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

Lol! So, after the corruption with McCarthy and Gowdy was revealed, in your mind the only thing you believe you can cling onto is gross negligence right? And of course, the gross negligence was never defined. Let me help you out on that one. First, it was Congress not funding enough money for Embassies and Consulates. Second, the post in Benghazi technically was never on the books. So, it would never have been a target for funding anyway. Gross negligence was a label assigned to Clinton with no explanation. I just gave you the explanation. It was all about the money, and the post in Benghazi was never a target for funding to start with. That's the only negligence. So no, I'm not moving onto something else. That something else is the only real scandal. And that has been the real issue all along. The issues you want to stick with never had any relevance after the corruption was revealed. Which happens to be the Republican party. When McCarthy and Gowdy finally admitted to wrong doing, there hasn't been much else to talk about since then. The guilty party can no longer be the committee of interrogation, integrity, and honesty. That all canceled itself out, after they were exposed. Which is why your posts have become so laughable. You are using the very criminals to make your case. The whole idea is nothing but a joke.

 

There was no corruption with Gowdy.....now there might be with some ethics issues with McCarthy which could be why he got out of the Speaker race.

Nah, even your own source Politifact explained all that out. its why they rated it half BS. Guess which side that was. That's Right.....the Demos made up story.

Especially after it was revealed that State had 2.2 Billion in funds. For Security, but BO peep was penny pinching. Then Issa even brought that out in Testimony. There is no getting around this fact. Moreover Hillary testified as to the problem her and her team had with designating what the structure was going to be.

How is that you deny the reality that took place before the cameras under testimony?

Also, at that time......security was an issue for those in Tripoli. So it wasn't just Benghazi.

Got a link to Gowdy admitting his wrong doing?

You must be confused.....I used Mullens and Pickerings ARB review. Then the Committees that followed. Then the testimony of hearing that took place and what Issa brought out. All way back in the beginning. Gowdy comes much later and only helped validated that Hillary had lied to the American people over the video. Then to set BO peep out for using Benghazi politically over his election.

Then to top it off her celebration ended up being very short. Then more of emails come out validating she has lied over her emails, server, sending classified intel, and her two top aides are in trouble. Her tech guy has taken the 5th.

Plus now the FBI has taken 4 computers from the State Dept. All due to those breaches Hillary and her people gave up to the Russians, Chinese, Germans, S. Koreans and the Romanian hacker.

 

If you were not defending Locke9-05 deceptively touting a source as credible and reliable when he knew the witness was lying and the source discredited, then why would you write: "It was a worthless deflection they used anyways......"

I mean, you wouldn't do something as intellectually dishonest as tout a source as being reliable and credible when you knew it was based on a proven, blatant lie and had been dis-credited and withdrawn by the source, would you?

That's being intellectually dishonest, right?

Why would you say it was a "worthless deflection" to show that the primary source relied upon and touted by Locke9-05 was based on a proven liar and lies, and the entire story discredited and withdrawn, and that he knew that it was based on a lie and discredited and withdrawn when he repeatedly vouched for the story's credibility and reliability, even saying it was just as credible as several bi-partisan Congressional findings after multi-year investigations?

Of course in hindsight we can say that the security for Libya was not adequate.

It wasn't adequate for the hijacked planes in 2001 or the Lebanese barracks in 1983 either.

Everything is crystal clear with hindsight. You're just blatant Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429763&page=62&p=1065546474#post1065546474

Any other lies and withdrawals of your sources you claim are reliable and credible you know about and you're not telling us about?

 

Could you explain how reopening the embassy in Tripoli in Sep 2011 shows proves your point about security in Benghazi in Sep 2012.

You asserted: "...as not one Committee or ARB board came back saying the Security was adequate for our people in Benghazi. Or even the rest of Libya. It's why they evacuated the Embassy in Tripoli."

How does the fact that they re-opened the Embassy in Tripoli in 2011 show that they evacuated it because of the adequacy of security in Benghazi?

 

How does evacuating the Tripoli embassy in July 2011 prove there was inadequate security in Benghazi in 2012?

If evacuating the Tripoli embase in July 2011 indicates that the place was unduly dangerous, then doesn't the fact that the Tripoli embassy was re-opened in September 2011 show that the danger had mitigated? A full year before the Benghazi attacks?

 

Bi-partisan report (that means including Republicans) of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

DoD confirmed to the Committee that Ambassador Stevens declined two specific offers from General Carter Ham, then the head of AFRICOM, to sustain the SST [Site Security Team] in the weeks before the terrorist attacks. After reading the August 16, 2012, EAC cable, General Ham called Ambassador Stevens and asked ifthe Embassy needed the SST from the U.S. military, but Stevens told Ham it did not. Shortly thereafter, Stevens traveled to Germany for a previously scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. Ham again offered to sustain the SST at the meeting, and Stevens again declined.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/press/benghazi.pdf
pp. 21-22.

 

Wow. You cite a republican politician claiming Clinton was negligent. Well golly, what other proof do we need?

 

This is why your posts are not worth responding to; http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey-gowdy-altered-documents-to-frame-hillary-clinton/ Gowdy was caught by the CIA making false statements. And that is all that is needed. No other conversations are necessary.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/cia-...handed-altering-hillarys-emails-to-smear-her/

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politi...-altering-documents-to-frame-hillary-clinton/

 

Old story, and looks pretty untrue. Multiple sources say that Stevens wasn't authorized to accept this offer. He was also told to stop asking directly for security because it made them look weak.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/01/23/hicks-chris-stevens-didnt-turn-military-protection/

 

MMC showed he was totally ****ed up on his timeline. He mistook the embassy closing date. That was clear.

 

The whole GOP Benghazi panel working as a tag team couldn't lick Ronda Rousey's grandmother. Hillary kicked their sorry butts to the curb.

 

I never withdrew my source. The source stands uncontested for Hicks' testimony as well as the testimony of the Green Beret Commander. Those parts are the only parts I ever specifically mentioned in my arguments anyway and you are aware of that. Your poorly attempted distraction won't be able to pull the wool over any reasonable readers' eyes with attempted assassinations of my character based on straw man arguments and the intellectual dishonesty demonstrated in your posts. Either continue to discuss the topic of the thread or acknowledge that you have nothing with which to retort.

 

Hick's lies have been shown. I note you never once addressed the fact that bastard didn't even answer the phone twice that night when Amb. Stevens was calling. He was settled in watching Dancing With the Stars.

As for Woods: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429763&p=1065551550#post1065551550

 

This has already been explained to him, his predictable liberal response was Murdoch paper, Hicks was disgruntled employee and Republicans

 

I've already corrected you on this, this is not Monday morning quarterbacking, this is the State Department lead by your gal not making any halftime adjustments.

FINDING #1: In the months before the attacks on September 11,2012, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya
was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.

FINDING #2: The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security
situation on the ground and IC threat reporting on the prior attack against

 

“Clinton: ‘I come from the 60s, a long time ago.’ Marco: ‘This election is about the future.’ ”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7780e0-8b9e-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html

 

That was in my in with all the deflection from Hillary's short lived celebration.

Except for that bit about Hillary in her testimony discussing they didn't know what to classify the diplomatic compound in Benghazi as. Then all that explanation as to what was taking place in Benghazi leading up to the 911 attack.

Naturally the 600 requests for Beefing up security or complaining about security. All didn't come at the same time. So no its not really Monday QBing. And not for those in the knowing, Security was beefed up/ increased for Hillary's visit in Oct of 2011. She wanted to make sure she was safe for her debut before the camera.

What is crystal clear is Mullens and Pickering. Plus others all stated gross negligence. and systemic problems with leadership at state. That's despite Hillary Celebrating.

 

Wow, I did that after I brought up Mullens and Pickering, no kidding, huh. Despite him being the Chair on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and reading off what Mullens and Pickering's Review had found.

Imagine that....you act like you couldn't figure out that Repub was reading off the ARB's conclusions. Did that confuse you some just because he was a Republican. What he isn't allowed to read what Mullens and Pickering stated?

Tells us why he shouldn't be allowed to use the ARB Report in a Hearing Before his Committee. This ought to be good!

 

Yeah, well you and Paperlay are looking to use my Statement. Its why they evacuated in Tripoli.....as the literal reason for lacking security. Which its not.....that comes with what Mullens said about systemic failures with leadership at state.

When did they use the Temp facility in Tripoli, again? What year was that? Since you feel you are so familiar with sources. Can you pull that up for us?

 

Gowdy was caught by the CIA. For making false statements.

Desperation does become the left.

Oh and if anybody's posts aren't worth responding to. That would be yours. Since you have actual limitations on noting reality while shaking those pom poms and cheerleading that Incompetent Piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) on.....known as a Hillary Clinton. As well as the one you have with Politics, in general.

 

Evidently.....both those findings need to be constantly posted up. You know how they tend to play once the page turns.

They might even believe that months just meant a few.

 

Amazing how Dems think they can 'declare' something and it makes it so.

 

Hillary is just overjoyed there is OTHER news dominating the headlines so people aren't talking about her atrocities. The more people who die, the better her chances, as sad as that is. The less people talk about her the better, which is freakish.

 

Well, she is taking some hits over her Debate performance. Oh, and over what she said about BO peeps strategy with Daesh. Then what she had to say about Wall Street.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=432562&page=4&p=1065557283#post1065557283