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

Based on Gregory Hicks, whose credibility was rejected by the Congressional Intelligence committees.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429763&page=63&p=1065547657#post1065547657

 

No, your source withdrew your source.

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

- - - Updated - - -

Because the Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Committee on Intelligence are all lying, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Please provide a reliable source that there were 600 separate email requests for more security. Thanks.

Why did you dodge my questions?

 

Everything is clear in hindsight and your just Monday morning quarterbacking. Both the Senate and House reports found there was no specific warning of an attack on 9/11.

With the same hindsight you can blame Reagan for the Lebanese bombing and Bush for 9/11/01.

 

Hardly!

Then after all that intel in 1998 and 1999, the known terrorist Atta and his pals were still was able to enroll in American flight schools and get trained right under the Clinton Admin's noses. Tell me how that could happen when they knew in ADVANCE?

 

No one said there were 600 email requests. Furthermore some are the same repeated requests over Phone and or in person. That went thru the chain of command.

 

So, would you prefer to be the one who's been had in this debate?Because, other than your own silliness, you have yet to mount a defense against the facts I presented. Yes, the CIA has the goods on Gowdy. Have a counter rebuttal that proves otherwise? If not, can I borrow your icon, because the joke would be on you instead?

 

I'm curious, what reason did the Congressional Intelligence committees give for Stevens rejecting Ham's offer?

also, I had to laugh at your link blaming Hicks for relaxing at his villa before he knew what was going on, meanwhile Hillary knowing about the attack left the State Department, went home and never called the Secretary of Defense Panetta about the situation (speaking only to Obama).

 

Same way they were able to get on board airplanes after all that plus warnings just a month before 9/11 that Al Queda was planning to hijack airplanes and bomb buildings in NY.

- - - Updated - - -

That's fine. please provide a reliable source that there were 600 separate requests for more security. Thanks.

Why did you dodge my questions again?

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?

 

The main point of this thread is that Hillary Clinton is a lying [insert favored unpleasant noun here].

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...s-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/

The ongoing investigation has revealed that Hillary knew damn well that it was a terrorist attack--from her own damn emails--and she was corresponding with her daughter to this effect (basically as the event was transpiring, or incredibly shortly after) and then proceeded to lie to the American public along with the Obama administration that it was the work of protesters upset over a video on YouTube. She knew that it was Al Qaeda or a terrorist group like Al Qaeda--an organized group with the kind of coordination, training and intent of Al Qaeda. She was aware that this was an orchestrated terrorist attack, and was telling this to her daughter, yet she lied to the American public about it.

Ultimately, let's not forget that this is the woman you're [the liberals of this thread] supporting as a presidential hopeful. Remember, this is new information, this is information that the intelligence committees who came up with the inaccurate and false conclusions the liberals in this thread have referred to multiple times did not have access to before very recently. So Hillary's emails are relevant, they do show Hillary lying, and they show that she and the entire Obama administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the attack. Considering that was the same year that Obama was up for re-election, it doesn't take much deduction to figure out why they likely lied.

 

This is awesome.



When it comes to delivering a perfect snark punch to the belly, Wonkette delivers!

House Republican: Hillary Clinton Tricked Us Into Looking Stupid On ‘The Benghazi’

"Remember years ago, or maybe just last month, when Hillary Clinton spent 11 hours explaining to Congress exactly how she did Benghazi and why she did Benghazi and that she would do it again, for the laughs that are NOT FUNNY, Madam Secretary?

Well! Indignant huffing sounds! Someone is very displeased about how the whole spectacle made Republicans look like freakin’ morons, and that someone is … drum roll please … slow-talkin’ slower-thinkin’ Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia. Now that he’s had a month to let it simmer in his brain juices, he is mighty not happy:

“As you know, some of you may have watched the marathon Hillary Clinton fiasco, and I say that because Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the committee, wanted to interview her in private, and she said, ‘No, I want to do this in public,’” Westmoreland said in a recent speech uploaded to YouTube.

“Now to me, that was us stepping in a trap because we should have known that she was going to go on and just stall, debate, filibuster, on these answers to make it go as long as possible, so we would look cruel,” he continued.


​

Republicans had this plan, ya see, to make her look bad with their special Benghazi committee. They’d already started giving each other celebratory blowjobs, for driving down her poll numbers. And the Big Benghazi Hearing on Benghazi was going to sink her forever! It woulda worked too, if that meddling Hillary Clinton hadn’t outsmarted them, by making them show their work. They were going to ask her all their dumb questions in private, so they could then make (*)(*)(*)(*) up to leak to the press and make Maureen Dowd all wet in her loom fruits.

But oh no, Hillz was like, “If you want The American People to learn The Truth about Benghazi, why don’t we do that in public, for The American People?” So crafty, that Clinton. And then she forced them to ask the same really relevant questions a hundredteenleven times, and they were all about how she and gal-pal-with-a-peener Sid Blumenthal — a dude whose name you’d probably never heard before, but turns out he is the key to all of American national security — did Benghazi, together, WITH THEIR EMAILS!

That never would have happened, for 11 hours, if Hillary Clinton hadn’t fooled them into doing it. They are just that dumb, it seems, and it’s all her fault. Mean!"

Read more at http://wonkette.com/596123/house-re...ng-stupid-on-the-benghazi#06UBY8YJQgrhvxdc.99

 

This is pure gold:

“Now to me, that was us stepping in a trap because we should have known that she was going to go on and just stall, debate, filibuster, on these answers to make it go as long as possible, so we would look cruel,” he continued.

Hear that? It was Hillary's fault ! the republicans made it go on eleventenn ****ing hours. She did it! Witch.

We had no control over our own hearing. She did it. She was responding with poise. Dammit. Damn her. It was a trap!!!!

Pubbies sure do bring the best chuckles.

 

You mean Bill Clinton's administration dropped the ball for 2 years? Surely that's plenty of time to do something about it?

 

I'm curious, what reason did the committees give for Stevens rejecting Ham's offer?

 

Well hell, who could see another attack on 9/11 coming, and let's just ignore the Ambassadors pleas for more security. Face it Hillary had months of warnings and was too busy flitting around the globe accomplishing..........little

 

Bush was president when 9-11 happened. Nice try.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the report: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/press/benghazi.pdf

 

This is awesome. And the best part, "IT'S TRUE".

 

No, I have not implied any such thing and you know it. Risks by people are taken every day. That has nothing to do with the decisions made by our military that night. You'rec just spewing ridiculous nonsense.

No one told him to go there. That's the bottom line. And since that was neither an embassy or a consulate and technically a facility not on the books, funding for that outpost would have been minimal at best. You don't think Stevens didn't already know that? Of course he did. He just took the risk.

All I have to say is, thank goodness you don't work for the Pentagon. If they said it was hopeless, I'm believing them. And naturally you have no interest in getting that either. It's sort of like making an attempt to save a man who is falling off the Grande Canyon, and he is already halfway down, while someone decides to make an attempt to save the person from falling the rest of the way. We have to try, but we have no idea how to do it. That is exactly what you are describing. And naturally, it doesn't make any sense, but, you decided to use your own straw man, to get a ridiculous point across.

Yea? And exactly how was that going to change the strategy of this attack?

Your evidence debunks that of the report? How?

 

Clinton was President during all the warnings.

 

I am tempted to believe this excuse, as Chris Stevens didn't even have her email.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/hillary-admits-chris-stevens-did-not-have-her-email-address-video/

However, Hillary acknowledged she did hear at least one of his requests for more security. She wants us to believe that she 'misinterpreted' this as joking.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/clinton-...tevens-was-joking-when-asking-about-security/

Kind of like she was joking about the YouTube video being the cause for his death.

 

What about this?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...s-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/

Evidence which demonstrates Hillary and the Obama administration were well aware of the terrorist attack by a group of organized terrorist insurgents like Al Qaeda on the compound in Benghazi. They were aware of it the same night and the next morning decided to lie to the American public and provide the false narrative that it was an unorganized mob of protesters committing an isolated act of terror. Yeah right, like an unorganized mob of unruly Muslims could come close to defeating a CIA tactical unit, even a small one...

 

And that justifies leaving him out there without any support when an organized terrorist insurgent group like Al Qaeda attacks the compound he's at?

The unclassified naval map of available assets in the area obtained by Judicial Watch which has been referenced ad nauseum in this debate proves that the Pentagon's response was either complete BS or just incompetence, considering it shows there were plenty of available assets. Try to keep up if possible.

 

Gowdy wasn't the one that discovered security problems with Benghazi. Nor did he find that there were Systemic Failures with leadership at the State Dept.

When you can get around that reality. Then you might have something to talk about.

The facts from a Demo Source.

Whats ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and FOX news saying about that CIA caught Gowdy in lies. Why is it that the MS Media didn't report that. Might be a clue, huh?

Then we had State blaming the CIA over Emails. Then the CIA blaming the State Dept.

 

Absolutely false, as I have proved.

 

I have. You on the other hand, not knowing all the details of exactly what resources were available have no idea why these military decisions were made. Did you give us a full inventory of the assets? No! How do you know the assets included a bunch of hammers in a closet when they needed saws? I don't suppose you thought about that? Of course not!

 

Oh that's Right.....you don't think there is a link. Here ya go. Lets use the Guide to the Political Left. That which you lefties like to play with.



Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, along with explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, Ambassador Stevens and others at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Obama administration for increased security provisions during 2012, but these requests were denied or ignored. All told, the State Department team in Libya asked for extra security more than 600 times, to no avail.

This section of Discover The Networks explores the significance of the events in Benghazi and of the Obama administration's response to those events......snip~

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1755

So much for there not being a link.....huh? What happened? You didn't think there was one with the total times the State Dept had security requested, did you.

Not like they would keep tally Right? Or do you think Hillary and her team would try and hide that (*)(*)(*)(*) too?

Now that that is taken care of. Lets get back to your whining and assuming I dropped into defend somebody else.

#1.....98% of the left focuses on the trivial when it concerns Benghazi. 98 % deflect to some (*)(*)(*)(*) that don't mean much with the incident. Like you trying to point out about Email classifications. Coming up with every LAME excuse in the book. All to deny reality. All due to it being connected to Hillary.

That which you defend. That which you play Right here thinking you can redcross( that would be a therapeutic term, just so you don't get lost, confused, cornfuzzled, or can't fathom that) with another about something I said.

Are you not cheerleading Hillary on with those Pom poms, in this thread.

Finally.....I don't need any excuse to jump those that make up what is the weakness in this country. Those that look to falsify and hope to change reality. Those like yourself.....looking to play off the trivial.

Its like a finger pointing to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger. Or you will miss all that heavenly glory.

But as you have aptly demonstrated in this thread. You like missing whats left in the sky. While focusing on that finger.