Clinton gets blasted by Paul

[Jarhead]

I see a pattern with this administration....

1) The Secretary of State gets so many cables, she is not expected to read everyone of them. Such was Clintons claim in regard to Benghazi and I agree.

2) The Attorney Generals office has so many operations and investigations going on at once, he is unable to be aware of the details fo all of them. Such was Holders claim in regard to Fast and Furious and I agree.

However.....

If the Secretary of State does not deem the cables of an embassy in the most volatile region in the world worthy of reading, then what IS worthy of reading

If the Attorney General does not have the time to be aware of a program where we are selling arms to the enemies of an ally (Drug Cartels/Mexico), which is one definition of an act of war, then what is deemed as more important that he IS aware of?

Seems to me one of two things. Either our Attorney General and Secretary of State are outright liars.....or....they are clueless as to how to prioritize.

Either way, they both should have been releived of their positions.

 

[Jarhead]

Someone should point out ot that senator who said "four words...weapons of mass destruction" the following:

The intellignece agencies of MANY countries all came to the conclusion that there were weapons of mass destruction...not just the White House.

The US White House administration was the ONLY entity that originally claimed that the attack at Benghazi was due to a spontaneous protest. As a matter of fact, the gover4nment of the nation where the attack took place correctly said it was undoubtedly an attack by terrorists and was preplanned and well orchestrated....and also correctly said there was no protest.

There is a big difference and I must question the integrity of a Senator who does not see that.

 

[healthmyths]

Hillary said in hearings 1/23/13..

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Read more: Hillary Clinton's Testimony: What Difference Will it Make? : The New Yorker

Oh I don't know Hillary... there was an upcoming re-election.
One of many Obama's weaknesses was perceived inattention to "terrorism".
After all how many times did we hear.."Osama is dead GM is alive"!!!!

So when 4 Americans are killed in a NOW acknowledged PLANNED methodical TERRORIST attack on the day of 9/11/2001...

What would the voters perception be if Obama's weakness against a small terrorist attack were publicized!

So in the depths of the Obama RE-ELECTION bosses... they are all pacing around.. "What can we do to mitigate the perception Obama's weak on Terrorism"?
"What can we blame OTHER then "terrorists"???

"Let's Send Susan Rice out and have her say ...

SUSAN RICE: (THESE ARE EXACT WORDS... I didn't make them up!!!)

"based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy –sparked by this hateful video.
But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent."
Actually, yes, Susan Rice did say the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous | WashingtonExaminer.com

IT WAS THE VIDEO!!! And so official spin...
Hillary Clinton’s comments to Woods raise even more questions about the White House’s official story on the Benghazi attack, which has already been extremely inconsistent.

After apologizing for his loss, Woods said Clinton told him that the U.S. would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

AGAIN WITH THE VIDEO!! It was the film maker's fault NOT Terrorism ! Official line at the time!!!

So HILLARY the DIFFERENCE IS by blaming the video you and Obama's political operatives DEFLECTED the gross weakness on Terrorism which was totally contrary to the
constant "OSAMA IS DEAD" narrative campaign slogans,etc. used to show Obama won the war on TERROR!!! Perceptually THAT IS!!!

And this perception added directly to voters false perception and Obama's re-election... again only 3,013,769 MORE people voted for Obama.
How many would NOT have 20% maybe ? if they heard Benghazi was a old fashioned thought to be dead TERRORISTS attack!
A 20% swing would meant a 1.2 million difference.. and that would have been contested!!!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Hillary came off as unhinged, A NUTTER.

 

[healthmyths]

So where are the "gutty" GOP members of these committees???

Everyone seems to tippy-toe around the major reason they are all upset and that being the political fodder Benghazi created!

After all Obama was touting "Osama Dead"... as his bone fides for fighting terrorism ... and then to have on 9/11/12 another planned Terrorist attack!
That didn't fit the campaign slogans.."Osama DEAD" when 4 Americans were murdered...
SO blame the video!!!

ANY GOPers standing up for that premise, i.e. a falsehood pushed by Rice, et.al. to cover their political re-election???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Im a little concerned that you guys are so excited about someone being "blasted" when they are supposed to merely be providing testimony concerning the events surounding Benghazi. These hearings are supposed to help us find the truth of what happened, but provide politicians with opportunities to "score points" or "blast" the opposition.

If this is the attitude of people on the right, it's no wonder Obama was reelected. This is corruption and we need to get it out of our hearts, our minds, and our government.

Sorry, but you lose me here. The "TRUTH" of what happened is already known. The minutia of the details are the only missing ingredient. For example:

(1) It is on the record that the embassy had been probed several times for weak spots. Several times, terrorists set explosives and, on one occasion fired RPGs at the embassy walls. Undeniable.

(2) Both the Ambassador AND The Chief of Consulate Security requested additional security on at least 2 occasions. The request was sent forward. Denied. The request wa made again. This time DIA help (2nd Special Operations Group) was requested and again, denied. On all of these occasions, the request was denied. The administration chose, instead, to offer contract work to (basically) street thugs and teenagers. Undeniable.

(3) When the attack started, as per protocol, Central Command was notified by the OD that they were, indeed, under attack and reinforcements (to include rapid reaction forces and Spectre gunships) were requested. Again, denied. Undeniable.

(4) The Consulate had a basic perimeter of nearly 3 acres being guarded by a force of "roughly" 11 individuals (The rest of the detail had been recalled and rotated back). This perimeter, staffed by these few individuals would be similar to that same amount of individuals attempting to secure Yankee Stadium by themselves. Undeniable.

(5) When the Consulate was overrun, two of the security personnel who had left the Consulate attempted to return to provide additional security and were ordered to "stand down" and "hold in place". They disobeyed and were eventually killed by mortar fire. Mortar fire by a group of "protestors". Undeniable.

These are merely a few of the undeniable FACTS that are easily documented. This has nothing whatsoever to do with one party attempting to "blast" anyone. This is about an inept Administration, Secretary of State, Department of State Security, and the Joint Military Command. And, since the "buck" stops at the presidents desk, the president himself.

Most of America already knows that these men were murdered and our government did nothing to prevent it.

You say that these hearings are supposed to provide testimony concerning the events in Benghazi. Fine. So when every politician that testifies that they basically "knew nothing" ala Bill Clinton, then are we to just say, "OK...nobody knew anything" case closed?

Richard Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace because some of his lackeys broke into an office at the Watergate. No one died. Do you not think that this rises to the level of criminal negligence at the very LEAST???

Or, do we do as most liberals say and just sweep this under the rug,yet again??? So some government dudes died. Who cares??

"With all due respect, the fact is that we had four dead Americans," "Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again."

She is saying she the motive doesn't make a difference. It is that exact thinking that has us stuck in this endless war on terrorism. It is that thinking that had a role in 9/11. We never stop to think, gee, why are these people hellbent on killing us? Everyone is fed it is because we are free and have range rovers and because of their religion... it is because we have been killing their family members and fucking off in their neck of the woods for DECADES. Motives matter.

....

[IMGhttp://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/149673_488263811194015_1852661204_n.jpg[/IMG]

More fucking morons:

"Comparing FY 2011 actual funding versus the FY 2012 estimate, there appears to be a reduction in Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance. But that reduction does not account for additional funding in FY 2012 from Overseas Contingency Operations funds amounting to $236 million for Worldwide Security Protection (p. 63) and $33 million for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (p. 467). As a result, total funds for Worldwide Security Protection for FY 2012 are estimated to be $94 million higher than in FY 2011, while Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance is estimated to be $61 million less than FY 2011. Together, there is a net increase."

Libya Security Lapse: The Budget for Embassy Security Is Not Responsible

And, they give you the page numbers in this to check: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181061.pdf

Spinning numbers at Heritage Blog?

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

For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, with varying degrees of success. This has brought about a deep sense of the importance of husbanding resources to meet the highest priorities, laudable in the extreme in any government department. But it has also had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.

There is no easy way to cut through this Gordian knot, all the more so as budgetary austerity looms large ahead. At the same time, it is imperative for the State Department to be mission-driven, rather than resource-constrained – particularly when being present in increasingly risky areas of the world is integral to U.S. national security.

The recommendations in this report attempt to grapple with these issues and err on the side of increased attention to prioritization and to fuller support for people and facilities engaged in working in high risk, high threat areas. The solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security.

One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives.


Mindful of these considerations, the ARB has examined the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with an eye towards how we can better advance American interests and protect our personnel in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. This Board presents its findings and recommendations with the unanimous conclusion that while the United States cannot retreat in the face of such challenges, we must work more rigorously and adeptly to address them, and that American diplomats and security professionals, like their military colleagues, serve the nation in an inherently risky profession.

Risk mitigation involves two imperatives – engagement and security – which require wise leadership, good intelligence and evaluation, proper defense and strong preparedness and, at times, downsizing, indirect access and even withdrawal. There is no one paradigm. Experienced leadership, close coordination and agility, timely informed decision making, and adequate funding and personnel resources are essential.

The selfless courage of the four Americans who died in the line of duty in Benghazi on September 11-12, 2012, as well as those who were injured and all those who valiantly fought to save their colleagues, inspires all of us as we seek to draw the right lessons from that tragic night.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/hillary.jpg/IMG][/CENTER][/quote]:eek:

Put it all together
[B]
"What difference, [I]at this point[/I], does it make?"[/B] What was Secretary Clinton referring to?

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. [B]If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans. What difference [I]at this point[/I] does it make?[/B]

“It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer my questions about this but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information … but you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided to do it, as to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”[/QUOTE]

We all know the Secretary is well respected and that no one with any credibility has accused her of lying because there is no credible reason for her to lie...

But we in America have a conspiracy fringe that is alive and well..

:rofl: :rofl: :laugh2: :rofl: :rofl:


---

[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Red"]The ARB [/COLOR][/SIZE]

[quote][B]FINDINGS[/B]
In examining the circumstances of these attacks, the Accountability Review Board for Benghazi determined that:

1. The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.

The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity.

Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing. Board members found a pervasive realization among personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing.

The insufficient Special Mission security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security upgrades.

These included heightening the outer perimeter wall, safety grills on safe area egress windows, concrete jersey barriers, manual drop-arm vehicle barriers, a steel gate for the Villa C safe area, some locally manufactured steel doors, sandbag fortifications, security cameras, some additional security lighting, guard booths, and an Internal Defense Notification System.

Special Mission Benghazi’s uncertain future after 2012 and its “non-status” as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left responsibility to meet security standards to the working-level in the field, with very limited resources.

In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation was inadequate. At the same time, the SMC’s dependence on the armed but poorly skilled Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17) militia members and unarmed, locally contracted Blue Mountain Libya (BML) guards for security support was misplaced.

Although the February 17 militia had proven effective in responding to improvised explosive device (IED) attacks on the Special Mission in April and June 2012, there were some troubling indicators of its reliability in the months and weeks preceding the September attacks. At the time of Ambassador Stevens’ visit, February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours.

Post and the Department were well aware of the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but at no time were there ever any specific, credible threats against the mission in Benghazi related to the September 11 anniversary. Ambassador Stevens and Benghazi-based DS agents had taken the anniversary into account and decided to hold all meetings on-compound on September 11.

The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassador’s trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound.

The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.

[B]Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.[/B]

3. Notwithstanding the proper implementation of security systems and procedures and remarkable heroism shown by American personnel, those systems and the Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers.

The Board found the responses by both the BML guards and February 17 to be inadequate. The Board’s inquiry found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense of the SMC, or succeeded in summoning a February 17 militia presence to assist expeditiously.

The Board found the Libyan government’s response to be profoundly lacking on the night of the attacks, reflecting both weak capacity and near absence of central government influence and control in Benghazi. The Libyan government did facilitate assistance from a quasi-governmental militia that supported the evacuation of U.S. government personnel to Benghazi airport. The Libyan government also provided a military C-130 aircraft which was used to evacuate remaining U.S. personnel and the bodies of the deceased from Benghazi to Tripoli on September 12.

The Board determined that U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues, in a near impossible situation. The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.

The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.

4. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.

5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.[/quote][/QUOTE]:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:​

 

[Cammmpbell]

Hillary came off as unhinged, A NUTTER.

Hold that thought. If she's alive and something doesn't change drastically she will be our president before she dies.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Hillary wasn't fired because obamaintion was just as guilty as her and he couldn't lose the women vote for the election. He needed the white lesbian and old hags vote to win the election. He needed the "Flukes" of the world that demand their free condoms to vote for him.

Throwing the white trash from Arkansas to the trash pile would be a bad move for a wannabe black man...

 

[Desperado]

I found this interesting, 1.4 million cables a year come to my office and they are all addressed to me, Clinton says in her defense.
You mean that your staff does not have a special address or way to get a hold of you?
So the Ambassador has to go through the same procedure to get a message to you as everyone else?
Some how I can't believe a cable from an Ambassador would be handled the same way as the other 1.4 million cables to the state department as to Hillary clinton

 

[GoneBezerk]

It is just a formality...that she is addressed on every cable since each Ambassador assumes his cable will reach her desk.

One would figure a cable from Libya after we removed the previous dictator from power and set up shop in the middle of terrorists running wild....a cable from Libya would be a higher priority than a cable from Peru announcing their leader invites Hillary to his birthday party next month.

I found this interesting, 1.4 million cables a year come to my office and they are all addressed to me, Clinton says in her defense.
You mean that your staff does not have a special address or way to get a hold of you?
So the Ambassador has to go through the same procedure to get a message to you as everyone else?
Some how I can't believe a cable from an Ambassador would be handled the same way as the other 1.4 million cables to the state department as to Hillary clinton

 

[Desperado]

It is just a formality...that she is addressed on every cable since each Ambassador assumes his cable will reach her desk.

One would figure a cable from Libya after we removed the previous dictator from power and set up shop in the middle of terrorists running wild....a cable from Libya would be a higher priority than a cable from Peru announcing their leader invites Hillary to his birthday party next month.

I found this interesting, 1.4 million cables a year come to my office and they are all addressed to me, Clinton says in her defense.
You mean that your staff does not have a special address or way to get a hold of you?
So the Ambassador has to go through the same procedure to get a message to you as everyone else?
Some how I can't believe a cable from an Ambassador would be handled the same way as the other 1.4 million cables to the state department as to Hillary clinton

One would assume and hope that was the case, but to hear Hillary tell it, that concept is foreign to her and her staff.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

Hillary wasn't fired because obamaintion was just as guilty as her and he couldn't lose the women vote for the election. He needed the white lesbian and old hags vote to win the election. He needed the "Flukes" of the world that demand their free condoms to vote for him.

Throwing the white trash from Arkansas to the trash pile would be a bad move for a wannabe black man...

lolwut? guilty of what, exactly?

so let me get this straight, benghazi is all sandra fluke's contraception's fault?

you're a fucking moron, like for reals. i bet if we gave you a standard intelligence test, you'd flunk before you sat down in the chair. you are retarded. i'm trying to say your opinions don't count because it's like asking a retard for advice on building a car. you'll end up with two doughnuts and a dildo.

 

[Jarhead]

Hillary wasn't fired because obamaintion was just as guilty as her and he couldn't lose the women vote for the election. He needed the white lesbian and old hags vote to win the election. He needed the "Flukes" of the world that demand their free condoms to vote for him.

Throwing the white trash from Arkansas to the trash pile would be a bad move for a wannabe black man...

lolwut? guilty of what, exactly?

so let me get this straight, benghazi is all sandra fluke's contraception's fault?

you're a fucking moron, like for reals. i bet if we gave you a standard intelligence test, you'd flunk before you sat down in the chair. you are retarded. i'm trying to say your opinions don't count because it's like asking a retard for advice on building a car. you'll end up with two doughnuts and a dildo.

No doubt that Gone bezerk has...well...gone bezerk.

But if you took his little rant as him saying that Benghazi is all Flukes fault....then you are just as unintelligent as you claim gone bezerk is.

And actually worse. At least he is simply expressing his opinion. You chastise his opinion becuase you cant comprehend it...even if it is a bit way off base.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I found this interesting, 1.4 million cables a year come to my office and they are all addressed to me, Clinton says in her defense.
You mean that your staff does not have a special address or way to get a hold of you?
So the Ambassador has to go through the same procedure to get a message to you as everyone else?
Some how I can't believe a cable from an Ambassador would be handled the same way as the other 1.4 million cables to the state department as to Hillary clinton

As someone who served at 5 foreign missions during my time in the Army, I believe I am uniquely qualified to call Mrs Clinton (while technically correct - they are ALL directed to DS - and she's Secretary of State) a bold faced liar. What's worse is that every person sitting in that room knew she was pulling a "Bill Clinton" by parsing the truth. She learned well from her liar husband.

There are cables and then their are "Flash Messages" or traffic. A Flash is sent via secure means, labeled (usually, TS or above) and usually indicates trouble. When "Flash Traffic" is received - EVERYTHING - comes to a halt and that message is dealt with IMMEDIATELY whether it involves the Secretary, DS Security, NIS-NRO , DIA, CIA or NSA, or higher (The White House).

For Clinton to feign outrage is ridiculous. THAT IS HER DEPARTMENT. When the Consulate came under attack, the Duty Officer IMMEDIATELY sent Flash traffic to both Central Command and Department of State aprising them both through "sit rep" or situation report and requesting instructions.

I will PROMISE you that within 10 minutes of the attack, Mrs Clinton was awakened and advised of the situation. I GUARNTEE THAT. Now, Hillary the Wide may have rolled over and said "tell me about it tomorrow" - I don't know, but I promise you, she was made aware of the situation. Her actions, from that point on, determined the outcome of those men's collective fate.

Obviously, we know the outcome. It was disastrous. Our Ambassador and some of his security personnel were murdered. Her spokeswoman claimed it was the result of "spontaneous protestors". Susan Rice DID NOT make that statement up on her own. NO ONE issues public statements WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. NO ONE.

I understand that the left just wants this to go away, and I have no doubt whatsoever, that it will. The media has lost interest, in favor of attacks on the NRA and "women's rights". Those men, true Americans all, will never receive the Justice that they deserve.

Congratulations. You are as worthless and as evil as your husband.