Hillary declares victory over Benghazi panel, pivots to bash P P ‘witch hunt'

Lol! You do know of course you failed to answer my question when I asked who, and secondly, since this was an attack of four U.S. citizens by terrorists, who exactly would know more about what happened than the U.S. and the terrorists?

 

The bottomline is.....you can't produce a link that says Benghazi or any part of Libya had adequate security. Proper security or even appropriate security.

Oh and Mullens and Pickering looked at Security going back to before Hillary's visit there. Which was in October of 2011.

Nor can you produce footage or Pics of Gadhafi executing, torturing, and imprisoning civilians by the tens of thousands. Just like the French couldn't. So far all they managed to come up with.....is Gadhafi killing Rebels/Terrorists.

 

How about those in the Libyan Government at the time, in whose country where the incident took place. Do you think they might know something? Or is the OBVIOUS Host country to not be included.

 

Looks like does use them. lol.


Originally Posted by MMC
Nah, not at all.....oh and when you FINALLY figure out we were the last of the Westerners to close our Embassy. Which was after the Red Cross pulled up out of dodge. ( that would mean leaving Libya.....I wouldn't want you to say I took advantage of you with terminology) You might actually know when we evacuated the Embassy."

QUESTION

"Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi, after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed?" - Trey Gowdy
[video=youtube;0EsDq78X4lQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EsDq78X4lQ[/video]

​

ANSWER

The bipartisan report adopted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that the U.S. was not the “last flag flying” in Benghazi. The U.S. presence—alongside the United Nations and the European Union—reflected Ambassador Stevens’ view that Benghazi was “critically important,” and he received significant deference as “one of, if not the premier expert” on Libyan matters, according to his colleagues. PolitiFact rated this claim as “False.”
Sources that have answered this question:

• PolitiFact
• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democratic Staff Report
• Embassy Tripoli Defense Attaché
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Bipartisan Report
• The Independent Accountability Review Board
• Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/question.php?q_id=1&s_id=75#aid84

Gowdy said he was referring to our ole buddy Locke9's favorite last pin standing, Green Beret Andy Wood who said that.

When Wood was contacted about that remark, he said, basically, well, I didn't mean it literally. lol.

"In fact, there’s clear evidence that several other western nations had a presence in Benghazi immediately before and well after the attack on the U.S. compound. We rate the claim False."

And more fun, if you're interested.

That quote from MMC as you may note, was when maroon font fellow was telling us (after he got caught) he knew the embassy evacuations took place during the Gaddafi era, just as Civil war was beginning. Yes, I knew that! says he.

lol.

The Red Cross didn't leave until June of 2012. More proof he didn't know what the hell he was talking about --

Heh.

Caught again.

 

Lol! And MMC expects us to take him seriously? What a joke. When you are forced to turn to Gowdy to make your case, you know it's all over for you. Thanks for the heads up. And thanks to you and Iriemon. You two are on top of this, big time.

 

Dude, get a grip. No one is totally secure anywhere. U.S. presidents have been shot and killed, and others wounded, okay. So adequate security is a phrase that is used only when it's convenient to use, for political gain. We know the drill here, so save us the unnecessary drama. If adequate security truly existed, we wouldn't have had thirteen embassy bombings during Bush either, and numerous bombings on military compounds from the past.

 

Man up dude. People have said they want to kill you because you are American / Western / Christian (not Muslim). This is one of those cases that you can't ignore the problem. The ambassador asked for more security. He didn't get ANY. And now he's dead. Nobody should be surprised. BOTTOM LINE: If Hillary didn't want to protect the embassy, it was her responsibility to close it.

 

There was NO US consulate in Benghazi.. they were there off the radar.. Hillary couldn't put a Marine Guard in place because it wasn't an embassy or Consulate.

 

You mean the problem the American/ Western/ christian/ (not Muslim) created right?

Lol! It wasn't an embassy or Consulate. So to say she didn't want to protect the Embassy, is of course untrue. And Chris Stevens is dead because Chris Stevens went there at his own risk. If he thought we needed more security, then why did he go? That's on him! Not Hillary! No one forced or ordered him to go there.

 

Goodness, no need to be overly salty about it, this is what happens in debate, if you can't accept it and utilize even a minimum of decorum, perhaps you should move on. Otherwise, I fear people reading your replies will see a lack of restraint and neutrality and instead a fiercely unchecked and defensive posting style, which is very revealing.

Considering that the reports coming from the area indicated that there was organized terrorist activity in the region, considering that Al Qaeda themselves had posted online their intention to attack the Red Cross, then the British and then the Americans in Benghazi and considering that Al Qaeda had already completed two out of those three promises/goals, yes, she really should have.

That's great and all, we knew there were protests there, but the assault on the compound and the CIA annex in Benghazi was not the work of an unorganized mob upset over a YouTube video. This much we know. And the State Department was well aware of it as well, considering the reports sent their way regarding coordinate terror attacks in the area on the Red Cross and the British and the online declaration of intent by Al Qaeda. So yeah, you're right, there were protests. That was going on, sure. But the assault on Benghazi, you know, the one in which Al Qaeda pinned down a very elite CIA tactical unit made up of at least two former Navy SEALS, and then struck the roof they were holding as a defensive vantage point three consecutive times with a precision mortar strike could not have been the work of an unorganized mob of civilians. It couldn't have been and it wasn't. And again, the State Department was well aware of these things, the Green Beret Commander stationed there mentioned they had been sending in updates and reports regarding the increasing terrorist activity in the region as well as the declaration of intent posted online by Al Qaeda themselves. That's enough for even someone as simple as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to put together the night of or the morning after.

They did, of course, they knew that it was the work of actual terrorists, the work of Al Qaeda, but they claimed to the American public that it was just some protests gotten out of hand, they called it an act of terror by protesters, but Obama was very careful to avoid using the term "terrorist attack" or specify anything regarding the kind of precision and coordination employed by insurgent terrorists in that attack. Hillary of course echoed Obama's sentiments on the subject, why would she not? Obama's administration was up for re-election that very year, they couldn't afford to let voters know that Obama's previous remarks about Al Qaeda being on the run were all just hot air and that he hadn't completed an objective he claimed he had completed. That would look bad and could have potentially cost him re-election if it had gone public at the time.

 

Yes, it's on him. He killed himself, right? He went to a dangerous place to do his job and as a result he was killed, that totally makes his death his fault, right? Not the fault of the person who actually ended his life. Typical leftist nonsense.

He put himself in harms way probably because his job called for him to do so. That doesn't mean that the United States government should have hung him out to dry and be executed by Al Qaeda. Regardless of the technicality or semantics of what the structure was, the universal fact is that it was sovereign United States property. An attack on United States sovereign property demands a response. Judicial Watch obtained the navy's map of available assets and from that map, we can see that it would not have been impossible to get support to the CIA tactical unit defending American lives under attack. So why were no orders given to protect our people? Even if it seemed like a hopeless endeavor, why not at least try? This is the United States. We're not supposed to leave our own out there in the cold and dark with enemies swarming the perimeter and no backup or response. Your casual and more than slightly sadistic dismissal of Stevens' death as "his own fault" is duly noted though. At least if nothing else, I was able to learn a bit more about your somewhat dark thought process from your responses here. Cheers.

 

Here you are telling somebody to get a grip. While you try to equate and deflect any of this to Bush. Dude, get over it and face the facts.....your Hillary Dillary of the flock.....was born to be incompetent and always mocked.

But it was okay for Hillary and BO peep to use it for their political gain, even with an election going on, huh. Save that BS for those who are just starting out in politics. It might work with them.

 

No, you are spewing typical right-wing hate nonsense. And no, he didn't kill himself. That's your nonsense. But he knew the risks, and he knew how this facility was secured, and he went there voluntarily anyway, knowing that. Trying to blame others for that ends up being the real nonsense. And reasonable people know that.

"Probably"? Lol! Here we go again with the theory tactics while blaming others. "Probably" doesn't win arguments. What a joke.

Holy cow! Did someone from the U.S. government suggest doing that? These random thoughts of yours have certainly gone off the reservation.

Then take it up with those who wrote the report. Is Judicial Watch a better judge of that, and if so, where are their credentials that proves they were more of an authority and how?

You see, right here proves you haven't a clue. You just contradicted yourself. So, you acknowledged it could have been hopeless, yet, you never measured the tactical decisions if the military decided it was a hopeless mission. Lol! And you just got through asking "why were no orders given to protect our people". You aren't making any sense. If you acknowledge it may be hopeless, then why would they go protect the people. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

What happened to the possibility of the hopeless mission?

So was I. I found out your messaging is drowning in contradictions and double talk. You are the one who is all over the map with this debate.

 

Political gain? That's a good one! The Right is the party who attempted to make this a scandal when they doctored the e-mails from the beginning, and with this more recent screw up with Gowdy. Why would Hillary or Obama want a Benghazi to deal with if running for office? The military deemed that there was not enough time to mount a rescue in Benghazi. How is that incompetence by Clinton?

 

The ARB Board and other committees all found that Hillary and her Team were grossly negligent with Security in Benghazi and Libya. Yet for some reason, You keep making excuses for what was born to be pathetic to the Nation.

I will bet you even think.....she took some responsibility for her lacking abilities to manage a dept of government.

Here is a clue for ya.....with responsibility for systemic problems of leadership. Comes consequences. That which Hillary is looking to avoid.

 

No, that's basically what your argument implied. I was just summarizing it so you'd see how utterly sadistic it looks.

You don't think he was there for his job? Do you think he was on vacation? Ha ha!

Not hopeless, trying to save American lives is never hopeless. NOT trying is hopeless, and that's what the Obama administration used as a response.

Hopeless? No. Against the odds? Perhaps. But nothing is hopeless except inaction, which is exactly what happened that night and most reasonable people would like to know why.

Sure thing, sport. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

And the ARB report was finally criticized while Clinton made the point after seven committee investigations, she largely had done nothing wrong, and that there was room for improvement. Which to be honest, most people knew that anyway. And her claims are mostly accurate; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ton-there-have-been-7-benghazi-probes-so-far/ As for the "other committees" you never mentioned; how about the one Gowdy was a part of? Is that why you can't mention the "other committees"?

And we all love how your conclusions are always opinion based, never with any facts to back up your opinion.

 

No, there were no implications. Just your own twisted interpretations to fit your narrative.

So what does that tell you when you have to go and ask me? It tells me you do not have those answers. What we do know is, that no one told him to go. End of story. Has nothing to do with him wanting to do his job or being on vacation.

You said "it could have been hopeless". Now you're changing your story. Lol!

Not according to the senate report. That is not true. Read the report.

The why has been answered in the report. If you don't believe the report, that's your problem.

Lol! I'm sleeping fine! Your the one who needs a few sleeping pills. You can't seem get your stories straight.

 

None of the Committees dismissed the part about Mullens and Pickering saying that they found gross negligence with the security in Benghazi and Libya, and systemic failures with leadership at the State Dept. Oh , and I could mention all kinds of committees.

Sounds like you are upset that Gowdy got Hillary to set herself out and then BO peep.



The State Department's Gross Negligence and Lack of Leadership is to Blame for Benghazi, Ros-Lehtinen Says....

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement today on the release of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report on the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee today received a classified briefing on the ARB report by Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:

"The release of the ARB has made it clear that ‘a lack of proactive leadership and management ability’ on the part of the State Department is to blame for the series of errors that resulted in the loss of life during the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. The State Department’s dismissal of the reality and facts on the ground in Libya ‘resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.’ These failures along with the view that ‘the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests’ left our U.S. personnel alone and without support.

“The ARB recommends that State conduct several internal reviews to address mismanagement and systemic failures. But how can we trust the State Department to hold itself accountable in light of recent evidence? How can we trust their security assessments? How can we trust the very same bureaucracy that demonstrated ‘systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels’ with the same task in the future?

“It is my expectation that Secretary Clinton will come before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and answer for these failures. After all, the ARB is about accountability and the failures regarding Benghazi extended well beyond a few individuals or bureaus at State. Also, we must also hold accountable those in the Libyan government whose ‘response [was] profoundly lacking on the night of the attacks, reflecting both weak capacity and near absence of central government influence and control in Benghazi.’ ....snip~

http://archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/story/?2652

So much for just my opinion.....and for those who are in the knowing.

 

Dude, at the end of the day the senate-bi-partisan committee ruled that the State Department was largely not at fault for what happened. Why? It's very simple. They knew Congress hadn't funded these facilities in the way they should have. So, it goes without saying that there was a lack of security in Benghazi. That's not on the State Dept. They can't magically tell Congress to give them more funding. As to their own budget, you haven't a clue what else needed budgeted beyond a facility that was neither an embassy or a Consulate. The only gross negligence was not having enough money. Which isn't up to the State Dept. to decide. So all this false testimony about negligence and leadership is nothing but hot air.

Without proper funding, none of those things can exist. And that is what the senate committee knows to be the real truth about what really happened. And that is why they concluded in the way they did.

As for Gowdy, lol, he set himself up. His credibility is in the toilet, and he needs to go to jail for trying to frame Clinton.

And as for your expectation, the ARB should have enough intelligence to know, when it comes to accountability, without funding, accountability takes a walk. Anyone with any sense of common logical deductive reasoning knows that. So, I doubt you'll go far with those expectations of yours.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for your 2012 outdated foreign affairs committee report that means absolutely nothing, after the bi-partisan senate committee released theirs, many months later. Lol! Nice attempt at deflection of outdated reporting there. And so much for your opinion, X2.

 

Here from your Politi-Fact buddies.

Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.

But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)

Our ruling

Both ways of defending the claim of a $300 million cut have some justification, but also come with problems. Extrapolating from Ryan’s budget is a speculative exercise, while the enacted appropriations figures were not directly shaped by Ryan's budget. On balance, we rate the claim Half True......snip~

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...den-says-paul-ryan-cut-embassy-security-300-/


Then on to the ret of that excuse and deflection.


Some Democrats have claimed that security at the mission in Benghazi was inadequate because of budgetary contraints, but that claim is false. Indeed, the State Department was in possession of some $2.2 billion that could have been spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions around the world, but the Obama administration elected not to do so. State Department official Charlene Lamb would eventually confirm, in her testimony before the House Oversight And Government Reform Committee on October 10, 2012, that budgetary considerations had nothing whatsoever to do with the inadequate security in Benghazi.....snip~


Obama Administration Had $2 Billion in Extra Consulate Security Money When Benghazi Attack Occurred.....

Last week during congressional testimony from State Department officials who were on the ground in Libya, we heard over and over again that more security for the consulate in Benghazi was requested but denied. We also heard repeatedly from Democrats, including Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, claiming a lack of funding was at fault for less security in Benghazi during the time of the attack on 9/11 that left four Americans dead. State Department officials said funding had nothing to do with the situation and now, Chairman Darrell Issa has revealed the State Department is sitting on $2 billion for consulate security, but won't spend it.

As Leah reported over the weekened, while Benghazi lacked security despite pleads from officails on the ground for more, money was spent so officials at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna could receive Chevy Volts.....snip~

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...e_security_money_when_benghazi_attack_occured


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...e_security_money_when_benghazi_attack_occured

 

FYI:There will not be any more Clintons or Bushes in the White House.

 

As I sit here reading your budget argument, I can't help but reflect back to what Kevin McCarthy has said and owned up to with regards to the admission to try and frame Clinton for wrong doing, then I just laugh at your laughable attempt to create an argument that hasn't an ounce of credibility to it; http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9539481/republican-benghazi-committee-designed

Don't you see? The Republicans have admitted to trying to frame her, which cancels out any arguments your fantasies thought you had. There just is no way to fix the wrongs the Republican party initiated and keep a straight face by continuing the attempt to discredit Clinton. It's like having a convicted murderer testify against his or her arresting officer over the murderer getting caught.

In other words, you have no appropriate committee body with any integrity or honesty, because most are Republicans, and they proved they are not a fair judge of Clinton concerning Benghazi. So your conclusions are nothing but one big joke. That is why nothing will happen to her. The Right, as usual showed who and what they really are, and they can only blame themselves for their dishonesty.

 

You said he knew the risks, and in the same argument excused the fact that no backup was sent to attempt a rescue for the tactical unit that was under heavy fire and eventually defeated by trained insurgents as if that somehow meant Stevens' should have been ready to die because what he was doing was "risky" and he knew it. Your argument implied that he should not have expected support or expected to be able to live because the full support and security that any American government official overseas in increasingly hostile regions should be able to expect was incorrectly claimed to be unavailable.

He was there on official government business, hence his correspondence with the State Department from his government email address... Hello...? Of course his job called him there. Do you think Benghazi during conflict is somewhere someone elects to go without there being circumstances to pull them there?

I said even if it seemed like a hopeless endeavor, effort should have been made. There's a difference between me saying "it could have been hopeless" and "even if it seemed to be a hopeless endeavor (that's the Pentagon's story, despite the unclassified naval map of available assets which contradicts it)." That's a lot different than me saying "it could have been hopeless." Since your position is either deliberately misrepresenting my arguments or doing so without intent, applying a dimly executed straw man fallacy in place of a logical argument, allow me to explain this again: The Pentagon claimed that it "seemed hopeless," but I say that's no excuse not to try--especially given the naval map of available assets I've already mentioned multiple times which strongly suggests that support was in fact available.

The Senate report is contradicted by the unclassified Naval map. They should have probably factored that into their report.

No, it's still your problem because I've posted contradicting evidence. Now you need evidence with which to attempt to counter the evidence I presented. Either you're able to address it or you're not, personal opinions in the debate arena unaccompanied by evidence are somewhat meaningless, especially considering the naval map of available assets at the time of the attack blatantly conflicts with the reports posted earlier that you like to refer to over and over again.

My stories are straight, your arguments have simply been misrepresenting mine with awful straw man fallacies and continued deflection toward a source which has already been debunked. I addressed it. I don't have to take it up with the committees, I'm not debating the committees. I'm debating you. My argument demonstrates at least one major and crucial inaccuracy in their report and you have not been able to counter that without simply reverting back to the "take it up with them," line as if that is going to advance this debate or topic. Fun fact: it won't. Either find more supporting evidence (if there is any) or recognize that the crux of your argument is based on something which has been adequately countered combined with opinionated hyperbole, not a new argument with unaddressed sources, allegations or facts--all of which are required to successfully advance the debate or topic.

 

Oh so now you want to move onto something else.....especially since you can't get around how the ARB and other Committees found Hillary and her team grossly negligent. Found the systemic problem was with the leadership at State.

Moreover you argument about security is nothing more than deflection. Face the facts.....your pathetic Hillary. Was Called out for just how pathetic she was in managing a dept of government. She was highlighted as incompetent. Meaning she didn't have a clue as to how to handle things.

I get a chuckle on how you leftists always deflect. But then this is to be expected by those who are the weakness and were made to be the weakness of the US.

No McCarthy never brought up what the Motivations of the committees were. As usual.....a leftist read something written by another leftist. Then went with the flow. Just to try and deflect all the bad news that was coming out on Hillary and her incompetency.

Actually in other words.....there is no reason to trust any of you leftists. Just start that civil war....that you don't want to see and will be over in less than a month. All due to those inherent and born with weaknesses that the left sports.

Now......lets see you get around why all called her grossly negligent and a failed leader. As she was never meant to lead.

Btw when will you give BO peep his credit for signing the bill or did you want to try an ignore that (*)(*)(*)(*) too?