Another Benghazi Bombshell

For one, the ARB was assigned by the very organization that it was supposed to investigate. That would be like you getting to decide your own fate in a trial.

 

Did Powell and Rice really do that?

• January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
  
  
• June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
  
  
• October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.”
  
  
• February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
  
  
• May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
  
  
• July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
  
  
• December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
  
  
• March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.
  
  
• September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
  
  
• January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy.
  
  
• March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy.
  
  
• July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
  
  
• September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband.This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

​

How many congressional hearings were held for each of the above?

No need to dance around that question. A straightforward, honest answer will do nicely.

 

Did they lie and try to blame it all on a video in order to sway an election? If not, I don't see your point.

 

Not sure what that has to do with what Hillary did other than deflection.

 

Media matters destroyed this latest bombshell with the truth. Nothing here folks, move along.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/16/on-msnbcs-politicsnation-david-brock-debunks-ri/200777

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/15/scrubbed-benghazi-docs-bombshell-is-based-on-ev/200756

 

LOL, the same Soros Media Matters that is league with the WH. Go figure.

 

I have no idea if they also quoted an initial CIA attribution to a provocative anti-Muslim video, because rabid repubs are hellbent on ignoring all the carnage under their purview.

You refuse to accord equal treatment because you subscribe to the relentless fatwa against Hillary Clinton, and are loathe to accept the official findings of the bipartisan congressional hearings that have already investigated the matter.

Squander more millions of taxpayer dollars if your fanaticism demands it, but don't expect to pleasure yourself with results that fit your partisan agenda any more than the insane $55 million series of futile attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It's the "birther" lunacy all over again.

 

Obviously, you need to avoid the glaring parallels if your fatwa is to remained focused on your target.

If the Repubs cannot find a viable candidate to present to the American electorate, all their frenetic dung flinging will go for naught.



.

 

Understood.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice accusation. Now prove it or please admit you are just slinging libel to support your own political agenda.

 

Yeah, please ignore all the false BS that has been pushed on this topic in the past couple of years and accept this little innuendo as the highest quality information available.....

 

You guys crack me up. Facts are most definitely partisan in your world. Keep watching Fox and reading Drudge, try some Mark Levin or Michael Savage for faux intellectualism training. While the right wing blathers along creating fantasies, the rest of us will sit patiently while you have your latest temper tantrum over the latest right wing hoax or mythology. I just hope you have as many hearings on it as you did worthless votes on Obamacare. You are getting there.

 

When you stop listening to MSNBC and can fully explain why the WH and State pushed the video excuse for weeks prior to the election, let me know, umkay?

 

Hi [MENTION=65387]Woolley[/MENTION]:
Maybe you can help me clarify some of these "myths"

1. Can you explain to me why it is considered a rightwing "myth" that natural laws and rights are preexisting, as a component of
human nature by design, and do not rely on Govt to give these rights to people; but it is the other way, the people are supposed to enforce the checks on govt to PREVENT collective power from being abused to override individual rights and freedoms (also called liberty or free choice)

The Right seems to be believe this is a given, and that the Constitutional laws are written to check AGAINST overreaches of govt power.
The Left seems to see this as a religious belief that isn't necessary;a nd what is necessary is for GOVT to be used to grant protections,
rights and freedoms for the people.

Which is the religious belief? Or under law, aren't BOTH kinds of people supposed to have equal choice and access
to exercise their beliefs? either way?

2. Can you explain to me how the liberal left promotes freedom of choice for abortion, and "separation of church and state"
(where just because someone else believes Jesus is the only way to God, this cannot be forced by federal govt on everyone else)
but then wants to
* ban the choice of health care through any other way of paying for it except "insurance" -- as required by federal law, or else face tax penalties forcing payment into such a govt system, ie not the choice of paying into health care by free market if that is what you believe in

Isn't this the same as nationalizing a religious principle that "health care is a right that belongs through govt"
and no other way is allowed but it will be fined? isn't it forcing the belief that 'govt is the ONLY way' to manage health care equally?
how is that any different from someone forcing a religious belief that going through Jesus or the Christian church is the "only way"
to manage charity for all people equally?

* ban the choice of reparative therapy, even if people want this and it has shown to work for people.
how can the choice or reparative therapy be so harmful and dangerous that it should be banned
but not the choice of abortion? if you trust adults or even teenagers with the choice of abortion, why not the choice of therapy?

I have other questions, but if you can answer those,
I'd certainly like to get this straight, which religious beliefs are myths and why political beliefs are okay to impose on the public through govt.

 

1. >>The late 1700s were filled with ideas from a number of the greatest minds the world has ever seen. These ideas were highly influential to our founders since they all had classical educations. We have been blessed by having so many intellectual giants at the time of our founding. If you want to know more about this, read Locke, Hume and Rouseaux, Hobbes too. The real giants were Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Paine.
2. >>It's the federalist against the anti-federalists or the dreamers against the realists. Realists have emerged in both parties over the years but they always had the interests of the people in their hearts. Dreamers tend to follow ghosts.
3. >>You are free to do what you want personally. When governing, religion has no place.
4. >> If jesus could answer all prayers, we would not need doctors.
5. >>Pragmatism dictates the answer. I ask you, do you believe that all human beings deserve to be helped when they are sick? If you do, then the government is the only option the worlds nations have decided works. If you think it works through the marketplace, explain how a penniless person gets care in that world? This is an argument about desired outcomes. Either you want everyone to be cared for or you don't. Either you believe the life of a poor person is equal to a rich person or you don't. It's that simple.

At the very core of your post is a debate not about methods but about outcomes. The left believes that all of us are equal irrespective of your wealth, culture, education or choices. The right wants to judge people, not children, adults. Its a schism that persists which is part of who we are as a nation. It does not really exist in other more ancient cultures. They consider us as teenagers, we act like teenagers ignoring our elders because we think we know it all. We don't.

 

That you have to engage is such hyperbole only shows your desperation for lack of a defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes after it appears a coverup at the highest levels was taking place.

- - - Updated - - -

Dodge noted.

- - - Updated - - -

And what is it you have that refutes him? Convince me he is not to be believed.

 

And you dismiss it out of hand because................

 

Not a dodge but a observation, the site is actually Heritage Foundation.

what I have is....the FACT he says is hearsay and no concrete proof. You believe because you despise your president and Sec Clinton. I am simply asking for PROOF. Eye witness with NO PROOF isn't a reliable witness to me or most who think rationally and without bias.

 

There was no such a thing as 'Libyan security forces in Benghazi. All that existed was Militias and they failed.

 

Actually, I believe the Sec State is by law required to waive any security requirements not met. That is why the facility in Benghazi was not a consulate as labeling it so meant they state dept would have to make it secure or be on record waiving the security. I believe we would be far better if all waivers were a matter of public record complete with the name of the folk approving the waiver and the rationale.

 

I am afraid that is not right. While we should have marines at every embassy and in sufficient numbers to provide security, State tends to use them in places where ceremonial functions are more likely than security and uses contract security when real danger is expected. We have more marines in European Embassies than we do in Africa or the Middle east where the barbarians are likely to attack.

I watched an old 'Yes Prime Minister' episode the other day. The cabinet wanted to move the UK's military forces from the south of the country where the cost of living was high to the north where there was local unemployment an the cost of living was far less. The Ministry of Defense and the Civil service had a cow because moving serious command would be like moving Congressional offices to Duluth far from world class shopping and perks, inconceivable to senior officers. After a flip flop, this is how the idea went...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fx0LrSMsE

This is similar. Using marines in The Democrat republic of the Congo might mean no marines for ceremonial activities in tough assignments like Vienna. Inconceivable to senior Stare dept folk.

 

The source has been wrong consistently.....

 

The Heritage Foundation puts any and all leftist think tanks to shame for accuracy

 

Was there supposed to be Marines there? You made the statement.

 

If you watch the 2012 Congressional hearings regarding Benghazi on CSPAN, the SD did acknowledge they were required to meet the same security standards as any other diplomatic consulates/facilities/embassies. Apparently the SD did not vet the local militia they contracted very well. No surprise there.

 

They are authorized to be there, but I'm sure that is the call of the Secretary of State to designate how many and where.

http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2010/03/23/marine-corps-embassy-security-group/
MISSION:
The mission of the Marine Security Guard is to:
• provide internal security preventing the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
• provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S government property located within designated U.S. diplomatic and consular premises.

1,100 – The number of allocations for MSGs.