The good part about Hillary screwing the pooch is that the dog's not pregnant.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And you are wrong, on both accounts.If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.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.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.
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 ...
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.
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."
Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.And you are wrong, on both accounts.If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.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 ...
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.
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.And you are wrong, on both accounts.If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.No PMH you are the "rabid partisan".
I'm just a guy who did my homework on this subject ...
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.
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
Not at all. If Stevens didn't sign off on it, it didn't happen. It was his show. That's how it works.Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.And you are wrong, on both accounts.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.
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
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.Nothing there says he didn't have the authority, which he did. It was his show, that's how it works.And you are wrong, on both accounts.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.
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
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.
"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...
And you are wrong, on both accounts.If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.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.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.
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 ...
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.
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."
This source is pretty well identified:And you are wrong, on both accounts.If you did your homework you be able to see the entire picture, including the mistakes that Stevens made, which you cannot.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 ...
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.
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."
They haven't stalled or withheld a thing.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.
What does that have to do with the YouTube video?Yes, because Libyan presidents have always been so trustworthy and truthful.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."
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."
And it's true, as long as your policy complied with the ACA."If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."
The same people who blame Obama and Clinton for Benghazi will not consider blaming Bush and Cheney for 9/11.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.Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?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?
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.
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.
Has State answered this question?Why isn't all your anger directed toward them? Because it's a private security company, not a government one?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 did the State Dept hire Lybian's this time?
And it's true, as long as your policy complied with the ACA."If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."
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.
They haven't stalled or withheld a thing.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.
You are cherry-picking whose testimony you believe.General Ham testified that there was NO "spontaneous demonstration" going on.
You are cherry-picking whose testimony you believe.General Ham testified that there was NO "spontaneous demonstration" going on.
Was Ham on the ground? No. So why do you give him credibility?
At least you are consistent in your absence of facts.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.