39 I don't recall, I don't remember to the FBI

[jc456]

He uses racism to score political points? I don't ever recall him saying anything disparaging about minorities.

Mexicans are rapists and murderers? That judge can't give me a fair shake. Black people are basically lazy.

These are all things Trump is on the record as saying.

 

[jc456]

Transcript, video at link. My bold.

so there were 100 or 172 or 173 or 600... "requests" related to Libya, not Benghazi. All of which were handled by lower level people whose job it was, not Hillary.

Again, 8 Congressional Investigations, and you guys never found any evidence of wrongdoing.

So 100 million in a total 3.4 billion security budget in fy 2010 is a big deal, really?????

Sounds like a big deal to me...

And once again, Joey...nobody "gutted" embassy security in the State Department budget. Congress gave the State Department more money in that budget for security than they did in the previous budget. Did they give the State Department everything that they asked for, budget wise? No they didn't but Congress very seldom DOES give government agencies all they ask for. The Clinton talking point that security might have been compromised by a lack of money is total crap and they knew it when they pushed that narrative. That security wasn't there because the Clinton State Department made a conscious choice to downsize the security force.

Guy, you have had 8 investigations trying to prove HIllary did something wrong, and came up with nothing.. I think the only one pushing crap here is you. Fact is, Republicans cut 100 million from security requests, and then whined we didn't have enough security when there were 30 attacks on US Embassies after the Video you like to pretend didn't exist pissed off the whole Islamic World.

33k deleted emails. D'OH

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans increased the State Department budget for security by a rather large amount, Joey. Where the State Department chose to spend that money was up to the State Department. Clinton's State Department made a conscious decision to draw down the State Department security detail in Libya because they didn't like the "optics" of having a large armed force of Americans guarding diplomats in a country that they were pointing to as one of their "successes" in the Middle East!

Right.. So um, did anyone talk about the issue before the attack on the consulate... this sounds like a lot of 20/20 hindsight... Point is, Republicans thought that slashing 100 million from a budget would have no effect when clearly it did.

According to you of course, Hillary Clinton was totally clueless about the hundreds of requests coming from our people in Libya begging for more security as they saw the situation in that country deteriorating.

Why would that be a detail she's be paying attention to.

Now, if you find that email from Chris stevens marked "Get me the **** out of here, I'm scared", you might have a point. But end of the day, Chris Stevens went to Benghazi. No one put a gun to his head and made him go there. He turned down an offer of military guards. He chose to spend the night rather than leave when his meeting was over.

Are you retarded? Charlene Lamb who was the Deputy Director of Security for the State Department testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with security staffing levels in Libya. She further testified that the State Department was satisfied even THEN that security levels were satisfactory! Does that statement penetrate the cinder block that seems to be sitting atop your shoulders? Even AFTER our ambassador and three others were killed by a terrorist attack...the Hillary Clinton led State Department STILL thought security staff levels were fine in Libya! That isn't a problem with Congress not giving the State Department funds...that's a problem with a State Department that is absolutely CLUELESS as to what's going on around the world!

Why would the situation deteriorating in Libya be a "detail" that Hillary Clinton should be paying attention to? Did you seriously just ask that question? Well for starters...because it's her damn job! She's responsible for the people who work for her in places like Libya! This wasn't something that happened at our consulate in Canada...it didn't happen at our consulate in Japan...it happened in Libya...a country that Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House had just helped overthrow it's leader and were now touting as an example of their Middle Eastern strategy coming to fruition. How could she NOT have know what the situation was in Libya?

Once again you've resorted to attacking Chris Steven's competence...blaming him for being in Benghazi trying to do HIS job! It's a sleazy tactic, Joey.

 

[jc456]

Republicans increased the State Department budget for security by a rather large amount, Joey. Where the State Department chose to spend that money was up to the State Department. Clinton's State Department made a conscious decision to draw down the State Department security detail in Libya because they didn't like the "optics" of having a large armed force of Americans guarding diplomats in a country that they were pointing to as one of their "successes" in the Middle East!

Right.. So um, did anyone talk about the issue before the attack on the consulate... this sounds like a lot of 20/20 hindsight... Point is, Republicans thought that slashing 100 million from a budget would have no effect when clearly it did.

According to you of course, Hillary Clinton was totally clueless about the hundreds of requests coming from our people in Libya begging for more security as they saw the situation in that country deteriorating.

Why would that be a detail she's be paying attention to.

Now, if you find that email from Chris stevens marked "Get me the **** out of here, I'm scared", you might have a point. But end of the day, Chris Stevens went to Benghazi. No one put a gun to his head and made him go there. He turned down an offer of military guards. He chose to spend the night rather than leave when his meeting was over.

Are you retarded? Charlene Lamb who was the Deputy Director of Security for the State Department testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with security staffing levels in Libya. She further testified that the State Department was satisfied even THEN that security levels were satisfactory! Does that statement penetrate the cinder block that seems to be sitting atop your shoulders? Even AFTER our ambassador and three others were killed by a terrorist attack...the Hillary Clinton led State Department STILL thought security staff levels were fine in Libya! That isn't a problem with Congress not giving the State Department funds...that's a problem with a State Department that is absolutely CLUELESS as to what's going on around the world!

Why would the situation deteriorating in Libya be a "detail" that Hillary Clinton should be paying attention to? Did you seriously just ask that question? Well for starters...because it's her damn job! She's responsible for the people who work for her in places like Libya! This wasn't something that happened at our consulate in Canada...it didn't happen at our consulate in Japan...it happened in Libya...a country that Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House had just helped overthrow it's leader and were now touting as an example of their Middle Eastern strategy coming to fruition. How could she NOT have know what the situation was in Libya?

Once again you've resorted to attacking Chris Steven's competence...blaming him for being in Benghazi trying to do HIS job! It's a sleazy tactic, Joey.

when one can't defend, one must attack.

 

[Oldstyle]

The one question I find myself asking is whether anyone thinks Hillary Clinton would have drawn down that level of security personnel if it were her or her precious daughter Chelsea who were our Ambassador to Libya and had to work in Benghazi? Anyone that naive?

 

[JoeB131]

Charlene Lamb who was the Deputy Director of Security for the State Department testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with security staffing levels in Libya.

so what? THis is the same Charlene Lamb you claim up and down didn't do enough to protect Ambassador Stevens... Keep your story straight before you waste my time.

Why would the situation deteriorating in Libya be a "detail" that Hillary Clinton should be paying attention to? Did you seriously just ask that question? Well for starters...because it's her damn job!

Uh, actually, no, it isn't. Her job is to represent the US to other heads of states. Not to deal with details like "Does the Embassy Pop Machine have enough Diet Coke"...

Try again.

This wasn't something that happened at our consulate in Canada...it didn't happen at our consulate in Japan...it happened in Libya...a country that Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House had just helped overthrow it's leader and were now touting as an example of their Middle Eastern strategy coming to fruition. How could she NOT have know what the situation was in Libya?

Nobody cared about Libya after Khadafy took a dirt nap, including all of our allies who goaded us into taking him out to start with.

Look, the point was, a dozen diplomatic installations were attacked under Bush with 60 people dead, but you didn't scream about this like about Powell or Condi.

Just like you don't scream about the 5000 servicemen who died because that retarded ********** Bush lied about WMD's.

I wish we had 8 congressional investigations into THAT fiasco...

The one question I find myself asking is whether anyone thinks Hillary Clinton would have drawn down that level of security personnel if it were her or her precious daughter Chelsea who were our Ambassador to Libya and had to work in Benghazi? Anyone that naive?

I wonder if Bush would have lied us into a war in Iraq if Jenna and Barbara were in the Army....

What I don't wonder about is the fact the GOP has nominated a Nazi, making any discussion about what Hillary did or didn't do moot. The GOP nominated a Nazi.

 

[Oldstyle]

Charlene Lamb who was the Deputy Director of Security for the State Department testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with security staffing levels in Libya.

so what? THis is the same Charlene Lamb you claim up and down didn't do enough to protect Ambassador Stevens... Keep your story straight before you waste my time.

Why would the situation deteriorating in Libya be a "detail" that Hillary Clinton should be paying attention to? Did you seriously just ask that question? Well for starters...because it's her damn job!

Uh, actually, no, it isn't. Her job is to represent the US to other heads of states. Not to deal with details like "Does the Embassy Pop Machine have enough Diet Coke"...

Try again.

This wasn't something that happened at our consulate in Canada...it didn't happen at our consulate in Japan...it happened in Libya...a country that Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House had just helped overthrow it's leader and were now touting as an example of their Middle Eastern strategy coming to fruition. How could she NOT have know what the situation was in Libya?

Nobody cared about Libya after Khadafy took a dirt nap, including all of our allies who goaded us into taking him out to start with.

Look, the point was, a dozen diplomatic installations were attacked under Bush with 60 people dead, but you didn't scream about this like about Powell or Condi.

Just like you don't scream about the 5000 servicemen who died because that retarded ********** Bush lied about WMD's.

I wish we had 8 congressional investigations into THAT fiasco...

The one question I find myself asking is whether anyone thinks Hillary Clinton would have drawn down that level of security personnel if it were her or her precious daughter Chelsea who were our Ambassador to Libya and had to work in Benghazi? Anyone that naive?

I wonder if Bush would have lied us into a war in Iraq if Jenna and Barbara were in the Army....

What I don't wonder about is the fact the GOP has nominated a Nazi, making any discussion about what Hillary did or didn't do moot. The GOP nominated a Nazi.

You get more idiotic by the post, Joey!

First you claim that the security problem was caused by the GOP led Congress "cutting" the State Department security budget by 100 million to which I pointed out that's laughable because A) the State Department received a large budget INCREASE over the budget from the year before...and B) the Deputy Director for security testified under oath that budget cuts had nothing to do with security staffing in Libya and that the Clinton State Department STILL thought security levels for Libya were adequate!

The Secretary of State's "job" is to oversee the State Department. Providing our diplomatic staff with adequate security SHOULD be one of the most important aspects of that job yet you equate that with making sure the embassy pop machine has enough Diet Coke? People died because Hillary Clinton was more concerned with "optics" than security for the people who worked for her! You want to make HER Commander in Chief?

As for that tired chart of how many people died at embassy attacks under Bush? How many of those 60 were US Ambassadors? How many of those 60 were Americans? How many of those 60 were killed inside a US facility? The truth...almost all of those 60 people were killed by truck bombs set off outside of our diplomatic facilities! The truth is...George W. Bush was a hell of a lot better at protecting American diplomats than Barry and Hillary ever were!

 

[Oldstyle]

And declaring that Donald Trump is a "Nazi" and therefore makes "moot" any discussion of Hillary Clinton is total unadulterated horse shit!

 

[JoeB131]

First you claim that the security problem was caused by the GOP led Congress "cutting" the State Department security budget by 100 million to which I pointed out that's laughable because A) the State Department received a large budget INCREASE over the budget from the year before...and B) the Deputy Director for security testified under oath that budget cuts had nothing to do with security staffing in Libya and that the Clinton State Department STILL thought security levels for Libya were adequate!

No, one bureaucrat who failed miserably at her job said that. Not quite the same thing.

The Secretary of State's "job" is to oversee the State Department. Providing our diplomatic staff with adequate security SHOULD be one of the most important aspects of that job yet you equate that with making sure the embassy pop machine has enough Diet Coke? People died because Hillary Clinton was more concerned with "optics" than security for the people who worked for her! You want to make HER Commander in Chief?

No, people died because the CIA was running some kind of black op in Benghazi and it was a nice target for a mob made angry about a video you like to pretend didn't happen. The fact an ambassador was there that day was just bad luck.

As for that tired chart of how many people died at embassy attacks under Bush? How many of those 60 were US Ambassadors?

Why is the life of an ambassador more important than the life of the guy who files Visa Paperwork? Hey, if you are admitting that only the Ambassador's life was important, then why don't you listen to the family of that Ambassador that has been telling you to knock this shit off for years?

And declaring that Donald Trump is a "Nazi" and therefore makes "moot" any discussion of Hillary Clinton is total unadulterated horse shit!

No, it's a clear choice.

On one hand, you have a woman who didnt anticipate something bad happening, which I guess is bad, Oh, and she used the wrong e-mail server. Things that you didn't consider bad when Republicans did them.

On the other hand, you have a guy who has villified whole races of people, who has expressed a desire for torture, who has had people beaten up at his rallies, who had cheated and swindled business partners and customers, who has mocked the disabled, and a thousand other things that this guy has done, all of which should be disqualifiers...

But you have hated Hillary for decades, and you are willing to ruin the country rather than let her win.

 

[jc456]

First you claim that the security problem was caused by the GOP led Congress "cutting" the State Department security budget by 100 million to which I pointed out that's laughable because A) the State Department received a large budget INCREASE over the budget from the year before...and B) the Deputy Director for security testified under oath that budget cuts had nothing to do with security staffing in Libya and that the Clinton State Department STILL thought security levels for Libya were adequate!

No, one bureaucrat who failed miserably at her job said that. Not quite the same thing.

The Secretary of State's "job" is to oversee the State Department. Providing our diplomatic staff with adequate security SHOULD be one of the most important aspects of that job yet you equate that with making sure the embassy pop machine has enough Diet Coke? People died because Hillary Clinton was more concerned with "optics" than security for the people who worked for her! You want to make HER Commander in Chief?

No, people died because the CIA was running some kind of black op in Benghazi and it was a nice target for a mob made angry about a video you like to pretend didn't happen. The fact an ambassador was there that day was just bad luck.

As for that tired chart of how many people died at embassy attacks under Bush? How many of those 60 were US Ambassadors?

Why is the life of an ambassador more important than the life of the guy who files Visa Paperwork? Hey, if you are admitting that only the Ambassador's life was important, then why don't you listen to the family of that Ambassador that has been telling you to knock this shit off for years?

And declaring that Donald Trump is a "Nazi" and therefore makes "moot" any discussion of Hillary Clinton is total unadulterated horse shit!

No, it's a clear choice.

On one hand, you have a woman who didnt anticipate something bad happening, which I guess is bad, Oh, and she used the wrong e-mail server. Things that you didn't consider bad when Republicans did them.

On the other hand, you have a guy who has villified whole races of people, who has expressed a desire for torture, who has had people beaten up at his rallies, who had cheated and swindled business partners and customers, who has mocked the disabled, and a thousand other things that this guy has done, all of which should be disqualifiers...

But you have hated Hillary for decades, and you are willing to ruin the country rather than let her win.

 

[Oldstyle]

First you claim that the security problem was caused by the GOP led Congress "cutting" the State Department security budget by 100 million to which I pointed out that's laughable because A) the State Department received a large budget INCREASE over the budget from the year before...and B) the Deputy Director for security testified under oath that budget cuts had nothing to do with security staffing in Libya and that the Clinton State Department STILL thought security levels for Libya were adequate!

No, one bureaucrat who failed miserably at her job said that. Not quite the same thing.

The Secretary of State's "job" is to oversee the State Department. Providing our diplomatic staff with adequate security SHOULD be one of the most important aspects of that job yet you equate that with making sure the embassy pop machine has enough Diet Coke? People died because Hillary Clinton was more concerned with "optics" than security for the people who worked for her! You want to make HER Commander in Chief?

No, people died because the CIA was running some kind of black op in Benghazi and it was a nice target for a mob made angry about a video you like to pretend didn't happen. The fact an ambassador was there that day was just bad luck.

As for that tired chart of how many people died at embassy attacks under Bush? How many of those 60 were US Ambassadors?

Why is the life of an ambassador more important than the life of the guy who files Visa Paperwork? Hey, if you are admitting that only the Ambassador's life was important, then why don't you listen to the family of that Ambassador that has been telling you to knock this shit off for years?

And declaring that Donald Trump is a "Nazi" and therefore makes "moot" any discussion of Hillary Clinton is total unadulterated horse shit!

No, it's a clear choice.

On one hand, you have a woman who didnt anticipate something bad happening, which I guess is bad, Oh, and she used the wrong e-mail server. Things that you didn't consider bad when Republicans did them.

On the other hand, you have a guy who has villified whole races of people, who has expressed a desire for torture, who has had people beaten up at his rallies, who had cheated and swindled business partners and customers, who has mocked the disabled, and a thousand other things that this guy has done, all of which should be disqualifiers...

But you have hated Hillary for decades, and you are willing to ruin the country rather than let her win.

You know what's laughable, Joey? You keep telling us that Hillary isn't to blame because she didn't know what was going on...even though she was in charge of the State Department. You remember your analogy about the embassy soda machine? At this point it's questionable if Hillary could HANDLE keeping that stocked...know what I mean?

 

[JoeB131]

You know what's laughable, Joey? You keep telling us that Hillary isn't to blame because she didn't know what was going on...even though she was in charge of the State Department. You remember your analogy about the embassy soda machine? At this point it's questionable if Hillary could HANDLE keeping that stocked...know what I mean?

I think you were too retarded to understand the analogy...

So once again, you didn't hold Bush accountable for those 60 people killed at embassies on his watch.... but man, Hillary should have been managing every detail about a branch office in Benghazi...because a Riot might break out that day...

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what's laughable, Joey? You keep telling us that Hillary isn't to blame because she didn't know what was going on...even though she was in charge of the State Department. You remember your analogy about the embassy soda machine? At this point it's questionable if Hillary could HANDLE keeping that stocked...know what I mean?

I think you were too retarded to understand the analogy...

So once again, you didn't hold Bush accountable for those 60 people killed at embassies on his watch.... but man, Hillary should have been managing every detail about a branch office in Benghazi...because a Riot might break out that day...

Providing adequate security for diplomatic personnel that you're sending into an obviously dangerous environment isn't some minor "detail", Joey! Especially when "that day" happens to be 9/11!

Bush IS accountable for the 60 people killed on his watch...he's the President. The question you should ask yourself however is whether Bush did everything he could to minimize the threat to our diplomatic personnel? So let's talk about those 60 people who were killed...shall we? How many of them were security personnel killed outside of one of our embassies by a suicide bomber? How many times under the Bush Administration did terrorists overrun a security perimeter and kill Americans inside one of our embassies or consulates?

 

[JoeB131]

Providing adequate security for diplomatic personnel that you're sending into an obviously dangerous environment isn't some minor "detail", Joey! Especially when "that day" happens to be 9/11!

You're right. Ambassador Stevens showed shitty judgement... Oh, wait, that's not what you were going for, was it?

Bush IS accountable for the 60 people killed on his watch...he's the President. The question you should ask yourself however is whether Bush did everything he could to minimize the threat to our diplomatic personnel?

Well, let's see now. Did he invade a country on false pretenses enraging that entire region? Check.
Ignore the real terror threat of Al Qaeda so he could pursue a personal vendetta against Saddam?
Check.

Oh, wait, those things MAXIMIZED the threat.

So let's talk about those 60 people who were killed...shall we? How many of them were security personnel killed outside of one of our embassies by a suicide bomber? How many times under the Bush Administration did terrorists overrun a security perimeter and kill Americans inside one of our embassies or consulates?

So is this like some kind of game of tag, where your death isn't as important depending on where you are standing?

Or are you just trying your darnedest to find a way where Hillary is guilty of something while leaving the Shit Show of the Bush years blameless.

 

[Oldstyle]

Providing adequate security for diplomatic personnel that you're sending into an obviously dangerous environment isn't some minor "detail", Joey! Especially when "that day" happens to be 9/11!

You're right. Ambassador Stevens showed shitty judgement... Oh, wait, that's not what you were going for, was it?

Bush IS accountable for the 60 people killed on his watch...he's the President. The question you should ask yourself however is whether Bush did everything he could to minimize the threat to our diplomatic personnel?

Well, let's see now. Did he invade a country on false pretenses enraging that entire region? Check.
Ignore the real terror threat of Al Qaeda so he could pursue a personal vendetta against Saddam?
Check.

Oh, wait, those things MAXIMIZED the threat.

So let's talk about those 60 people who were killed...shall we? How many of them were security personnel killed outside of one of our embassies by a suicide bomber? How many times under the Bush Administration did terrorists overrun a security perimeter and kill Americans inside one of our embassies or consulates?

So is this like some kind of game of tag, where your death isn't as important depending on where you are standing?

Or are you just trying your darnedest to find a way where Hillary is guilty of something while leaving the Shit Show of the Bush years blameless.

Couldn't address my points about the 60 who were killed on Bush's watch...could you, Joey! You trot that tired talking point out and then don't want to defend it? Typical!

The truth is...and you obviously KNOW it because you don't want to deal with it...the 60 who were killed were all on the outside of US diplomatic facilities and were killed by suicide bombers striking without notice. None of them were pitched battles that raged for hours and saw one of our facilities breached and the Ambassador killed.

 

[Oldstyle]

I note that you've gone back to attacking one of the victims here accusing Chris Stevens of having "shitty judgement"! Since Stevens was the one who was begging his bosses at the Clinton State Department not to shrink the size of his security detail...and Hillary Clinton was the one who was calling for a smaller force because she didn't like the "optics" of having too many men guarding our Ambassador...who REALLY had the "shitty judgement"?

 

[JoeB131]

Couldn't address my points about the 60 who were killed on Bush's watch...could you, Joey! You trot that tired talking point out and then don't want to defend it? Typical!

You didn't have a point. You just threw out a question without an answer because you know I'm not going to bother to research it. (It just aint worth my time.)

The truth is...and you obviously KNOW it because you don't want to deal with it...the 60 who were killed were all on the outside of US diplomatic facilities and were killed by suicide bombers striking without notice. None of them were pitched battles that raged for hours and saw one of our facilities breached and the Ambassador killed.

So again, you are coming up with circumstances that somehow make things worse because they apply to Benghazi alone. I think you are just as dead if you get blown up by a car bomber as you are when you lock yourself in a room in a burning building, which is what Stevens did.

I note that you've gone back to attacking one of the victims here accusing Chris Stevens of having "shitty judgement"! Since Stevens was the one who was begging his bosses at the Clinton State Department not to shrink the size of his security detail...and Hillary Clinton was the one who was calling for a smaller force because she didn't like the "optics" of having too many men guarding our Ambassador...who REALLY had the "shitty judgement"?

Stevens could have gotten military guards if he wanted them. He turned them down.
He could have rescheduled his meeting for a different day. He didn't.
He could have gone back to Tripoli after his meeting was done. He decided to stay the night.
He could have rescheduled his meeting to be in Tripoli. He didn't.
He could have paid attention to reports that there was heightened unrest over the video you like to pretend didn't exist. He didn't.

But, no, no, no, this is all Hillary's fault because you hate her. You hate her so much you are willing to elect A ******* NAZI because you've been hating her since she said bad stuff about you in the 1990's.

 

[Oldstyle]

Couldn't address my points about the 60 who were killed on Bush's watch...could you, Joey! You trot that tired talking point out and then don't want to defend it? Typical!

You didn't have a point. You just threw out a question without an answer because you know I'm not going to bother to research it. (It just aint worth my time.)

The truth is...and you obviously KNOW it because you don't want to deal with it...the 60 who were killed were all on the outside of US diplomatic facilities and were killed by suicide bombers striking without notice. None of them were pitched battles that raged for hours and saw one of our facilities breached and the Ambassador killed.

So again, you are coming up with circumstances that somehow make things worse because they apply to Benghazi alone. I think you are just as dead if you get blown up by a car bomber as you are when you lock yourself in a room in a burning building, which is what Stevens did.

I note that you've gone back to attacking one of the victims here accusing Chris Stevens of having "shitty judgement"! Since Stevens was the one who was begging his bosses at the Clinton State Department not to shrink the size of his security detail...and Hillary Clinton was the one who was calling for a smaller force because she didn't like the "optics" of having too many men guarding our Ambassador...who REALLY had the "shitty judgement"?

Stevens could have gotten military guards if he wanted them. He turned them down.
He could have rescheduled his meeting for a different day. He didn't.
He could have gone back to Tripoli after his meeting was done. He decided to stay the night.
He could have rescheduled his meeting to be in Tripoli. He didn't.
He could have paid attention to reports that there was heightened unrest over the video you like to pretend didn't exist. He didn't.

But, no, no, no, this is all Hillary's fault because you hate her. You hate her so much you are willing to elect A ******* NAZI because you've been hating her since she said bad stuff about you in the 1990's.

You're the one who tried to excuse Hillary Clinton's incompetence that led to the death of Christopher Stevens and the others in Benghazi by bringing up that tired old liberal talking point about how 60 people died during attacks on US consulates and embassies during the Bush presidency! But when I point out that all of those attacks were suicide bombings that killed people OUTSIDE of our installations...suddenly you're not going to research it because it ain't worth your time? That's pathetic even for you, Joey!

Can't stop trying to blame the people who got killed in Benghazi...can you? The truth is...Christopher Stevens COULDN'T accept "military guards" because we had no status of forces agreement with Libya and a force from the military wouldn't have been covered by the same diplomatic immunity that a security force from the State Department would have had. THAT is the reason Christopher Stevens was unable to take the military up on their offer to send troops for security! Instead he was forced to beg his bosses at the State Department not to decrease State Department security forces! Literally hundreds of requests were made to the Clinton State Department to that effect and yet the number of security personnel in Libya was cut nearly in half even as the situation was deteriorating by the day. Why? Because Hillary wanted to portray things in Libya as more under control than they actually were for political reasons! She didn't like the "optics" of having to have a large armed force guarding our Ambassador!

 

[jon_berzerk]

So tell us regressives, what good is experience if you can't remember it and draw from it? Come on folks, tell us again how she's the most qualified person to ever run for the office.

good point

 

[jon_berzerk]

So tell us regressives, what good is experience if you can't remember it and draw from it? Come on folks, tell us again how she's the most qualified person to ever run for the office.

"I can't remember my mind's in a blender, it's Jello."

knock knock puddin head

--LOL