Hillary "scrubbed" From Benghazi

[1776]

Of course she is part of the criminal cover-up....it started before the Ambassador was killed.

 

[depotoo]

Immature is the one that sees the Benghazi tragedy as nothing more than a political bump in the 2016 elections.

only to those that believe that the Obama administration is purely ethical and never makes a mistake.

And as the poll numbers are showing...that number is declining quite rapidly.

Pfft...whatever loser.

332-206.

Very mature response.

You can't find anyone who thinks that Obama hasn't made a mistake (including Obama). Second term Presidents almost all have sinking poll numbers. Inmature perhaps but your lack of political sophistication is probably a greater sign of inmaturity. Which is why you were dubbed "loser"...what you're citing is barely relevant in one case and patently false in another.

Polls are showing that more people believe there is more to Benghazi and the IRS than meets the eye.

I'm sure there are polls that show that. The IRS scandal is a scandal and the President should have been much more aggressive than he was. Ben-gotcha isn't a scandal and THIS is what you and your enablers at Fox are focusing on.

And I am sorry my "political sophistication" does not meet your standards. I consider myself well informed...and whereas I do not think I know all, I know enough to engage in a debate on this board. If you don't feel I am worthy of your time, then please, do not read or respond to my posts

But to call me a loser because I am not as politically sophisticated as you believe you are is, in my eyes, inappropriate and...as I said....immature.

Fair enough...

If terrorists are NOT to be blamed for terrorism and only those who are in power at the time are--as you're stating-- think about the 9/11/01 attacks.

GWB was in power and was re-elected 3 years later. His CIA/NSA/Military let it happen.

By the time 2016 rolls around, an attack on an American consulate in Lybia that resulted in the deaths of 4 people is going to somehow be front and center five years later?

 

[boedicca]

Wonder how outraged OP was for the REAL 9/11 under Shrub's (R) watch

You mean because Clinton didn't catch Bin Laden when he had the chance....

 

[Dot Com]

Wonder how outraged OP was for the REAL 9/11 under Shrub's (R) watch

You mean because Clinton didn't catch Bin Laden when he had the chance....

Ashcroft Didn t Want To Hear Of Al Qaeda In High Threat Summer Of 2001 Crooks and Liars

BEN-VENISTE: Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr. Pickard, on January 21st of this year you met with our staff. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That's correct.

BEN-VENISTE: And according to our staff report, you told them that in June 2001, you met with Attorney General Ashcroft and he told you that you would be the acting FBI director.

PICKARD: That's correct.

BEN-VENISTE: You had some seven or eight meetings with the attorney general?

PICKARD: Somewhere in that number. I have the exact number, but I don't know the total.

BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff took from you, you said that you would start each meeting discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence. At the same time the threat level was going up and was very high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?

PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.

BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That is correct.

(h/t Mike)

 

[Vigilante]

 

[candycorn]

It really is appalling. When Nixon's abuses came to light, the GOP held him accountable - and he resigned.

What we have now in the Obama Administration is an Organized Crime Syndicate with Harry as a Fixer.

And in this era of complete mis-trust between the GOP and Obama, do you think for a second that there would be any hesitation from the House to impeach him if there was any evidence of high crimes being committed? The only one talking about impeachment is crazy old Sarah Palin and the GOP couldn't distance itself fast enough from her.

I can't recall another President who kicked off his relationship with leaders from the other party with "I Won". Obama has actually tried to work with Congress, let alone the GOP.

Bush in 04....

 

[candycorn]

[

But since the pertinent questions have been answered in your eyes, perhaps you can answer these questions for me....

1) How did the military know, while the attack was on going, that the siege would end within 10 hours? After all, the President said he did not give an order to conduct a rescue mission at the consulate because it would take 10 hours to get there and the siege ended within that time period. How did he know it would not take 20 hours for the siege to end?

You think 4 people are going to hold off a mob in this compound this size for 10 hours?

Additionally, describe the "rescue" logistics....does the rescue team drive there...land at the airport, paratroop in, or use choppers with fast rope?

2) Why was a lower level staffer given permission to deny extra security to an Ambassador who was stationed in a country that was undergoing a violent transition in the most violent region in the world? Why would the Secretary of State feel that it was OK to allow such a decision to be made without her knowledge?

Not sure what you're talking about. Who is this staffer you're speaking of? Secretary Clinton seemed to know that the congressional budget cuts would adversely effect security at American installations.

3) Where WAS the President during the siege? We know he was not in the situation room. Why is this important? He had a very important campaign rally the very next day. Chances are good that he was with his campaign team at the time. Nothing wrong with that. However, if he were with them, were they (the campaign team) aware of the siege? If yes, did they offer their opinion? For example, did they say "if you send in a rescue team, and the mission fails, and we have 10 dead marines on your hands, you can consider the re-election campaign a lost cause"...For if they DID offer the opinion on policy, and he used that opinion to make a decision, it would be a breach of his position as President of the United States as a campaign team is, by law, not allowed to sway Presidential decisions.

So tell me...can you answer any of the questions?

Everyone of them have been asked....but none have been answered that I am aware of.

But they must have been for you are so sure that nothing inappropriate was done in regard to Benghazi.

So please, enlighten me with facts....not your opinion.

You get to engage in innuendo and I do not?

Okay...it matters little if the president is in the situation room or a limo or at Camp David. If he's near a phone or someone with a phone, he's in the loop if he wants to be.

If you're stating that no President should be electioneering during a crisis, we'd never have a president campaign for re-election...there are always crisis situations. We were attacked by OBL on 9/11/01...somebody didn't have a problem campaigning while he was free to plot another attack. I can't say whom because I get called names but we all know who it is.

Now, if I may offer some opinions....I would be shocked if the political calculus was not factored in. Obama is a politician after all. I tend to think the event was over too soon for any sort of patented right wing histrionics concerning the banter you listed above.

-------

If these questions have all been asked...what were the answers that were given? I'm curious.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, and by the way....Exactly how was President Bush a draft dodger if he served in the National Guard?

And you call me politically unsophisticated?

You are better than that Candycorn.

I just used the right wing formula that was used for Bill Clinton....he could have served but chose not to.

 

[Jarhead]

[

But since the pertinent questions have been answered in your eyes, perhaps you can answer these questions for me....

1) How did the military know, while the attack was on going, that the siege would end within 10 hours? After all, the President said he did not give an order to conduct a rescue mission at the consulate because it would take 10 hours to get there and the siege ended within that time period. How did he know it would not take 20 hours for the siege to end?

You think 4 people are going to hold off a mob in this compound this size for 10 hours?

Additionally, describe the "rescue" logistics....does the rescue team drive there...land at the airport, paratroop in, or use choppers with fast rope?

2) Why was a lower level staffer given permission to deny extra security to an Ambassador who was stationed in a country that was undergoing a violent transition in the most violent region in the world? Why would the Secretary of State feel that it was OK to allow such a decision to be made without her knowledge?

Not sure what you're talking about. Who is this staffer you're speaking of? Secretary Clinton seemed to know that the congressional budget cuts would adversely effect security at American installations.

3) Where WAS the President during the siege? We know he was not in the situation room. Why is this important? He had a very important campaign rally the very next day. Chances are good that he was with his campaign team at the time. Nothing wrong with that. However, if he were with them, were they (the campaign team) aware of the siege? If yes, did they offer their opinion? For example, did they say "if you send in a rescue team, and the mission fails, and we have 10 dead marines on your hands, you can consider the re-election campaign a lost cause"...For if they DID offer the opinion on policy, and he used that opinion to make a decision, it would be a breach of his position as President of the United States as a campaign team is, by law, not allowed to sway Presidential decisions.

So tell me...can you answer any of the questions?

Everyone of them have been asked....but none have been answered that I am aware of.

But they must have been for you are so sure that nothing inappropriate was done in regard to Benghazi.

So please, enlighten me with facts....not your opinion.

You get to engage in innuendo and I do not?

Okay...it matters little if the president is in the situation room or a limo or at Camp David. If he's near a phone or someone with a phone, he's in the loop if he wants to be.

If you're stating that no President should be electioneering during a crisis, we'd never have a president campaign for re-election...there are always crisis situations. We were attacked by OBL on 9/11/01...somebody didn't have a problem campaigning while he was free to plot another attack. I can't say whom because I get called names but we all know who it is.

Now, if I may offer some opinions....I would be shocked if the political calculus was not factored in. Obama is a politician after all. I tend to think the event was over too soon for any sort of patented right wing histrionics concerning the banter you listed above.

-------

If these questions have all been asked...what were the answers that were given? I'm curious.

First....the 4 held them off for close to 7 hours. For all we know, the siege may have died off and started again. Know one knew at the time. To not, at least, start the ball rolling with a rescue mission is very suspicious.

As for your second response. Is it that you don't read my posts, have trouble comprehending my posts, or simply decide you can not respond to what I say so you make believe I said something else and respond to that instead?

I said there was nothing wrong with him being with his campaign team. I never said it was an issue that he was NOT in the situation room.

What I DID say is that if, in fact, he was with his campaign team....and he discussed the ongoing siege with them, and they advised him NOT to engage in a rescue mission for if it fails and 10 marines die, his re-election campaign will come to an end...and he took that advice, then he was in breach of a very strict law that states that a campaign team can NOT advise of policy, and such advice can not be taken and implemented by the President

So his whereabouts are quite important.

But what the hey.....all you like to do is insult those you debate with. SO I am done with you and your way of interacting on this board.

 

[Jarhead]

[

But since the pertinent questions have been answered in your eyes, perhaps you can answer these questions for me....

1) How did the military know, while the attack was on going, that the siege would end within 10 hours? After all, the President said he did not give an order to conduct a rescue mission at the consulate because it would take 10 hours to get there and the siege ended within that time period. How did he know it would not take 20 hours for the siege to end?

You think 4 people are going to hold off a mob in this compound this size for 10 hours?

Additionally, describe the "rescue" logistics....does the rescue team drive there...land at the airport, paratroop in, or use choppers with fast rope?

2) Why was a lower level staffer given permission to deny extra security to an Ambassador who was stationed in a country that was undergoing a violent transition in the most violent region in the world? Why would the Secretary of State feel that it was OK to allow such a decision to be made without her knowledge?

Not sure what you're talking about. Who is this staffer you're speaking of? Secretary Clinton seemed to know that the congressional budget cuts would adversely effect security at American installations.

3) Where WAS the President during the siege? We know he was not in the situation room. Why is this important? He had a very important campaign rally the very next day. Chances are good that he was with his campaign team at the time. Nothing wrong with that. However, if he were with them, were they (the campaign team) aware of the siege? If yes, did they offer their opinion? For example, did they say "if you send in a rescue team, and the mission fails, and we have 10 dead marines on your hands, you can consider the re-election campaign a lost cause"...For if they DID offer the opinion on policy, and he used that opinion to make a decision, it would be a breach of his position as President of the United States as a campaign team is, by law, not allowed to sway Presidential decisions.

So tell me...can you answer any of the questions?

Everyone of them have been asked....but none have been answered that I am aware of.

But they must have been for you are so sure that nothing inappropriate was done in regard to Benghazi.

So please, enlighten me with facts....not your opinion.

You get to engage in innuendo and I do not?

Okay...it matters little if the president is in the situation room or a limo or at Camp David. If he's near a phone or someone with a phone, he's in the loop if he wants to be.

If you're stating that no President should be electioneering during a crisis, we'd never have a president campaign for re-election...there are always crisis situations. We were attacked by OBL on 9/11/01...somebody didn't have a problem campaigning while he was free to plot another attack. I can't say whom because I get called names but we all know who it is.

Now, if I may offer some opinions....I would be shocked if the political calculus was not factored in. Obama is a politician after all. I tend to think the event was over too soon for any sort of patented right wing histrionics concerning the banter you listed above.

-------

If these questions have all been asked...what were the answers that were given? I'm curious.

First....the 4 held them off for close to 7 hours. For all we know, the siege may have died off and started again. Know one knew at the time. To not, at least, start the ball rolling with a rescue mission is very suspicious.

As for your second response. Is it that you don't read my posts, have trouble comprehending my posts, or simply decide you can not respond to what I say so you make believe I said something else and respond to that instead?

I said there was nothing wrong with him being with his campaign team. I never said it was an issue that he was NOT in the situation room.

What I DID say is that if, in fact, he was with his campaign team....and he discussed the ongoing siege with them, and they advised him NOT to engage in a rescue mission for if it fails and 10 marines die, his re-election campaign will come to an end...and he took that advice, then he was in breach of a very strict law that states that a campaign team can NOT advise of policy, and such advice can not be taken and implemented by the President

So his whereabouts are quite important.

But what the hey.....all you like to do is insult those you debate with. SO I am done with you and your way of interacting on this board.

Oh, and by the way....I noticed you did NOT have the answers to the questions. You skirted them and tried to explain why those questions are not relevant.

Well, if they were not relevant, why were they not simply answered when asked?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Clinton insiders screened Benghazi documents before ARB probe official says Hot Air
Did Clinton Aides Withhold Damaging Benghazi Documents

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are such a fucking lost cause.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals are such a fucking lost cause.

Unfortunately, Liberals are steering the ship of state.....over the falls.

 

[Theowl32]

Benghazi has become a net win for the Democrats. Americans understand that the ME is a dangerous place and that attacks of Americans over there are old news. Each time it comes up, the voters will wonder why the witch hunt is going on.

It won't be a factor in 2014 or 2016.

Benghazi has become a net win for the Democrats. Americans understand that the ME is a dangerous place and that attacks of Americans over there are old news. Each time it comes up, the voters will wonder why the witch hunt is going on.

It won't be a factor in 2014 or 2016.

You bet your ass the ME is a dangeruos place. You can also bet your ass the embassy Staff at Benghazi thought their bosses, The fucking State Department, had their backs. Guess not. They are now busily covering their own asses.

You might think Benghazi is a winner for the Dems but I doubt it.

Politically it is.

In the light of the Great Bush Iraqi misadventure where 4,000+ Americans died and tens of thousands were injured for absolutely zero real gain to our nation, the GOP fetish (I was going to say obsession but fetish is more appropriate...it's an obscene fixation that only they get pleasure out of) with Ben-Gotcha looks frankly stupid.

Yeap, they could not resist. Boooooooooosh.

Meanwhile, Clinton still signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs, Democrats still supported the war (including the pathetic joke known as Hillary who you will gleefully vote for), Iraq is lost under Obama, the Chinese took the lions share of the oil benefits, and Obama lost whatever little respect he had from our enemies.

As if he actually had any respect to begin with.

Obama has ruptured our relations with our allies, empowered our enemies in Libya and Egypt, all while our country's debt has grown exponentially as our military leaders are fired when they are perceived as not being on Obama's side and our military is systematically downsized in a world that is growing more and more volatile under his nonleadership.

You are fucking pathetic joke.

Now, why don't you go to your fucking bag of cliches instead of coming up with anything original.

 

[Samson]

Liberals are such a fucking lost cause.

Unfortunately, Liberals are steering the ship of state.....over the falls.

And at the bottom of the falls, await your 3000 brothers and sisters

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Hossfly]

Oh, and by the way....Exactly how was President Bush a draft dodger if he served in the National Guard?

And you call me politically unsophisticated?

You are better than that Candycorn.

I just used the right wing formula that was used for Bill Clinton....he could have served but chose not to.

Yeah, that Clinton piece of dried smegma chose to use his Rhodes scholarship to go to England where he led protests of the Vietnam War and passing out his Communist literature. He was drafted while in England but avoided the draft by applying for ROTC which he never attended. Then the sorry piece of shit became President, disgraced the Office and now sits around with his idiot grin and his Rudolph-looking Jack Daniels nose. Some hero you libs pick. Bush was in the N.G. and he would have gone to Vietnam if needed.He's a man, compared to the cowardly, criminal weasel Clinton

 

[Hossfly]

Benghazi has become a net win for the Democrats. Americans understand that the ME is a dangerous place and that attacks of Americans over there are old news. Each time it comes up, the voters will wonder why the witch hunt is going on.

It won't be a factor in 2014 or 2016.

This old voter is wondering why in hell our Army isn't over there killing terrorists like cockroaches. And BTW, the Democrats are only winning scorn and contempt from loyal Americans.

Take another look at who the President is, and his record vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists.

Obamessiah has a host of MB in the Administration and he has already stated if the world situation gets down to the nitty gritty, he is going to go with Islam. (That tells me the war is with Islam and not just with terrorist Islamists) I have a video of him saying that at a Muslim conference which I can post if the Left wingnuts doubt me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
post it, you know they will doubt you and call you a liar.

everyone knows (every one with a scintilla of a brain) liberals are liars, thus liberliars !

 

[Vigilante]

 

[candycorn]

[

But since the pertinent questions have been answered in your eyes, perhaps you can answer these questions for me....

1) How did the military know, while the attack was on going, that the siege would end within 10 hours? After all, the President said he did not give an order to conduct a rescue mission at the consulate because it would take 10 hours to get there and the siege ended within that time period. How did he know it would not take 20 hours for the siege to end?

You think 4 people are going to hold off a mob in this compound this size for 10 hours?

Additionally, describe the "rescue" logistics....does the rescue team drive there...land at the airport, paratroop in, or use choppers with fast rope?

2) Why was a lower level staffer given permission to deny extra security to an Ambassador who was stationed in a country that was undergoing a violent transition in the most violent region in the world? Why would the Secretary of State feel that it was OK to allow such a decision to be made without her knowledge?

Not sure what you're talking about. Who is this staffer you're speaking of? Secretary Clinton seemed to know that the congressional budget cuts would adversely effect security at American installations.

3) Where WAS the President during the siege? We know he was not in the situation room. Why is this important? He had a very important campaign rally the very next day. Chances are good that he was with his campaign team at the time. Nothing wrong with that. However, if he were with them, were they (the campaign team) aware of the siege? If yes, did they offer their opinion? For example, did they say "if you send in a rescue team, and the mission fails, and we have 10 dead marines on your hands, you can consider the re-election campaign a lost cause"...For if they DID offer the opinion on policy, and he used that opinion to make a decision, it would be a breach of his position as President of the United States as a campaign team is, by law, not allowed to sway Presidential decisions.

So tell me...can you answer any of the questions?

Everyone of them have been asked....but none have been answered that I am aware of.

But they must have been for you are so sure that nothing inappropriate was done in regard to Benghazi.

So please, enlighten me with facts....not your opinion.

You get to engage in innuendo and I do not?

Okay...it matters little if the president is in the situation room or a limo or at Camp David. If he's near a phone or someone with a phone, he's in the loop if he wants to be.

If you're stating that no President should be electioneering during a crisis, we'd never have a president campaign for re-election...there are always crisis situations. We were attacked by OBL on 9/11/01...somebody didn't have a problem campaigning while he was free to plot another attack. I can't say whom because I get called names but we all know who it is.

Now, if I may offer some opinions....I would be shocked if the political calculus was not factored in. Obama is a politician after all. I tend to think the event was over too soon for any sort of patented right wing histrionics concerning the banter you listed above.

-------

If these questions have all been asked...what were the answers that were given? I'm curious.

First....the 4 held them off for close to 7 hours. For all we know, the siege may have died off and started again. Know one knew at the time. To not, at least, start the ball rolling with a rescue mission is very suspicious.

So it would have taken 10 hours and the battle was over in 7. The math doesn't add up. Not that any of this matters in the 2016 election (which was the point as you may recall).

As for your second response. Is it that you don't read my posts, have trouble comprehending my posts, or simply decide you can not respond to what I say so you make believe I said something else and respond to that instead?

I said there was nothing wrong with him being with his campaign team. I never said it was an issue that he was NOT in the situation room.

What I DID say is that if, in fact, he was with his campaign team....and he discussed the ongoing siege with them, and they advised him NOT to engage in a rescue mission for if it fails and 10 marines die, his re-election campaign will come to an end...and he took that advice, then he was in breach of a very strict law that states that a campaign team can NOT advise of policy, and such advice can not be taken and implemented by the President


So his whereabouts are quite important.

Not sure how much you paid attention to the 2012 election..not much apparently. His campaign team included people from his administration...they were not two separate entities. Karl Rove was deputy COS under George W. Bush. I know it makes you uncomfortable to compare the incumbent to his predecessors since Bush was such a failure both as a man and as a President but it is the truth. Karl Rove - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Karl Rove - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
But what the hey.....all you like to do is insult those you debate with. SO I am done with you and your way of interacting on this board.[/QUOTE]

That's fine..if you can't take the heat, best to leave the kitchen.

PS: It was the third thing I posted..not the second. Do you have a problem with counting as well?