HILLARY!: "What difference does it make?"...

[Truthmatters]

where did Randal Paul get his information that such a thing was taking place in Turkey?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lots of good threads on this already.

lots .... all filled with so much crap they have lost all semblance of rational discussion.

you take threads into conspiracy land.

 

[CMike]

It's Hillary that got rightfully spanked.

 

[Jarhead]

They just pretend its a scandal


Just like F and F

To sane persons, when government fucks up and people die, then when they lie about it and cover it up, that's a scandal.

But, that's to sane persons.

dear fuckjng IDIOT no one lied.

that is what the inteeligence first told them.
THAT is what the report on benghazi found.


Just like Fast and Furious you just pretend it has NOT been investigated

You said something similar in another thread a while back and I asked you a question and it went ignoired....

OK...So according to you, Fast and Furious has been investigated.
Cool.

So tell me....who was the one who opted to NOT tell the Attorney General about an operation that included the selling of guns to the enemy (Drug Cartels) of an ally (Mexico)?

When one furnishes arms to the enemy of another, it is deemed as an act of war...

So who approved the act of war and did not ensure the AG, The President and the Congress be aware of it?

Surely the investigation would show that....

so who was it and what was his/her reprimand?

 

[jwoodie]

Anyone interested in what actually took place, or do we all prefer to live in the land of make-believe?

 

[Truthmatters]

the republican party is doomed.

they jsut keep making shit up out of nothing and refusing all facts.


They just can stop being dishonest.

Its over for the republican party

 

[Truthmatters]

Anyone interested in what actually took place, or do we all prefer to live in the land of make-believe?

why do you refuse the study?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Not sure but the turkey and crow eggs are all over clintons face.

 

[Claudette]

Marco Rubio right now is saying that he and others believe that Clinton lied today and that she had read the cables that she is denying to have seen.

Look t it this way.....

I agree that she cant be expected to read every cable from every post in the world....

But......

If the cables from an Ambassador to a country that is not only in the most volatile region in the world, but a country that is going through a very sensitive transition.....exactly what were the cables she deemed important enough to have her attention?

Yup. " I didn't get the memo" ain't gonna cut it on Benghazi. Sounds like Holder who didn't get the memo on FF. Apparantly no one in that fucks administration gets ANY memo's.

Anyone really believe she didn't get any memo on request for additional security in a hotspot like Libya??

If not then I guess she runs her State Department like Holder runs his Department. Neither got any memo's and neither have any business running anything.

Rather like that fuck in the WH who's Vegas fundraiser was way, way, way more important than four men dying in Libya.

What a bunch of assholes they all are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Put it all together

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" What was Secretary Clinton referring to?

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?

“It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer my questions about this but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information … but you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided to do it, as to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”

We all know the Secretary is well respected and that no one with any credibility has accused her of lying because there is no credible reason for her to lie...

But we in America have a conspiracy fringe that is alive and well..




---

 

[Jarhead]

The US (NATO) helped the muslem brotherhood overthrow the Libyan regime. The former community activist decided not to fortify the American embassy in Libya to avoid annoying his new friends and then he saw the US Ambassador raped and murdered and three others including former Navy Seals murdered. Next thing you know the muslem brotherhood in Libya ships weapons to Al-Queda in Algeria who capture US citizens. To add insult to injury Hussein has now given American fighter planes and tanks to the Egyptian muslem brotherhood who danced in the streets after 9-11. Whether it's Turkey or Syria or Algeria or Iraq it's important to see how much the former SS knew about Libyan arms shipments.

Wow..I didn't take you for a supporter of anti-American terrorism.

Gaddafi funded and authored one of the largest attacks against American Citizens in history.

It was a travesty he was a leader of a nation.

And it was despicable that the Bush administration accepted blood money from the despot.

Yet you are OK with the White House approving the gift of nearly 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, despite its current leader being on record as saying that the US is one of only 2 enemies of his...(Israel being the other)?

 

[Truthmatters]

so does that mean you refuse the study?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Anyone interested in what actually took place, or do we all prefer to live in the land of make-believe?

the ARB http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

 

[Jarhead]

Put it all together

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" What was Secretary Clinton referring to?

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?

“It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer my questions about this but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information … but you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided to do it, as to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”

We all know the Secretary is well respected and that no one with any credibility has accused her of lying because there is no credible reason for her to lie...

But we in America have a conspiracy fringe that is alive and well..




---

No credible reason to lie?

Her boss was campaigning with a mantrea of "al-quaeda is on the run" at the moment the attack took place.

Enough said.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I am amused that the democratic spin machine (read mainstream media) is playing this exchange off like it's some kind of triumph for shrill old Hillary. It is plain that the Benghazi attack was spun to look like a demonstration that got out of hand to aid Obama in his efforts to get re-elected. Everything else is a sideshow to direct attention away from the obvious.

Hillary is complicit in the plot. She, too, should be impeached.

Yes, I know she's about to leave office. Maybe they should just throw her in jail for a while.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

LOL, funding wasn't the issue. That's another deflection. The office was currently funded at the time and I would bet that you already know that.

really? that is not exactly what the ARB says......


..

For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, with varying degrees of success. This has brought about a deep sense of the importance of husbanding resources to meet the highest priorities, laudable in the extreme in any government department. But it has also had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation. There is no easy way to cut through this Gordian knot, all the more so as budgetary austerity looms large ahead.

At the same time, it is imperative for the State Department to be mission-driven, rather than resource-constrained – particularly when being present in increasingly risky areas of the world is integral to U.S. national security. The recommendations in this report attempt to grapple with these issues and err on the side of increased attention to prioritization and to fuller support for people and facilities engaged in working in high risk, high threat areas. The solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives.

Mindful of these considerations, the ARB has examined the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with an eye towards how we can better advance American interests and protect our personnel in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. This Board presents its findings and recommendations with the unanimous conclusion that while the United States cannot retreat in the face of such challenges, we must work more rigorously and adeptly to address them, and that American diplomats and security professionals, like their military colleagues, serve the nation in an inherently risky profession. Risk mitigation involves two imperatives – engagement and security – which require wise leadership, good intelligence and evaluation, proper defense and strong preparedness and, at times, downsizing, indirect access and even withdrawal. There is no one paradigm. Experienced leadership, close coordination and agility, timely informed decision making, and adequate funding and personnel resources are essential. The selfless courage of the four Americans who died in the line of duty in Benghazi on September 11-12, 2012, as well as those who were injured and all those who valiantly fought to save their colleagues, inspires all of us as we seek to draw the right lessons from that tragic night.

..

..

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Unclassified: by Hillary Clinton

FINDINGS
In examining the circumstances of these attacks, the Accountability Review Board for Benghazi determined that:

1. The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at two separate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department&#8221 resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.

Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.

The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi.

Plans for the Ambassador’s trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound.

The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012.

His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.
Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels.

Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.

3. Notwithstanding the proper implementation of security systems and procedures and remarkable heroism shown by American personnel, those systems and the Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers.
The Board found the responses by both the BML guards and February 17 to be inadequate. The Board’s inquiry found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense of the SMC, or succeeded in summoning a February 17 militia presence to assist expeditiously.

The Board found the Libyan government’s response to be profoundly lacking on the night of the attacks, reflecting both weak capacity and near absence of central government influence and control in Benghazi. The Libyan government did facilitate assistance from a quasi-governmental militia that supported the evacuation of U.S. government personnel to Benghazi airport. The Libyan government also provided a military C-130 aircraft which was used to evacuate remaining U.S. personnel and the bodies of the deceased from Benghazi to Tripoli on September 12.

The Board determined that U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues, in a near impossible situation. The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.

The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.

4. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.

5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.

The ARB is not Clinton speaking and she is the one who decided it would be declassiffied. She could have kept it classified as is the norm in investigations like this

just the facts ma'am :

 

[peach174]

where did Randal Paul get his information that such a thing was taking place in Turkey?

From the News.
Plus he has access to information more so than a U.S. Citizen does, being a Senator.
Libya to arm rebels in Syria
It has been reported in the British news and American News.

How is it that the Australian, British and American news reported on it, but Hillary has never heard of it, until she was asked by Rand Paul?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am amused that the democratic spin machine (read mainstream media) is playing this exchange off like it's some kind of triumph for shrill old Hillary. It is plain that the Benghazi attack was spun to look like a demonstration that got out of hand to aid Obama in his efforts to get re-elected. Everything else is a sideshow to direct attention away from the obvious.

Hillary is complicit in the plot. She, too, should be impeached.

Yes, I know she's about to leave office. Maybe they should just throw her in jail for a while.

impeached? No one with any credibility is talking about impeachment because no one disagrees with the ARB

5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

your post is part of a conspiracy theory and is off topic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Put it all together

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" What was Secretary Clinton referring to?

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?

“It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer my questions about this but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information … but you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided to do it, as to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”

We all know the Secretary is well respected and that no one with any credibility has accused her of lying because there is no credible reason for her to lie...

But we in America have a conspiracy fringe that is alive and well..




---

No credible reason to lie?

Her boss was campaigning with a mantrea of "al-quaeda is on the run" at the moment the attack took place.

Enough said.

The systemic issues at State had nothing to do with an election campaign...

read the ARB http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, with varying degrees of success. This has brought about a deep sense of the importance of husbanding resources to meet the highest priorities, laudable in the extreme in any government department. But it has also had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation. There is no easy way to cut through this Gordian knot, all the more so as budgetary austerity looms large ahead. At the same time, it is imperative for the State Department to be mission-driven, rather than resource-constrained – particularly when being present in increasingly risky areas of the world is integral to U.S. national security.

The recommendations in this report attempt to grapple with these issues and err on the side of increased attention to prioritization and to fuller support for people and facilities engaged in working in high risk, high threat areas. The solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Had I been president at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.”

It was about this time that Clinton began to smirk to herself.

Raw Story (Clinton slams Rand Paul in Benghazi hearing: ?I have taken responsibility? | The Raw Story)

Paul went on saying that perhaps it was excusable that Clinton did not “read every cable” from Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. And while he claimed to not “suspect” the Secretary of “bad motives,” he said he felt she had been a failure at her job.

He then asked if anyone is taking weapons out of Libya to Turkey.

“To Turkey?” Clinton replied, looking genuinely puzzled. “Uh, no, no-one’s ever raised that with me.”



---


“Well, Senator,” Clinton replied at length. “The reason I’m here today is to answer your questions the best I can. I am the Secretary of State and the [Administrative Review Board] made very clear that the level of the responsibility for the failure that they have outlined was set at the Assistant Secretary level and below.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg]Hillary Clinton Ad - 3 AM White House Ringing Phone - YouTube[/ame]



Paul: "Failure of leadership....you did not read the cables."



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fG6XNIwBaY]RAND PAUL BRINGS IT!... Tells Hillary Clinton: YOU Are to Blame for Benghazi! - YouTube[/ame]



Why did we need her to 'answer the phone" again?