Hillary takes the fall for our ambassadors assassination, what say you?

[Wiseacre]

Well it looks like this answered what Obama would do with the 3 A.m. phone call. He forwarded it to Hillary.
Two quick questions tho. If Hillary is stepping up to take responsibility, why did it take three weeks for her to step forward?
How wussy is it for Barack to be hiding behind Hillary?

I appreciate Hillary's guts in coming forward and accepting responsibility, bravo for her. What I want to know is why she made that call to deny additional security and how much politics played into it. It's obvious that politics is behind her decision to come out now, trying to stop the bleeding and help the president get past this whole thing. Otherwise she woulda done this weeks ago. I think the WH hoped this would all blow away and they wouldn't have to answer any embarassing questions. But it didn't and now it's time to throw people under the bus.


I want to know how Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, can go on 5 different networks 5 days after the incident and tell us the lie that it was all a mob reaction to a video that got out of control. And Jay Carney, the president's press secretary, said or implied the same story for days afterwards, even the president himself makes that UN speech and brings up the video again as if it had anything to do with it. They had to know it wasn't true, but tried to bluster through it anyway and hope the story went away. We were deliberately lied to; deceived by our president so we wouldn't realize what he said about Al Quaida being beaten thanks to his leadership was not true. Obviously they believe we are stupid and gullible, and that the MSM would bury the story.

 

[Barb]

Clinton: GOP's State Dept. cuts 'detrimental' to national security - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Republican leadership's FY11 budget cuts would endanger national security, Clinton says

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

44 - Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security

 

[copsnrobbers]

Hillary had no choice.. She went underground and was then pushed to take the heat.
Bottom line is she failed along with Obama and the rest of the left. Obama made the decision to cover it up with the help of the media. Another failure.. But a good one.

The most corrupt President in our history. The entire Democrat party is about Fundamentally Changing our Country. A vote for any Democrat at any level is a fucking sin.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Failed Liberal lies

Clinton: GOP's State Dept. cuts 'detrimental' to national security - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Republican leadership's FY11 budget cuts would endanger national security, Clinton says

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

44 - Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security

The new spin.. 30 days later after the video thing fell into the shit hole the agenda lives in.

Why produce a commercial apologizing for the video?

More left wing pass the buck crap. Fuck you lefties, all you do is lie.

Exposed!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Clinton: GOP's State Dept. cuts 'detrimental' to national security - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Republican leadership's FY11 budget cuts would endanger national security, Clinton says

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

44 - Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security

The new spin.. 30 days later after the video thing fell into the shit hole the agenda lives in.

Why produce a commercial apologizing for the video?

More left wing pass the buck crap. Fuck you lefties, all you do is lie.

Exposed!

The left are the marxist in the same vision as Castro, Chavez, ect...These people want to weaken our country and give free shit to everyone.

Never do they think about the pain they put people under while they're taking away our freedoms. The left is evil.

Fucking water carriers of satan.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah, lets destroy the free market and fuck over the rich to give free shit away.

At the end of the day everyone is poor and under a steel fist.

 

[copsnrobbers]

Clinton: GOP's State Dept. cuts 'detrimental' to national security - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Republican leadership's FY11 budget cuts would endanger national security, Clinton says

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

44 - Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security

The new spin.. 30 days later after the video thing fell into the shit hole the agenda lives in.

Why produce a commercial apologizing for the video?

More left wing pass the buck crap. Fuck you lefties, all you do is lie.

Exposed!

The left are the marxist in the same vision as Castro, Chavez, ect...These people want to weaken our country and give free shit to everyone.

Never do they think about the pain they put people under while they're taking away our freedoms. The left is evil.

Fucking water carriers of satan.

Lying Deceitful Scum The usual!

 

[koshergrl]

It's already been established that the cuts had zero to do with the decision to deny the ambassador's requests for more security.

His requests were denied because the state department didn't want to offend the Libyans by showing they were concerned about security.

 

[Barb]

Well it looks like this answered what Obama would do with the 3 A.m. phone call. He forwarded it to Hillary.
Two quick questions tho. If Hillary is stepping up to take responsibility, why did it take three weeks for her to step forward?
How wussy is it for Barack to be hiding behind Hillary?

I appreciate Hillary's guts in coming forward and accepting responsibility, bravo for her. What I want to know is why she made that call to deny additional security and how much politics played into it. It's obvious that politics is behind her decision to come out now, trying to stop the bleeding and help the president get past this whole thing. Otherwise she woulda done this weeks ago. I think the WH hoped this would all blow away and they wouldn't have to answer any embarassing questions. But it didn't and now it's time to throw people under the bus.


I want to know how Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, can go on 5 different networks 5 days after the incident and tell us the lie that it was all a mob reaction to a video that got out of control. And Jay Carney, the president's press secretary, said or implied the same story for days afterwards, even the president himself makes that UN speech and brings up the video again as if it had anything to do with it. They had to know it wasn't true, but tried to bluster through it anyway and hope the story went away. We were deliberately lied to; deceived by our president so we wouldn't realize what he said about Al Quaida being beaten thanks to his leadership was not true. Obviously they believe we are stupid and gullible, and that the MSM would bury the story.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...won-the-veep-debate-thread-6.html#post6152122

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/w...-focused-on-tripoli.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

400 Miles away

 

[Barb]

Failed Liberal lies

Clinton: GOP's State Dept. cuts 'detrimental' to national security - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Republican leadership's FY11 budget cuts would endanger national security, Clinton says

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security | ThinkProgress

44 - Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security

The new spin.. 30 days later after the video thing fell into the shit hole the agenda lives in.

Why produce a commercial apologizing for the video?

More left wing pass the buck crap. Fuck you lefties, all you do is lie.

Exposed!

the video thing

You mean the "video thing" YOUR side started with, the "video thing" YOUR side tried to claim the WH and State Department apologized for, and couldn't back away from (but should have, because that, too, as so many other things that come from YOUR side turned out to be a complete misrepresentation of events) because that's the point Romney proved to the country and the world that he is TRULY not ready for prime time? THAT "video thing?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean the "video thing" YOUR side started with, the "video thing" YOUR side tried to claim the WH and State Department apologized for, and couldn't back away from (but should have, because that, too, as so many other things that come from YOUR side turned out to be a complete misrepresentation of events) because that's the point Romney proved to the country and the world that he is TRULY not ready for prime time? THAT "video thing?"

I mean the video thing that Obama claimed was behind the Benghazi attack.

I mean the video thing and the statement from the embassy in Cairo that Obama ordered them to take down because it did not reflect the administrations position, even though he turned around and said exactly the same thing the next day.

I mean the video thing that Rice claimed was behind the attacks long after the administration knew better.

I mean the video thing Obama mentioned 5 times in his speech to the UN without mentioning terrorism once.

I mean the video thing that everyone still wants to blame for the attack even though it came out months before anything happened.

What video thing are you talking about?

 

[Barb]

You mean the "video thing" YOUR side started with, the "video thing" YOUR side tried to claim the WH and State Department apologized for, and couldn't back away from (but should have, because that, too, as so many other things that come from YOUR side turned out to be a complete misrepresentation of events) because that's the point Romney proved to the country and the world that he is TRULY not ready for prime time? THAT "video thing?"

I mean the video thing that Obama claimed was behind the Benghazi attack.

I mean the video thing and the statement from the embassy in Cairo that Obama ordered them to take down because it did not reflect the administrations position, even though he turned around and said exactly the same thing the next day.

I mean the video thing that Rice claimed was behind the attacks long after the administration knew better.

I mean the video thing Obama mentioned 5 times in his speech to the UN without mentioning terrorism once.

I mean the video thing that everyone still wants to blame for the attack even though it came out months before anything happened.

What video thing are you talking about?

No...that video thing was what Captain magic underpants and much of the media that supports him ASSUMED was behind the attacks.

 

[Barb]

 

[zonly1]

Just saw it breaking on TV. She says the buck stops with her. Funny cause last week when I called for her resignation many on the left mocked me saying she wasn't a factor in this scenario.

Crow is now AGAIN being served. Enjoy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZzEzDkeHzI]Welcome Back Kotter - Theme Song - YouTube[/ame]

 

[courseofhistory]

It is the responsibility of the State Dept. to provide American Embassy security. So, if anyone is going to take the blame, it rightfully belongs in the dept. of state. However, I have been saying there are very likley many reasons security was not as strong as in hindsight it might have been. This is one of many reasons:

Security of US diplomats complicated by a host of issues]

WASHINGTON — Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants’ attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed US private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources, and mounting frustration among diplomats over escalating protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs.

The Benghazi attacks, which left the US ambassador and three other Americans dead, came at the end of a 10-year period in which the State Department — sending its employees into a lengthening list of war zones and volatile regions — had regularly ratcheted up security for its diplomats. The aggressive measures used by private contractors eventually led to shootings in Afghanistan and Iraq that provoked protests, including an episode involving guards from Blackwater, a US security company, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.

This is what I was saying a few weeks ago playing devil's advocate that a heavily armed US presence would make it seem more like a military mission than a diplomatic one.

These are some addition problems the State Dept. faces: (It is higly likely therefore, that if the State Dept. is unaware of some things, so would be the Executive branch). Its easy to say they knew (speculation) but it's very possible they didn't "know".

U.S. Agencies Do Not Always Inform State Dept. Officies about New Hires

According to State regulations, the regional security officer for each
post is responsible for investigating foreign nationals hired by US. agencies
in the host country, including the U.S. Information Agency, US.
Agency for International Development, and the Peace Corps. Occasionally,
the other agencies- with their own programs and separate budgets
and facilities frequently located outside the embassy compound-hire
foreign nationals for short periods of time without notifying the post
personnel officer, who would in turn notify the security officer at post
so that a background investigation could be conducted. However, since
these procedures have not always been followed, some background b
investigations have not been conducted. Failure to inform the post
security officer could pose a security risk to US. personnel and
facilities.

Regional security officers in Argentina, Chile, Egypt, and Uruguay indicated
that in several cases other agencies had hired contract personnel
but had not informed the personnel officer or security officer. Two
examples in Argentina highlight this concern. In one case, the regional
security officer learned inadvertently that the U.S. Information Service
had hired seven foreign nationals to work at the embassy and the
library and binational center located near the embassy. These centers
have been targeted by terrorists worldwide. In a second case, the US.

LINK

And, the information goes on to say that it is often difficult to determine where one department's repsonsiblity begins and the other's ends.

It simply isn't as simple as people want to make it out to be in order to try to make Obama look bad.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama took part in the cover up from day one. He lied to the American people and he fucking well knew it.

You leftist are looking like fools.

 

[007]

Obama took part in the cover up from day one. He lied to the American people and he fucking well knew it.

You leftist are looking like fools.

The fact that the leftists are still circling the wagons trying to figure out who's best suited to fall on the sword for the kenyan so they can still have a libtard in the White House speaks VOLUMES as to how PANICKED they still are this is going to SEND SOMEONE TO JAIL, AND LOSE obama the election.

 

[courseofhistory]

Also,

More factors:

Embassy security and responsiblity isn't all that easy to attain due to multiple agency involements and a lot more!

What made the consulate office in Benghazi more vulnerable than the embassy in Tripoli?

The embassy in Tripoli is a fairly new facility. It was constructed in 2009 in accordance with security standards established by the Diplomatic Security Service at the State Department. The building in Benghazi was basically a villa that was being rented to serve as a temporary consulate. So it was built in accordance with your normal residential security standards for Libya. It was not made to withstand rocket or bomb attacks. So it was not a very secure facility at all.

How can any building be protected against rocket-propelled grenades?

Inman facilities are designed and engineered and constructed to withstand attacks from weapons like rocket-propelled grenades. (The Inman Commission was established in 1985 after the U.S. Embassy bombings in Beirut, Lebanon, to develop new security standards.) There are certain thicknesses of the walls and certain types of reinforced concrete, certain angles that the walls have, and distance to the street that make them much more difficult to attack. The embassy in Tripoli, Libya, and the one in Sanaa, Yemen, which was just attacked today, are Inman facilities, so it's going to be much more difficult to damage them.

Who's responsible for security at an embassy -- the host country or the embassy itself?

There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies. However, experience has taught the Americans that they can't rely on the host country to do that. They've experienced big losses in places like Kuwait, and Beirut a couple of times, even in Islamabad, Pakistan, when it was burnt to the ground. So they've learned they need to establish their own security bureaucracy to take care of that, and the Diplomatic Security Service (or law enforcement arm of the State Department) came into being in the mid-1980s.

 

[courseofhistory]

More:

Which embassies have a Marine presence?

It's usually at the larger facilities, like Sanaa, Yemen, and Cairo, Egypt. At the smaller consulates and sometimes at smaller embassies, you don't have Marines stationed there. It depends on the post, the number of Americans there and the amount of classified information that needs to be protected. And sometimes even the political sensibilities of the country.

Which embassies are most at risk of attacks?

The State Department looks at that carefully. When you look at the profile of what happened in Benghazi, it was a recently established facility in a place where the bureaucracy hadn't caught up with it yet. So Congress hadn't appropriated money and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations didn't have the opportunity to really plan and build a new facility there that meets security specifications. Anytime you have a new embassy in that kind of situation, you don't really have any real security. Places that are new, like in South Sudan, which is a new country, might have issues. A well-established facility in the Middle East can be attacked -- as we've seen in Cairo and Sanaa -- but when it's a well-built, well-fortified structure, it's much more difficult to impact.

Another of multiple reasons security is complicated (many agencies have personnel and decision making responsibilities) is because information may be fragmented or may not go through all the channels as fast as it needs to.

To support its relations with other countries and international
organizations, the United States maintains diplomatic and consular posts
around the world. Under the President's direction, the Secretary of
State is responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of
U.S. Government activities abroad. Country missions and missions to
international organizations are headed by Chiefs of Mission. Chiefs of
Mission are considered the President's personal representatives and,
with the Secretary of State, assist in implementing the President's
constitutional responsibilities for the conduct of U.S. foreign
relations.

Most missions have personnel assigned from other executive branch
agencies in addition to those from the Department of State; in some
cases, State Department employees may account for less than one-half of
the mission staff. Department of State employees at missions comprise
U.S.-based political appointees and career diplomats; and Foreign
Service nationals. The last are local residents, who provide continuity
for the transient American staff and have language and cultural
expertise; they also are employed at post by other agencies.

Other executive branch agencies represented may include the Departments
of Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, and Justice (the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation); the U.S. Agency for International
Development; and the U.S. Information Agency. Other U.S. Government
agencies also make vital contributions to the success of U.S. foreign
relations and in promoting U.S. interests.

 

[007]

Also,

More factors:

Embassy security and responsiblity isn't all that easy to attain due to multiple agency involements and a lot more!

What made the consulate office in Benghazi more vulnerable than the embassy in Tripoli?

The embassy in Tripoli is a fairly new facility. It was constructed in 2009 in accordance with security standards established by the Diplomatic Security Service at the State Department. The building in Benghazi was basically a villa that was being rented to serve as a temporary consulate. So it was built in accordance with your normal residential security standards for Libya. It was not made to withstand rocket or bomb attacks. So it was not a very secure facility at all.

How can any building be protected against rocket-propelled grenades?

Inman facilities are designed and engineered and constructed to withstand attacks from weapons like rocket-propelled grenades. (The Inman Commission was established in 1985 after the U.S. Embassy bombings in Beirut, Lebanon, to develop new security standards.) There are certain thicknesses of the walls and certain types of reinforced concrete, certain angles that the walls have, and distance to the street that make them much more difficult to attack. The embassy in Tripoli, Libya, and the one in Sanaa, Yemen, which was just attacked today, are Inman facilities, so it's going to be much more difficult to damage them.

Who's responsible for security at an embassy -- the host country or the embassy itself?

There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies. However, experience has taught the Americans that they can't rely on the host country to do that. They've experienced big losses in places like Kuwait, and Beirut a couple of times, even in Islamabad, Pakistan, when it was burnt to the ground. So they've learned they need to establish their own security bureaucracy to take care of that, and the Diplomatic Security Service (or law enforcement arm of the State Department) came into being in the mid-1980s.

You're a good little odumbobot trooper... but really... you're dumber'n fucking dirt.

obama and his administration is TOTALLY, 100% RESPONSIBLE for the death of those four people, because THEY FUCKED UP... now try not to continue to look SO FUCKING STUPID posting LEFTIST BULL SHIT running COVER trying to PROTECT obama. He's GUILTY AS SIN, and should be IMPEACHED. But even more than that, if he was HALF A MAN, he'd RESIGN for his SHEAR FUCKING INCOMPETENCE!