi to help defend the Temporary Mission Facility and
its Annex on September 11 and 12, 2012.

Why on earth would he? I can just imagine what the right would say if Obama actually had called upon american allies to help.
If you can provide us all this a single instance in history of an american president asking an ally to render combat assistance because americans didn't have available resources, please let us all know.

Susan Rice was picked because she was a highly respected Ambassador to the UN. As to the claim she didn't like sunday talk shows, that has no bearing on taking orders, does it? I never heard of a faithful minion decling an order because the didn't like the assignment.

She went on the talk shows for the same reaons that every other pol goes on the sunday talk shows. If there wasn't some political benefit to communicating in such venues, then they wouldn't exist.

Yet another totally bogus question of NO RELEVANCE to the events.

Pages 31 to 35 of the Senate Intell report:

FINDING #9: In finished reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence
analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the Mission
facility before the attack based on open source information and limited
intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to
corroborate that assertion. The IC took too long to correct these erroneous
reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of
policymakers.


If you have any other oft investigated and answered questions, please feel free to read the 13 official reports on the subject before being appearing to be a partisan patsy.

 

This kinda goes back to one of Gowdys questions though doesnt it?

Did we ask anyone else what assets they might have if we didnt have anything? We dont know.

Lots of unknowns.

 

What are the names of these CIA agents and what evidence do you have to support this story?

 

Think what you will, but they haven't been able to produce any dirt in 13 seperate investigations and the Gowdy's first opening statement and the list of questions that are supposedly unaswered are answered pretty thoroughly within all those reports.

Hmmmmmm. could it be that they have over played their hand? could it be a convenient side show to detract from growing acceptance of obamacare, improved economic news, improved job markets, and drastically reduced deficits? It kind leaves the argument of "but it shudda been faster/higher/better" than it was. And naturally the GOP had absolutely no hand in why it wasn't.

 

the media and Democrat party know that only Hillary can secure the WH for them. Benghazi has thus been buried

 

What Republicans don't seem to understand is that it is in the Democrats' best interest to stonewall this thing until the end of October. If it wasn't in their best interest, they would have stopped stonewalling by now. Wait for the hammer to drop mid to late October when the make Republicans look even more sniveling than they do now.

 

That's absolutely contradicted by Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta ("We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that").

And the qualifying phrase "in short order" is absolutely moot as we were attacked for hours on end. Let's nail that escape hatch shut.

Because presumably he cared about the people that were left to die, but admittedly this is all speculation
not supported by his actions whatsoever.

So Obama's
fragile ego is worth sacrificing four valued American lives for? I'm going to get sick.

It happened so many times in the World War II it's practically impossible to calculate. Try again.

Well that's a nice way of saying they were grimly hanging onto a lie.
Two hours into the attack itself the White House was informed by CIA people on the ground that Ansar al Sharia attacked us.

 

Obama wasn't using the powers of Congress to attack Bush in order to win an election, Republicans are trying to use a terrorist attack against Obama and Clinton for political reasons, where they step over the line is when they try to use the powers of congress to do it

terrorists are probably sitting in their caves going "haha, look at that, we attack Benghazi and republicans attach democrats, when they done fighting we do it again"... republicans have made us less safe and more open to attacks in the future

.

.

 

1) being top secret isn't an answer it is a cop out

2) yes there was other foreign presence in Benghazi but not in any official capacity like the US and that is what is meant as the last flag flying

3) the report admitted a screw up still doesn't explain why there was a screw up and who was responsible and should be held accountable

4) same as 3)

5) Bull Crap. do you actually believe we didn't have any aircraft on alert fueled and armed in an area known for terrorist activity on 9/11 hours after a violent demonstrations in Egypt? we have fighter jets stationed in Italy a half hour flight from Benghazi and you want us to believe they sat in a hanger unfueled and unarmed on 9/11 hours after violent demonstrations in Egypt? if they was someone needs to explain why. it is bull crap and you know it our military isn't that incompetent the commander in chef is but not the military

6) so you want to claim Obama rather let four Americans die then face supposed ridicule from republicans? sounds about right

7) the most tragic moment in H.Clintons time as SoS and instead of facing the music answer some questions she ran and hid. is that your answer? and you would vote for her to run a country?

8 ) not one smidgen of intelligence from on the seen there in Benghazi pointed to a video. every one said it was a preplanned terrorist attack that was there and or had real time intel. the video never was mentioned till way after the attack. the next day it just some how appealed in the talking points with not one once of evidence showing it started as a demonstration over a vid it magically appeared in the talking points for no other reason but political ones. it wasn't based on any reality or facts

 

Here is what you said..........I think we need to req republicans in congress email and see if anyone talks about Benghazi as a political stunt to try and win the 2016 election, that would be proof they were doing this for political reasons. Now how is my response inappropriate considering your post? And if Obama and Clinton have nothing to hide then this investigation should be of no concern. Much to your dismay, Congress has the right to launch an investigation irrespective of what party controls Congress.

Do you really think that terrorists give a damn about our politics? Please.

 

that was not contradicted. you might want to look at the timeline of the response from both the senate report and the armed services committee report.

And yes, there were three seperate attacks over the course of five or six hours.
Are you suggesting that not knowing that additional attacks were going to happen is somehow a cover up? This has been examined in minute detail.

No, for somebody who excoriated the president for bowing to deep to an ally's head of state, you appear to be astonishingly selective in your pukiness.

You wish to compare the actions during a full blown shooting war where all allies were already in the field to requesting combat action from an ally who was not combat ready and where there was a dearth of on scene intell during the immediate course? I suppose I could have been a tad more precise in the absence of common sense.

Refusal to read the results of the investigation is telling. You might also have read what both STATE and the FBI said about implicating anyone in the early stages of an investigation, i.e. that night and the following day.

 

YOU say we did not have assets in place to rescue our people in Benghazi.
LEON PANETTA says we did. Gee....who I am going to believe?
Are you claiming that Obama's directives were just ignored by the military wing of our government?

I'm saying no one in the White House was an omniscient wizard and able to know with certainty how long we would be under attack.
To do nothing under the assumption that we would not be invaded anymore is so absurd it doesn't even merit a response, except to say it's absurd. Do you feel ridiculous offering up such weak excuses?

For you to claim that the president wouldn't seek help from allies in Benghazi because republicans would make fun of him
is about the craziest thing anyone has ever said. For real!
If that were the case Obama would never do anything. Ever! It also says Obama cares more for his precious bruised ego than the lives of our
finest Americans (which may be closer to the truth than it seems, given he abandoned them to spare his reelection campaign the embarrassment of a real terrorist attack).

Yeah, it was your open ended question but for a more specific example why not look back at the Iraq war when Israel and Egypt were asked for access to their air space and Israel gave the U.S. lots of secret intell on Iraq.
So no matter how you look at it, your claim was over reaching and easily disproved.

So using a non existent protest is okay when it comes to justifying the attack on us, speaking of unreliable intell, but solid eyewitness claims made by reliable sources are somehow not reliable enough?

That's called politicizing the investigation and it doesn't even make sense on any level. In a choice between the fake made up intelligence, and the
real truth the White House decided to throw in with a known lie.

 

Now why on Earth would Obama let his opponents gain a political advantage over him when all he needs to do to make them look crazy and solidify the next President as a democrat by simply telling the truth.
What scares you so about the President telling us the truth? Have the lambs stopped crying yet? ff ff f f ff

 

It's been long since over, the left just doesn't know it yet.

 

So where do we draw the line? Do we allow things to happen today because they occurred in the 20th Century, or 10 years ago? Shouldn't we "progress" in our ideals and not repeat the mistakes of the past? So what you're saying it was quite all right to have the first Ambassador killed in 30 years, three fellow Americans killed and several wounded because Reagan was President when terrorists bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut. Obviously you failed Logic 101, that's if you ever made it that far in your education.

 

Tyrone S. Woods, Glen A. Doherty, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and the wounded Diplomatic Security agent David Ubben. We do know that Woods and Doherty were under contract to the CIA. Technically they were CIA agents. There is also information out there that claims up to twenty-eight other Americans located at the 'annex' were wounded during the fire-fight. However, in the judgment of our dear leader we are still kept in the dark as to whom they are or their locations.

 

Did they?

How about you prove that.

 

The terrorists care about our politics. They, unlike us, care to know everything about their enemy. The politics of Benghazi has almost certainly emboldened them. They have tasted victory. The fact that the US government is misleading its people about their attacks gives them hope, and recruits; it is a sure sign that their strategy is succeeding.

 

no amount of preplanning can help in a dangerous world. Do we have unlimited resources to make every outpost a fortress? No. (*)(*)(*)(*) happens.

Reagan's act of placing the marines in harm's way to show strength contravened the advice of his own cabinet. It was his fault.

 

Well, we can start with why hasn't this bill passed? http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1186

 

Then you better read up on the upgrades and what was done at Embassies while denials to increased security made to Stevens at the same time. BTW there was no problem with funding at the State Dept. that's a sham.

 

When you say "in", what exactly do you mean? Certainly you don't mean "into"? As in into Libya? Because I have been searching and searching, and I can't find an asset that moved into Libya during the entire 8 hours, except for 1 drone. Please show me if you know.