State Department Office Removed Benghazi Files After Congressional Subpoena

[Freewill]

What does this remind you of? It should remind you of the billing records that were "lost" until after the stay of execution. The Clinton regime must go, just like the Bush regime. Now you know why the investigation is taking so long.

State Department Office Removed Benghazi Files After Congressional Subpoena

State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

 

[BluesLegend]

What a corrupt cesspool our government has become.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Were it my call, I would gut the State Department like a fresh-caught trout.

 

[Slade3200]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

 

[Freewill]

Were it my call, I would gut the State Department like a fresh-caught trout.

I doubt that the replacement would be much better. Power corrupts...............

 

[Freewill]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

Sure why not discuss corruption as it surfaces? It is not like the left isn't still blaming Bush or hilariously enough Reagan.

 

[Slade3200]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

Sure why not discuss corruption as it surfaces? It is not like the left isn't still blaming Bush or hilariously enough Reagan.

The bush and Regan bashes are a bit tiresome as well but at least they are about real stuff, wars, deregulation, tax cuts, and their effects on our economy. Y'all keep talking about blaming a video in a time of chaos and an old lady using the wrong email server... Time to let it go, you are grasping at straws and nobody cares or is buying the BS

 

[Freewill]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

Sure why not discuss corruption as it surfaces? It is not like the left isn't still blaming Bush or hilariously enough Reagan.

The bush and Regan bashes are a bit tiresome as well but at least they are about real stuff, wars, deregulation, tax cuts, and their effects on our economy. Y'all keep talking about blaming a video in a time of chaos and an old lady using the wrong email server... Time to let it go, you are grasping at straws and nobody cares or is buying the BS

I see you, like Mrs. Tuzla Clinton, have forgotten about the four men that needlessly died at Benghazi. How many have to needlessly die for you to be concerned? How many lies about those men need told until you show some concern?

 

[Slade3200]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

Sure why not discuss corruption as it surfaces? It is not like the left isn't still blaming Bush or hilariously enough Reagan.

The bush and Regan bashes are a bit tiresome as well but at least they are about real stuff, wars, deregulation, tax cuts, and their effects on our economy. Y'all keep talking about blaming a video in a time of chaos and an old lady using the wrong email server... Time to let it go, you are grasping at straws and nobody cares or is buying the BS

I see you, like Mrs. Tuzla Clinton, have forgotten about the four men that needlessly died at Benghazi. How many have to needlessly die for you to be concerned? How many lies about those men need told until you show some concern?

I'm not a big Clinton fan but I do have a low tolerance for BS. Of course I care about the men that died. I'm angry at the group that killed them, not our leaders that spend their lives trying to promote peace and protect us. They aren't perfect and shit is always going to happen, but I'm not presumptive enough to know what it's like in the hot seat... What information they get, when they get it, what their military advisors are telling them, etc etc etc. With all this politicized partisan hyped up BS it's no wonder our politicians need to sensor and sugarcoat what they tells us. Time to grow up

 

[Siete]

Benghazi



BBBBAAAAAWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

 

[hazlnut]

What does this remind you of? It should remind you of the billing records that were "lost" until after the stay of execution. The Clinton regime must go, just like the Bush regime. Now you know why the investigation is taking so long.

State Department Office Removed Benghazi Files After Congressional Subpoena

State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

What does this remind me of?

All the other threads you quote some fringe nutter site as a source of "facts" and "information".

Insane nutters on the internet quoting each other....


Attention readers: No files were "removed". Nothing happened. Fringe righties are idiots.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

If hilary and her cronies would stop hiding evidence we would have been done by now

 

[there4eyeM]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

Sure why not discuss corruption as it surfaces? It is not like the left isn't still blaming Bush or hilariously enough Reagan.

Not just the 'left'.

 

[Slade3200]

Still talking about Benghazi are we?

If hilary and her cronies would stop hiding evidence we would have been done by now

That is highly doubtful, you'd find something

 

[jwoodie]

I'm not a big Clinton fan but I do have a low tolerance for BS.

In chemistry this is known as the saturation point.

 

[Siete]

It was my experience over the years that one of the biggest misimpressions held by the public has been that our military is always straining at the leash, wanting to use force in any situation. The reality is just the opposite. In more than twenty years attending meetings in the Situation Room, my experience was that the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms. Our military leaders have seen too many half-baked ideas for the use of military force advanced in the Situation Room by hairy-chested civilians who have never seen combat or fired a gun in anger.

Gates is hinting here at two things: both at a popular misunderstanding of how top military leaders think (if you've ever watched TV shows such as "24" or "The West Wing," you might perceive generals as the hawks in the room) and at the dynamic between military and civilian leaders. Just because military leaders believe one policy is preferable does not make it so. But it is revealing that those who are least familiar with the use of military force in complicated and difficult situations -- say, an ongoing firefight in the middle of the night in a Middle Eastern city -- seem to often hold far more confidence in the abilities of military tools than do people like Gates, who have more experience applying them.'


"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



CARTOONISH ... GET IT RW'S ?

or should I say Goofy and Mickey ?

 

[Freewill]

It was my experience over the years that one of the biggest misimpressions held by the public has been that our military is always straining at the leash, wanting to use force in any situation. The reality is just the opposite. In more than twenty years attending meetings in the Situation Room, my experience was that the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms. Our military leaders have seen too many half-baked ideas for the use of military force advanced in the Situation Room by hairy-chested civilians who have never seen combat or fired a gun in anger.

Gates is hinting here at two things: both at a popular misunderstanding of how top military leaders think (if you've ever watched TV shows such as "24" or "The West Wing," you might perceive generals as the hawks in the room) and at the dynamic between military and civilian leaders. Just because military leaders believe one policy is preferable does not make it so. But it is revealing that those who are least familiar with the use of military force in complicated and difficult situations -- say, an ongoing firefight in the middle of the night in a Middle Eastern city -- seem to often hold far more confidence in the abilities of military tools than do people like Gates, who have more experience applying them.'


"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



CARTOONISH ... GET IT RW'S ?

or should I say Goofy and Mickey ?

I do not doubt that after the attack started there was much to be done.

But this whole situation speaks of prior incompetence. Sending men into a country without proper protection? Who does that? We just bombed the crap out of the country leading to the murder of their leader. While many, if not most, of the Liybians would be happy, I assume not all.

There is also the aspect of lying about what and why it happened. Why do people lie? Because they don't want the truth known. We will never know the truth, never. The establishment protects itself.

 

[Slade3200]

It was my experience over the years that one of the biggest misimpressions held by the public has been that our military is always straining at the leash, wanting to use force in any situation. The reality is just the opposite. In more than twenty years attending meetings in the Situation Room, my experience was that the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms. Our military leaders have seen too many half-baked ideas for the use of military force advanced in the Situation Room by hairy-chested civilians who have never seen combat or fired a gun in anger.

Gates is hinting here at two things: both at a popular misunderstanding of how top military leaders think (if you've ever watched TV shows such as "24" or "The West Wing," you might perceive generals as the hawks in the room) and at the dynamic between military and civilian leaders. Just because military leaders believe one policy is preferable does not make it so. But it is revealing that those who are least familiar with the use of military force in complicated and difficult situations -- say, an ongoing firefight in the middle of the night in a Middle Eastern city -- seem to often hold far more confidence in the abilities of military tools than do people like Gates, who have more experience applying them.'


"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



CARTOONISH ... GET IT RW'S ?

or should I say Goofy and Mickey ?

I do not doubt that after the attack started there was much to be done.

But this whole situation speaks of prior incompetence. Sending men into a country without proper protection? Who does that? We just bombed the crap out of the country leading to the murder of their leader. While many, if not most, of the Liybians would be happy, I assume not all.

There is also the aspect of lying about what and why it happened. Why do people lie? Because they don't want the truth known. We will never know the truth, never. The establishment protects itself.

Come down to earth for one second and just think about it... Do you really think Hillary went on record with the premeditated intention of lying and telling a story that she knew the facts did not support? Any politician with a brain would know that if they did that, should the facts come to light, it would blow up in their face.
Doesn't it seem more likely that it was a chaotic time, there was a lot of information coming in and much information yet to be discovered, and they stated what they knew and believed to the best of their ability with the information that they had?? It's not a hard narrative to believe. Why are you all so hung up on the video thing? It makes you look desperate, The record was corrected once more information came in. It isn't this big Governemnt conspiracy and lie, like you try to paint and only fringe whacko's truly believe that.

 

[Freewill]

It was my experience over the years that one of the biggest misimpressions held by the public has been that our military is always straining at the leash, wanting to use force in any situation. The reality is just the opposite. In more than twenty years attending meetings in the Situation Room, my experience was that the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms. Our military leaders have seen too many half-baked ideas for the use of military force advanced in the Situation Room by hairy-chested civilians who have never seen combat or fired a gun in anger.

Gates is hinting here at two things: both at a popular misunderstanding of how top military leaders think (if you've ever watched TV shows such as "24" or "The West Wing," you might perceive generals as the hawks in the room) and at the dynamic between military and civilian leaders. Just because military leaders believe one policy is preferable does not make it so. But it is revealing that those who are least familiar with the use of military force in complicated and difficult situations -- say, an ongoing firefight in the middle of the night in a Middle Eastern city -- seem to often hold far more confidence in the abilities of military tools than do people like Gates, who have more experience applying them.'


"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



CARTOONISH ... GET IT RW'S ?

or should I say Goofy and Mickey ?

I do not doubt that after the attack started there was much to be done.

But this whole situation speaks of prior incompetence. Sending men into a country without proper protection? Who does that? We just bombed the crap out of the country leading to the murder of their leader. While many, if not most, of the Liybians would be happy, I assume not all.

There is also the aspect of lying about what and why it happened. Why do people lie? Because they don't want the truth known. We will never know the truth, never. The establishment protects itself.

Come down to earth for one second and just think about it... Do you really think Hillary went on record with the premeditated intention of lying and telling a story that she knew the facts did not support? Any politician with a brain would know that if they did that, should the facts come to light, it would blow up in their face.
Doesn't it seem more likely that it was a chaotic time, there was a lot of information coming in and much information yet to be discovered, and they stated what they knew and believed to the best of their ability with the information that they had?? It's not a hard narrative to believe. Why are you all so hung up on the video thing? It makes you look desperate, The record was corrected once more information came in. It isn't this big Governemnt conspiracy and lie, like you try to paint and only fringe whacko's truly believe that.

Your excuse would hold for most pyscopathic liars. Most know how to lie but apparently Mrs. Tuzla Clinton never learned.

So you say what she said was just wrong, done in the fog of war?

OK, it was chaotic. It was confusing. given. So what honest person does is NOT make definitive statements as SHE, OBAMA and Rice did. There was prior to that day no protests over the movie and there was ONE on that day. We are not dealing with people on the message board we are dealing with the most powerful man in the world who has all the intelligence community at his disposal. They lied for a reason.

As for this statement:
"Come down to earth for one second and just think about it... Do you really think Hillary went on record with the premeditated intention of lying and telling a story that she knew the facts did not support?"

I have provided you links in my signature line. One deals with her Tuzla lie. A lie so blatant it is hard to believe anyone would make up such a lie.

I provided a link to her NAFTA lie. Again, who lies about something so provable wrong?

How after those two examples can ever be trusted with anything she says takes a whole lot of partisanship. But that isn't even true. What she will say will be accepted by the left only because they want to believe what she says.

She is a liar, nothing more needs said.

 

[Siete]

It was my experience over the years that one of the biggest misimpressions held by the public has been that our military is always straining at the leash, wanting to use force in any situation. The reality is just the opposite. In more than twenty years attending meetings in the Situation Room, my experience was that the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms. Our military leaders have seen too many half-baked ideas for the use of military force advanced in the Situation Room by hairy-chested civilians who have never seen combat or fired a gun in anger.

Gates is hinting here at two things: both at a popular misunderstanding of how top military leaders think (if you've ever watched TV shows such as "24" or "The West Wing," you might perceive generals as the hawks in the room) and at the dynamic between military and civilian leaders. Just because military leaders believe one policy is preferable does not make it so. But it is revealing that those who are least familiar with the use of military force in complicated and difficult situations -- say, an ongoing firefight in the middle of the night in a Middle Eastern city -- seem to often hold far more confidence in the abilities of military tools than do people like Gates, who have more experience applying them.'


"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."



CARTOONISH ... GET IT RW'S ?

or should I say Goofy and Mickey ?

I do not doubt that after the attack started there was much to be done.

But this whole situation speaks of prior incompetence. Sending men into a country without proper protection? Who does that? We just bombed the crap out of the country leading to the murder of their leader. While many, if not most, of the Liybians would be happy, I assume not all.

There is also the aspect of lying about what and why it happened. Why do people lie? Because they don't want the truth known. We will never know the truth, never. The establishment protects itself.

Come down to earth for one second and just think about it... Do you really think Hillary went on record with the premeditated intention of lying and telling a story that she knew the facts did not support? Any politician with a brain would know that if they did that, should the facts come to light, it would blow up in their face.
Doesn't it seem more likely that it was a chaotic time, there was a lot of information coming in and much information yet to be discovered, and they stated what they knew and believed to the best of their ability with the information that they had?? It's not a hard narrative to believe. Why are you all so hung up on the video thing? It makes you look desperate, The record was corrected once more information came in. It isn't this big Governemnt conspiracy and lie, like you try to paint and only fringe whacko's truly believe that.

Your excuse would hold for most pyscopathic liars. Most know how to lie but apparently Mrs. Tuzla Clinton never learned.

So you say what she said was just wrong, done in the fog of war?

OK, it was chaotic. It was confusing. given. So what honest person does is NOT make definitive statements as SHE, OBAMA and Rice did. There was prior to that day no protests over the movie and there was ONE on that day. We are not dealing with people on the message board we are dealing with the most powerful man in the world who has all the intelligence community at his disposal. They lied for a reason.

As for this statement:
"Come down to earth for one second and just think about it... Do you really think Hillary went on record with the premeditated intention of lying and telling a story that she knew the facts did not support?"

I have provided you links in my signature line. One deals with her Tuzla lie. A lie so blatant it is hard to believe anyone would make up such a lie.

I provided a link to her NAFTA lie. Again, who lies about something so provable wrong?

How after those two examples can ever be trusted with anything she says takes a whole lot of partisanship. But that isn't even true. What she will say will be accepted by the left only because they want to believe what she says.

She is a liar, nothing more needs said.

and you're a partisan hack.

The End