Clinton to testify AGAIN on Benghazi...

[HenryBHough]

The good part about Hillary screwing the pooch is that the dog's not pregnant.

 

[Antares]

You really aren't very good at this man.

He was the General in charge, you are just a schmuck who wants to believe anything but the truth.

Hillary did not renew the security detail and it does not matter why, it was her responsibility.....you trying to blame a dead is quite sick and disgusting...but hey YOU are the guy that at one time argued that 14 should be the legal age of consent.

You are a rabid partisan who somehow believes that Stevens was just an errand-boy when he wasn't anything of the kind, and he had a hand in his own death, most people do.

As for the age of consent, 14 is workable. Since the line is arbitrary that's a perfectly fine call and totally unrelated to this issue.

No PMH you are the "rabid partisan".

I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject ...

If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

"Ms. Tsongas." "And I understand that on several occasions you did talk to the Ambassador. I don't know if it was buy phone or in person) but 13 that in those conversations in every instance he did not accept your offer of additional help. I am wondering if you can talk about why -- what is your understanding of why that was the case, why he did not feel it was necessary to accept the additional help that you were willing to offer?"

"General Ham." "the Department of Defense team operating under the Ambassador's authority, which expired on the 3rd of August of last year, I did have many conversations with Ambassador Stevens about whether that force would be extended. And the nature of my conversation with Ambassador Stevens was basically if you want this, if you want to extend the team beyond the 3rd of August, we, U.S. Africa Command, are prepared to do so."

<snip>

"Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

"The last extension expired the 3rd of August and the State Department decided to not request a further extensionJ but it is a formalized process that is department to department rather than the combatant commander and ambassador."

"Ms. Tsongas." "So absent that formal requestJ that formalized processJ you are left with the decision that the State Department has made about what its security needs might be?"

"General Ham." "Yes, rna I am. At that point when it was apparent that the Department of State was not going to seek an extension of the Site 15 Security Team, Ambassador Stevens and I had a discussion about what then should be the right DOD presence in addition to the attache and the normal embassy team. "

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are a rabid partisan who somehow believes that Stevens was just an errand-boy when he wasn't anything of the kind, and he had a hand in his own death, most people do.

As for the age of consent, 14 is workable. Since the line is arbitrary that's a perfectly fine call and totally unrelated to this issue.

No PMH you are the "rabid partisan".

I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject ...

If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

"Ms. Tsongas." "And I understand that on several occasions you did talk to the Ambassador. I don't know if it was buy phone or in person) but 13 that in those conversations in every instance he did not accept your offer of additional help. I am wondering if you can talk about why -- what is your understanding of why that was the case, why he did not feel it was necessary to accept the additional help that you were willing to offer?"

"General Ham." "the Department of Defense team operating under the Ambassador's authority, which expired on the 3rd of August of last year, I did have many conversations with Ambassador Stevens about whether that force would be extended. And the nature of my conversation with Ambassador Stevens was basically if you want this, if you want to extend the team beyond the 3rd of August, we, U.S. Africa Command, are prepared to do so."

<snip>

"Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

"The last extension expired the 3rd of August and the State Department decided to not request a further extensionJ but it is a formalized process that is department to department rather than the combatant commander and ambassador."

"Ms. Tsongas." "So absent that formal requestJ that formalized processJ you are left with the decision that the State Department has made about what its security needs might be?"

"General Ham." "Yes, rna I am. At that point when it was apparent that the Department of State was not going to seek an extension of the Site 15 Security Team, Ambassador Stevens and I had a discussion about what then should be the right DOD presence in addition to the attache and the normal embassy team. "

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.

 

[Antares]

No PMH you are the "rabid partisan".

I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject ...

If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

"Ms. Tsongas." "And I understand that on several occasions you did talk to the Ambassador. I don't know if it was buy phone or in person) but 13 that in those conversations in every instance he did not accept your offer of additional help. I am wondering if you can talk about why -- what is your understanding of why that was the case, why he did not feel it was necessary to accept the additional help that you were willing to offer?"

"General Ham." "the Department of Defense team operating under the Ambassador's authority, which expired on the 3rd of August of last year, I did have many conversations with Ambassador Stevens about whether that force would be extended. And the nature of my conversation with Ambassador Stevens was basically if you want this, if you want to extend the team beyond the 3rd of August, we, U.S. Africa Command, are prepared to do so."

<snip>

"Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

"The last extension expired the 3rd of August and the State Department decided to not request a further extensionJ but it is a formalized process that is department to department rather than the combatant commander and ambassador."

"Ms. Tsongas." "So absent that formal requestJ that formalized processJ you are left with the decision that the State Department has made about what its security needs might be?"

"General Ham." "Yes, rna I am. At that point when it was apparent that the Department of State was not going to seek an extension of the Site 15 Security Team, Ambassador Stevens and I had a discussion about what then should be the right DOD presence in addition to the attache and the normal embassy team. "

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.

You don't read very well do you?

Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

You lose.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

"Ms. Tsongas." "And I understand that on several occasions you did talk to the Ambassador. I don't know if it was buy phone or in person) but 13 that in those conversations in every instance he did not accept your offer of additional help. I am wondering if you can talk about why -- what is your understanding of why that was the case, why he did not feel it was necessary to accept the additional help that you were willing to offer?"

"General Ham." "the Department of Defense team operating under the Ambassador's authority, which expired on the 3rd of August of last year, I did have many conversations with Ambassador Stevens about whether that force would be extended. And the nature of my conversation with Ambassador Stevens was basically if you want this, if you want to extend the team beyond the 3rd of August, we, U.S. Africa Command, are prepared to do so."

<snip>

"Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

"The last extension expired the 3rd of August and the State Department decided to not request a further extensionJ but it is a formalized process that is department to department rather than the combatant commander and ambassador."

"Ms. Tsongas." "So absent that formal requestJ that formalized processJ you are left with the decision that the State Department has made about what its security needs might be?"

"General Ham." "Yes, rna I am. At that point when it was apparent that the Department of State was not going to seek an extension of the Site 15 Security Team, Ambassador Stevens and I had a discussion about what then should be the right DOD presence in addition to the attache and the normal embassy team. "

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.

You don't read very well do you?

Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

You lose.

Not at all. If Stevens didn't sign off on it, it didn't happen. It was his show. That's how it works.

"It said Stevens acknowledged the need for more security yet also turned down available U.S. military resources. The report said the Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel. But the State Department decided not to extend the team's mission in August 2012, one month before the attack. In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said."
Deadly Benghazi attack in 2012 was preventable Senate Intelligence Committee declares Fox News

Loser...

 

[Antares]

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

"Ms. Tsongas." "And I understand that on several occasions you did talk to the Ambassador. I don't know if it was buy phone or in person) but 13 that in those conversations in every instance he did not accept your offer of additional help. I am wondering if you can talk about why -- what is your understanding of why that was the case, why he did not feel it was necessary to accept the additional help that you were willing to offer?"

"General Ham." "the Department of Defense team operating under the Ambassador's authority, which expired on the 3rd of August of last year, I did have many conversations with Ambassador Stevens about whether that force would be extended. And the nature of my conversation with Ambassador Stevens was basically if you want this, if you want to extend the team beyond the 3rd of August, we, U.S. Africa Command, are prepared to do so."

<snip>

"Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

"The last extension expired the 3rd of August and the State Department decided to not request a further extensionJ but it is a formalized process that is department to department rather than the combatant commander and ambassador."

"Ms. Tsongas." "So absent that formal requestJ that formalized processJ you are left with the decision that the State Department has made about what its security needs might be?"

"General Ham." "Yes, rna I am. At that point when it was apparent that the Department of State was not going to seek an extension of the Site 15 Security Team, Ambassador Stevens and I had a discussion about what then should be the right DOD presence in addition to the attache and the normal embassy team. "

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.

You don't read very well do you?

Ms. Tsongas." "And is it customary to make these requests through the Ambassador and for the Ambassador to bless it and make this request or the assent back to you in order for you to you have the authority to move forward?"

"General Ham." "Actually J rna I amJ it is a fairly formalizedJ a very formalized process that the Department of State formally requestsJ in this instance of the Department of DefenseJ support in terms of the Site Security Team. The State Department did that."

You lose.

Not at all. If Stevens didn't sign off on it, it didn't happen. It was his show. That's how it works.

"It said Stevens acknowledged the need for more security yet also turned down available U.S. military resources. The report said the Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel. But the State Department decided not to extend the team's mission in August 2012, one month before the attack. In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said."
Deadly Benghazi attack in 2012 was preventable Senate Intelligence Committee declares Fox News

Loser...

You've lost moron.

Get better or you aren't worth my time.

....and stay away from my Grand Kids.

 

[Antares]

 

[TooTall]

You really aren't very good at this man.

He was the General in charge, you are just a schmuck who wants to believe anything but the truth.

Hillary did not renew the security detail and it does not matter why, it was her responsibility.....you trying to blame a dead is quite sick and disgusting...but hey YOU are the guy that at one time argued that 14 should be the legal age of consent.

You are a rabid partisan who somehow believes that Stevens was just an errand-boy when he wasn't anything of the kind, and he had a hand in his own death, most people do.

As for the age of consent, 14 is workable. Since the line is arbitrary that's a perfectly fine call and totally unrelated to this issue.

No PMH you are the "rabid partisan".

I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject ...

If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

Another unidentified source. LOL

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of thesubject told McClatchy."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are a rabid partisan who somehow believes that Stevens was just an errand-boy when he wasn't anything of the kind, and he had a hand in his own death, most people do.

As for the age of consent, 14 is workable. Since the line is arbitrary that's a perfectly fine call and totally unrelated to this issue.

No PMH you are the "rabid partisan".

I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject ...

If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.

Projection.

I happen to know Steven's didn't have the authority to accept or reject Ham's offers.

You?
You just blindly defend Hillary.

And you are wrong, on both accounts.

CAIRO Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security U.S. officials say Middle East McClatchy DC

"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy."

Another unidentified source. LOL

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of thesubject told McClatchy."

This source is pretty well identified:

"It said Stevens acknowledged the need for more security yet also turned down available U.S. military resources. The report said the Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel. But the State Department decided not to extend the team's mission in August 2012, one month before the attack. In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said."
Deadly Benghazi attack in 2012 was preventable Senate Intelligence Committee declares Fox News

 

[Synthaholic]

Well something is not right about it, or else the administration would not be stalling on the information that they are asking for.
We still don't have answers to several questions and the reasons they are giving is just a run around of excuses and using the blame game.

They haven't stalled or withheld a thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course it did. Accepting that fact destroys your narrative about Obama and Clinton.

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rked-by-anti-muslim-video.html?ref=middleeast

It's ridiculous on the face of it to claim that the video had nothing to do with it.

How many of those protesters brought heavy mortors and AK-47's to their protests? Those that were at Benghazi and survived clearly stated it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest. So, you can shove your attempted re-write up your ass!

You said the video didn't cause a thing.

It didn't. The video was used as an excuse in some cases. It wasn't the reason, especially in Benghazi.

"On September 16, Libyan PresidentMohamed Magariafsaid that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that "[t]he idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate."

Yes, because Libyan presidents have always been so trustworthy and truthful.

You just can't accept the real reason for the Benghazi attack. It destroys your narrative that it's all Obama's fault.

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."

What does that have to do with the YouTube video?

 

[Synthaholic]

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."

And it's true, as long as your policy complied with the ACA.

Funny how me and the vast millions of Americans had no disruption at all in their coverage, other than gaining new benefits such as the elimination of pre-existing conditions.

 

[Synthaholic]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

My anger is aimed at the decisions made by State and Hillary to NOT close the Consulate after the British and the Red Cross had determined it to be to dangerous to stay in Benghazi. The very least State could have done was send in a reasonable number of US Marine Ebassy guards, since everyone but the State Department knew that 911 was a special day for the jihadists to attack Americans.

The Consulate had been attacked several months earlier, and it wasn't because of a video that nobody saw then either.

One, Stevens turned down the Marines, twice, at the actual Embassy no less, and two, it was his call to be in Benghazi that day. And three, the guys who killed him are ultimately responsible for his death and somehow you keep missing that little fact.

Stevens didn't want a big security presence there, he felt it would show a lack of faith. He made a bad call, it happens.

The same people who blame Obama and Clinton for Benghazi will not consider blaming Bush and Cheney for 9/11.

 

[Synthaholic]

Weapons need people to shoot them, and the security the State Department hired all bugged out. What could the maker of a video possibly contribute to a hearing about a terrorist attack?

Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?

Why did the State Dept hire Lybian's this time?

Has State answered this question?

 

[Antares]

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."

And it's true, as long as your policy complied with the ACA.

Funny how me and the vast millions of Americans had no disruption at all in their coverage, other than gaining new benefits such as the elimination of pre-existing conditions.

That's not what he meant and you know it, hell EVERYBODY knows it.

....and NO individual plan had all of the "required" coverages.

 

[peach174]

Well something is not right about it, or else the administration would not be stalling on the information that they are asking for.
We still don't have answers to several questions and the reasons they are giving is just a run around of excuses and using the blame game.

They haven't stalled or withheld a thing.

Oh yes they have.
Judicial Watch had to file a Freedom of Information Act request.
They have been very slow at releasing information a little bit in 2013, another little bit in 2014 and now 15,000 pages in Jan. 2015.
And they still have not released all of the information requested.

 

[Synthaholic]

General Ham testified that there was NO "spontaneous demonstration" going on.

You are cherry-picking whose testimony you believe.

Was Ham on the ground? No. So why do you give him credibility?

 

[Antares]

General Ham testified that there was NO "spontaneous demonstration" going on.

You are cherry-picking whose testimony you believe.

Was Ham on the ground? No. So why do you give him credibility?

LOL, I'm cherry picking nothing.

Ham was the General in charge, are you one of two people in the world who still insist that it was the video?

 

[Freewill]

The parents of those who were needlessly put into harms way and left realitively undefended need answers. Hillary last time was suffering from whatever malaise made her wear those type of glasses.

Benghazi isn't needed to take down Hillary. Her age, her demeanor, her lack of a record all go against Hillary.

If there is any answer the parents of those men want answered should be answered and if Hillary is as innocent as the left indicates then she has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject and fully understand that the General in charge of the theater knows more than a "rabid partisan" who thinks having sex with children is fine.

At least you are consistent in your absence of facts.

Do you now disavow all statements and actions of Patraeus during his command, since he's been exposed as an adulterer?