"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But the bad news for you idiots, is that such profound whitewashes, such as that horse-shit 'report', aren't produced to cover up nothing.

When Republican lawmakers in control of the House investigate for 2 years and find nothing at all approaching 'unprecedented treason' from anyone from the White House, it is proof to Lost_keys that 'unprecedented treason' has been committed and even Republicans are involved in the cover up. What a world Lost_keys lives in.

Oh there is little doubt that those on that committee are complicit in the cover-up. And when its all said and done, they will likely find themselves in prison, right along with the Leftists.

If anyone gets around to asking me, everyone of those who signed onto that report will be executed for treason... right along with the Peasantpimp of the Union States and the members of his cult.

 

[Nyvin]

But the bad news for you idiots, is that such profound whitewashes, such as that horse-shit 'report', aren't produced to cover up nothing.

When Republican lawmakers in control of the House investigate for 2 years and find nothing at all approaching 'unprecedented treason' from anyone from the White House, it is proof to Lost_keys that 'unprecedented treason' has been committed and even Republicans are involved in the cover up. What a world Lost_keys lives in.

Oh there is little doubt that those on that committee are complicit in the cover-up. And when its all said and done, they will likely find themselves in prison, right along with the Leftists.

If anyone gets around to asking me, everyone of those who signed onto that report will be executed for treason... right along with the Peasantpimp of the Union States and the members of his cult.

The Republicans had lots of vested interests to find blame and convict the White House....or convict SOMEONE for that matter. You don't start a Select Committee, investigate for two years and come up with nothing, that looks foolish.

Unfortunately they ended up looking foolish anyway.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But the bad news for you idiots, is that such profound whitewashes, such as that horse-shit 'report', aren't produced to cover up nothing.

When Republican lawmakers in control of the House investigate for 2 years and find nothing at all approaching 'unprecedented treason' from anyone from the White House, it is proof to Lost_keys that 'unprecedented treason' has been committed and even Republicans are involved in the cover up. What a world Lost_keys lives in.

Oh there is little doubt that those on that committee are complicit in the cover-up. And when its all said and done, they will likely find themselves in prison, right along with the Leftists.

If anyone gets around to asking me, everyone of those who signed onto that report will be executed for treason... right along with the Peasantpimp of the Union States and the members of his cult.

The Republicans had lots of vested interests to find blame and convict the White House....or convict SOMEONE for that matter. You don't start a Select Committee, investigate for two years and come up with nothing, that looks foolish.

Unfortunately they ended up looking foolish anyway.

Well, I say that you should cling to that. As you're about to find yourself in need of something soft and meaningless to get you through the tough days ahead.

The only hope you have at this point, rest in the feckless and subversive nature of Boehner and McConnell. But, I should point out that, they've never been anything but a wicked disappointment, so ya best brace yourself.

 

[Dot Com]

Case closed rw fishing expedition hacks. Your own people owned-up to the fact that they basically blew $3.3 MILLION in taxpayer $$$

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Case closed rw fishing expedition hacks. Your own people owned-up to the fact that they basically blew $3.3 MILLION in taxpayer $$$

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Oh now that is purely wishful 'feeling' right there.

The game hasn't even begun. And there she is DEMANDING that its OVER!

It's so reminiscent of my days as a coach of little leaguers who had a couple of coincidence wins under their belt... so sure that they had it all figured out and everyone that came out against them was FINISHED.

And here they are about to face an honest to goodness, tried and true adult, who doesn't give a hairy dam' about 'the cause', or the blackness of the Presidency or the tribulations common to being described as a racist... or the damage to the country, 'knowing that their Peasantpimp is a traitor.

ROFLMNAO! This is gonna be a BLAST!

 

[Oldstyle]

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

The man you're speaking of DID know the dangers which is why he repeatedly asked his superiors not to draw down his security force. THAT was not his decision

If a man was sent to the edge of a cliff by his bosses and he cautioned them repeatedly how dangerous it was and how he would REALLY like a safety harness but they repeatedly turned down that request...only to have the man fall to his death...would you blame the cliff...or would you blame the man's bosses who wouldn't give him the safety harness?

I'd argue THAT lawsuit against the bosses in civil court six days a week and twice on Sunday!

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

Blaming Chris Stevens for doing his job is about as low as it gets...he is not the person to blame for security not being what it should have been in Libya. He told the State Department that the situation was getting worse...he asked that they not draw down his security detail...blaming HIM for the State Department's failure to grasp the reality of how dangerous it was in Libya borders on the absurd.

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security


Official Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security Military.com


A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated some lawmakers may have known about the Stevens-Ham discussions before last week's hearing.
"There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces," Frederick Hill told McClatchy in an email. "The lack of discussion by the public [Accountability Review Board] report about the role interagency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee..

and Issa found NOTHING .

end of story.

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

You should list the times and dates Stevens asked for more security? That will surprise you. Go on...

Do you think that Gregory Hicks is a liar, Paint? He explained what happened in Libya rather explicitly. The attempts to smear Christopher Stevens reputation posthumously by you on the left to protect Hillary Clinton's reputation is shameful.

Benghazi Whistleblower Takes Another Stand 8216 Since Chris Cannot Speak 8230 8217 TheBlaze.com

 

[Oldstyle]

Joey claiming that the attacks were only made possible because of GOP "cuts" when the person in charge for State testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with the decision to draw down security personnel is my getting punted around? That's amusing...seriously...

Guy, you are getting seriously punted around.

The fact you are still beating this very dead horse just shows how sad you fellows are.

Hey, here's a novel idea. Instead of telling me why I shouldn't vote for Hillary, tell me why I should vote for _______. (Fill in the blank.)

Joey, as intelligent as you've shown yourself to be on this site...I'm highly doubtful you could find the polling place let alone figure out how to fill out a ballot. I can't think of a bigger waste of time then telling you how to vote!

You're the idiot who thinks that our consulate was attacked by "thousands"! Doh!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

Because this investigation should be investigated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just a bad joke now.

The loved ones of the guys who died don't think it's a joke at all.

And neither do I. And the difference between normal, decent, non-criminal people, and the people of the admin, and the people who support that admin...is that normal, decent, non-criminal people would never call such a situation a *joke*. Not even to make a vacuous political point.

Decent, normal people wouldn't capitalize on 4 murdered people for political gain...

Do you think a "decent" person would look the mother of a murdered man in the eye as they were unloading his casket from the plane and tell that grieving mother that they will make the man who made the terrible video who caused the death of her son pay for what he's done... all the time KNOWING that the video had nothing to do with the attack and that THEY are the person who (next to the actual attackers) is the person who's policies caused that death!

Hillary Clinton did exactly that. Think about that long and hard. What kind of cold-hearted ***** does that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

The man you're speaking of DID know the dangers which is why he repeatedly asked his superiors not to draw down his security force. THAT was not his decision

In this case the man knew the dangers and made the choice to be there anyway, on that particular day, and it was his decision not theirs. Now what?

Blaming Chris Stevens for doing his job is about as low as it gets...he is not the person to blame for security not being what it should have been in Libya. He told the State Department that the situation was getting worse...he asked that they not draw down his security detail...blaming HIM for the State Department's failure to grasp the reality of how dangerous it was in Libya borders on the absurd.

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security


Official Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security Military.com


A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated some lawmakers may have known about the Stevens-Ham discussions before last week's hearing.
"There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces," Frederick Hill told McClatchy in an email. "The lack of discussion by the public [Accountability Review Board] report about the role interagency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee..

and Issa found NOTHING .

end of story.

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

You should list the times and dates Stevens asked for more security? That will surprise you. Go on...

Do you think that Gregory Hicks is a liar, Paint? He explained what happened in Libya rather explicitly. The attempts to smear Christopher Stevens reputation posthumously by you on the left to protect Hillary Clinton's reputation is shameful.

Benghazi Whistleblower Takes Another Stand 8216 Since Chris Cannot Speak 8230 8217 TheBlaze.com

It has nothing to do with Hillary at all. Stevens knew the risks, and so did his team, and he went there anyway. He's wasn't a puppet so stop treating him as such. As for the security requests more security was offered and Stevens turned it down, twice. None of that can you spin away from and none of that was Hillary's doing.

Just start dealing with the fact that plenty of mistakes were made and Stevens and his team ended up dead. Considering where they were on what date that is hardly a shock. Shit happens.

 

[Oldstyle]

The man you're speaking of DID know the dangers which is why he repeatedly asked his superiors not to draw down his security force. THAT was not his decision
Blaming Chris Stevens for doing his job is about as low as it gets...he is not the person to blame for security not being what it should have been in Libya. He told the State Department that the situation was getting worse...he asked that they not draw down his security detail...blaming HIM for the State Department's failure to grasp the reality of how dangerous it was in Libya borders on the absurd.

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security


Official Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security Military.com


A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated some lawmakers may have known about the Stevens-Ham discussions before last week's hearing.
"There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces," Frederick Hill told McClatchy in an email. "The lack of discussion by the public [Accountability Review Board] report about the role interagency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee..

and Issa found NOTHING .

end of story.

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

You should list the times and dates Stevens asked for more security? That will surprise you. Go on...

Do you think that Gregory Hicks is a liar, Paint? He explained what happened in Libya rather explicitly. The attempts to smear Christopher Stevens reputation posthumously by you on the left to protect Hillary Clinton's reputation is shameful.

Benghazi Whistleblower Takes Another Stand 8216 Since Chris Cannot Speak 8230 8217 TheBlaze.com

It has nothing to do with Hillary at all. Stevens knew the risks, and so did his team, and he went there anyway. He's wasn't a puppet so stop treating him as such. As for the security requests more security was offered and Stevens turned it down, twice. None of that can you spin away from and none of that was Hillary's doing.

You keep repeating the same talking point. Stevens turned down two offers from General Ham for the very specific reasons that Gregory Hicks spoke to. Would you admit that it makes no sense at all for Ambassador Stevens to make repeated requests that his security detail not be drawn down...then making repeated requests that the State Department send him replacements and then refuse security? There has to be an explanation to that and there is. You simply refuse to admit that an explanation exists because it blows your talking point out of the water. Instead you want to blame Ambassador Stevens for the failure of policy by his superiors in the Clinton State Department that ultimately killed him. I'm curious...are you THAT invested in Hillary Clinton that you'd trash the reputation of a man who gave his life in service of his country?

 

[Oldstyle]

When you work for the State Department and your boss tells you no to a request...how do you suppose that Chris Stevens had the authority to override that no and do it himself? When higher ups at the State Department turned down his requests that his security detail not be taken from 30 down to 9, do you somehow think that Chris Stevens had the authority to tell General Ham yes, send some guys over? In order for YOUR scenario to work...we would have to believe that Chris Stevens was making policy and not the State Department. Is that your belief, Paint?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

they didn't draw down his security detail, they offered him more security


Official Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security Military.com


A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated some lawmakers may have known about the Stevens-Ham discussions before last week's hearing.
"There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces," Frederick Hill told McClatchy in an email. "The lack of discussion by the public [Accountability Review Board] report about the role interagency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee..

and Issa found NOTHING .

end of story.

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

You should list the times and dates Stevens asked for more security? That will surprise you. Go on...

Do you think that Gregory Hicks is a liar, Paint? He explained what happened in Libya rather explicitly. The attempts to smear Christopher Stevens reputation posthumously by you on the left to protect Hillary Clinton's reputation is shameful.

Benghazi Whistleblower Takes Another Stand 8216 Since Chris Cannot Speak 8230 8217 TheBlaze.com

It has nothing to do with Hillary at all. Stevens knew the risks, and so did his team, and he went there anyway. He's wasn't a puppet so stop treating him as such. As for the security requests more security was offered and Stevens turned it down, twice. None of that can you spin away from and none of that was Hillary's doing.

You keep repeating the same talking point. Stevens turned down two offers from General Ham for the very specific reasons that Gregory Hicks spoke to. Would you admit that it makes no sense at all for Ambassador Stevens to make repeated requests that his security detail not be drawn down...then making repeated requests that the State Department send him replacements and then refuse security? There has to be an explanation to that and there is. You simply refuse to admit that an explanation exists because it blows your talking point out of the water. Instead you want to blame Ambassador Stevens for the failure of policy by his superiors in the Clinton State Department that ultimately killed him. I'm curious...are you THAT invested in Hillary Clinton that you'd trash the reputation of a man who gave his life in service of his country?

Why are you so invested in trashing Clinton that you ignore the choices Stevens made? He was a big boy, in a dangerous place, under dangerous conditions. He made the choice to be there and he got killed, not by Clinton but by some radical Islamist assholes who knew of a soft target 400 miles away from the safety of the embassy. Hillary's watch, Stevens' decision, and nothing is going to change that. If he was that worried he could have been half way around the world, but he wasn't. S H I T H A P P E N S and people die. Move on, it's all we can do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you work for the State Department and your boss tells you no to a request...how do you suppose that Chris Stevens had the authority to override that no and do it himself? When higher ups at the State Department turned down his requests that his security detail not be taken from 30 down to 9, do you somehow think that Chris Stevens had the authority to tell General Ham yes, send some guys over? In order for YOUR scenario to work...we would have to believe that Chris Stevens was making policy and not the State Department. Is that your belief, Paint?

Stevens felt safe enough to be 400 miles away from the embassy on 9/11 with a very small team. You can look at it in hindsight 1,000 times but nothing will change the fact that it resulted in his death. There were plenty of bad calls here, but his were critical. At the embassy no one died and Hillary had no part of any of this, it just happened on her watch. Sorry, shit happens.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've heard this same talking point repeated by Clinton apologists and it completely misrepresents what took place, Siete. Yes, General Ham did in fact offer Stevens a military detachment twice and yes, Stevens in fact did turn him down twice. What you conveniently ignore however is the REASON why Stevens had no choice but to turn Ham down.

The security force that had just been pulled out of Libya at the order of the State Department was from the Department of Defense but it was under the command of the State Department and as such had the same diplomatic immunity that diplomats would have. The security detachment that Ham offered twice would not have had that same immunity since it was not under State Department command but rather under the DoD's command. With no status of forces agreement in place with Libya then those DoD troops that Ham was offering would have been subject to arrest and being put on trial by the Libyans simply for doing their jobs. That was why Stevens had to turn down Ham's offer...not because he didn't want security. The State Department didn't want the security Stevens requested for Libya because of the image it created...so the State Department was telling Stevens to literally stop asking for it because it wasn't going to be granted. Stevens couldn't take Ham up on his offer because the State Department wouldn't let him do so.

To say that Stevens "turned down security" is a complete misrepresentation of what actually took place. Right up until the end, Stevens was asking the State Department for additional security and right up to the end, the State Department was turning him down.

You should list the times and dates Stevens asked for more security? That will surprise you. Go on...

Do you think that Gregory Hicks is a liar, Paint? He explained what happened in Libya rather explicitly. The attempts to smear Christopher Stevens reputation posthumously by you on the left to protect Hillary Clinton's reputation is shameful.

Benghazi Whistleblower Takes Another Stand 8216 Since Chris Cannot Speak 8230 8217 TheBlaze.com

It has nothing to do with Hillary at all. Stevens knew the risks, and so did his team, and he went there anyway. He's wasn't a puppet so stop treating him as such. As for the security requests more security was offered and Stevens turned it down, twice. None of that can you spin away from and none of that was Hillary's doing.

You keep repeating the same talking point. Stevens turned down two offers from General Ham for the very specific reasons that Gregory Hicks spoke to. Would you admit that it makes no sense at all for Ambassador Stevens to make repeated requests that his security detail not be drawn down...then making repeated requests that the State Department send him replacements and then refuse security? There has to be an explanation to that and there is. You simply refuse to admit that an explanation exists because it blows your talking point out of the water. Instead you want to blame Ambassador Stevens for the failure of policy by his superiors in the Clinton State Department that ultimately killed him. I'm curious...are you THAT invested in Hillary Clinton that you'd trash the reputation of a man who gave his life in service of his country?

Why are you so invested in trashing Clinton that you ignore the choices Stevens made? He was a big boy, in a dangerous place, under dangerous conditions. He made the choice to be there and he got killed, not by Clinton but by some radical Islamist assholes who knew of a soft target 400 miles away from the safety of the embassy. Hillary's watch, Stevens' decision, and nothing is going to change that. If he was that worried he could have been half way around the world, but he wasn't. S H I T H A P P E N S and people die. Move on, it's all we can do.

Shit happens and people die? Back to that, Paint?

Christopher Stevens was attempting to do an important job in a dangerous part of the world. He warned Washington that the situation in Libya was getting worse. He requested that his security detail not be drawn down because of that worsening situation.

So what did Hillary Clinton's State Department do? Absolutely nothing. They rejected his requests. They shrunk his security detail from 30 men down to 9. They made a suspect Libyan militia group responsible for our diplomat's security.

And why did they do this? Because they were telling the world that Libya was improving. Because they didn't want a "bunker" like atmosphere to send the wrong message. Because they were more concerned with "optics" then they were with the safety of people like Christopher Stevens.

 

[Oldstyle]

Explain one thing to me, Paint...

Why would you shrink that security force THAT drastically with everything that was going on in Libya? Why would anyone do that?

 

[Oldstyle]

Someone in the Clinton State Department made the call on that. I'd like to know who that someone is and I'd like to make sure that they never have a chance to do something THAT stupid again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Explain one thing to me, Paint...

Why would you shrink that security force THAT drastically with everything that was going on in Libya? Why would anyone do that?

1. The embassy was stable and their mission was over.
2. Would they have been with Stevens that night regardless? He had more people so why did he go, during that timeframe, with such a small group?

Like it or not, it was his call, period.

 

[Oldstyle]

Explain one thing to me, Paint...

Why would you shrink that security force THAT drastically with everything that was going on in Libya? Why would anyone do that?

1. The embassy was stable and their mission was over.
2. Would they have been with Stevens that night regardless? He had more people so why did he go, during that timeframe, with such a small group?

Like it or not, it was his call, period.

Their mission was over? How is it possible that a security team's mission would be "over" when security threats were increasing by leaps and bounds in Libya? Nothing in Libya was "stable"...that was simply the narrative that the Clinton State Department was putting out to put a good face on things! In reality it was becoming so dangerous that Great Britain had pulled it's diplomats out and the Red Cross had pulled it's people out.

How is it Christopher Steven's "call"? He obviously wanted more security BUT HE'S NOT IN CHARGE!!! He had to request security from Washington...WHICH HE DOES REPEATEDLY!!! They turn those requests down...REPEATEDLY!!! Then you try and blame it on Stevens? Say that it was his call, period? That's absurd!

 

[Oldstyle]

He went with a "small group" because the State Department had left him with only 9 men for the entire freaking country of Libya. Gee, I wonder how many security personnel Hillary would have had if SHE decided to visit Libya? A few more than 9?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Explain one thing to me, Paint...

Why would you shrink that security force THAT drastically with everything that was going on in Libya? Why would anyone do that?

1. The embassy was stable and their mission was over.
2. Would they have been with Stevens that night regardless? He had more people so why did he go, during that timeframe, with such a small group?

Like it or not, it was his call, period.

Their mission was over? How is it possible that a security team's mission would be "over" when security threats were increasing by leaps and bounds in Libya? Nothing in Libya was "stable"...that was simply the narrative that the Clinton State Department was putting out to put a good face on things! In reality it was becoming so dangerous that Great Britain had pulled it's diplomats out and the Red Cross had pulled it's people out.

How is it Christopher Steven's "call"? He obviously wanted more security BUT HE'S NOT IN CHARGE!!! He had to request security from Washington...WHICH HE DOES REPEATEDLY!!! They turn those requests down...REPEATEDLY!!! Then you try and blame it on Stevens? Say that it was his call, period? That's absurd!

You'd better read up. What you believe to be true isn't. He and his small team decided it was safe enough to go there. How long before you acknowledge that? And how long before you acknowledge that the embassy was, on the very same day, safe? He had more people, and he didn't take them with him, You won't get around his decisions.