Back to Benghazi for Hillary!

AZ Jim said:
the roar of crickets.
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry... I'm sure some ridiculous excuse will be given for not giving a rat's arse over the embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush and wasting all this time and money over Benghazi... Only not the real reason.. which of course we all know is to "get" Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency.
 
QuickSilver said:
Oh don't worry... I'm sure some ridiculous excuse will be given for not giving a rat's arse over the embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush and wasting all this time and money over Benghazi... Only not the real reason.. which of course we all know is to "get" Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency.
Click to expand...

Your opinion, but for some reason the FBI and others just have not declared it a waste of time yet.
 

QuickSilver said:
Can you explain why there were no investigations into the Consulate attacks and 60 deaths under Bush?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just what happened and when? Were there any warnings of impending problems? That is just not the same event as what is happening with the present occasion. So what is this correlation you seek? Kind of empty argument. Until the examiners end their quest, the concern is valid.

FBI is not Republican, or Democrat, that I remember.
 
Maybe the FBI is not studying Benghazi? But how do you know when no one else really knows where their investigation will lead. Read this article and see some of the concerns the FBI is working on.

http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/

[h=1]Hillary’s Email Troubles Are Far From Over[/h] [h=2]New information shows just how slipshod Ms. Clinton's security measures were for her “private” server[/h] By John R. Schindler | 10/19/15 10:12am

.
.
There’s also the matter of exactly what the FBI is investigating. Recent revelations hint that the compromising of classified information on Ms. Clinton’s “private” email and server was more serious than originally believed. While earlier reports indicated only a small percentage of the sensitive information that “spilled over” onto Ms. Clinton’s personal email was highly classified at the Top Secret level, that may be only a small portion of what was potentially compromised.

Particularly disturbing is the report that one of the “personal” emails Ms. Clinton forwarded included the name of a top CIA asset in Libya, who was identified as such. The source of this information was Tyler Drumheller, a retired senior CIA operations officer, who served as a sort of one-man private spy agency for Sid Blumenthal, the Clintons’ close family friend and factotum whose sometimes long-winded emails, particularly regarding Libya, have generated much of the controversy behind EmailGate.
.
.
It will be weeks, even months, before the FBI’s investigation concludes and the Department of Justice has to decide whether any of the events surrounding EmailGate reach the threshold of prosecution. Many in the FBI and the Intelligence Community suspect the fix is already inside the West Wing to prevent that from happening, but it’s still early in this investigation.
 
QuickSilver said:
Oh don't worry... I'm sure some ridiculous excuse will be given for not giving a rat's arse over the embassy attacks and 60 deaths under Bush and wasting all this time and money over Benghazi... Only not the real reason.. which of course we all know is to "get" Hillary Clinton and prevent her from winning the presidency.
Click to expand...

The heck to all who died under Bush, nobody wants to hear that silly stuff, it's Hillary who's the monster. :D More on the committee and time/money wasted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi_56265909e4b08589ef48f937


Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the Benghazi committee, on Monday called for the panel to be abolished. It has been in existence for 17 months and cost more than $4.5 million.

Cummings and his fellow Democrats also released a report that day saying there is "no evidence" to support the claims Republicans are making about Clinton's role in the 2012 attack. "

[T]he implication that Chairman Gowdy is trying to make that somehow she's somehow personally responsible for the fact that they didn't have the security measures in place that they had been asked for is -- it's just an attempt to really smear her," Benghazi committee member Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) said Monday on MSNBC. "When in fact many Republicans voted to cut funding for State Department to increase security at some of the embassies and some of the outposts."

Clinton also isn't going into Thursday's hearing blindly. She has testified about the 2012 attack in Benghazi before, albeit in front of different committees. (So far, there have been seven investigations into the Benghazi attack, and none of them found any gross negligence on her part.)
Click to expand...
 
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/after-gowdy-caught-lie-he-runs-politico


Rep Trey Gowdy admits he altered the documents that he used to make false claims against Hillary Clinton in a response to a letter from Rep Elijah Cummings.
Gowdy admits that he decided to make this improper redaction. That he attempts to obfuscate the point by stating the "Executive" branch, AFTER Gowdy appointed himself as arbiter of classification, asked for the redaction on PRIVACY grounds, something Cummings himself stated in his letter, does not obviate the fact that Gowdy purposefully altered a document in order to falsely accuse Clinton of wrongdoing.
 
Another release about the Benghazie attack.

[h=3]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/[/h]
[h=1]Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?[/h] By Louis Jacobson on Monday, May 12th, 2014 at 5:23 p.m.

.
.
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.
.
.

Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.


Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.


"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.


One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."


Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."

"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
.
.
 
SeaBreeze said:
The heck to all who died under Bush, nobody wants to hear that silly stuff, it's Hillary who's the monster. :D More on the committee and time/money wasted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi_56265909e4b08589ef48f937
Click to expand...


Another fact that Republicans so conveniently forget is that they CUT the budget for security at US embassies.... I don't think Clinton would have even been able to send additional security..

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize
 
QuickSilver said:
Another fact that Republicans so conveniently forget is that they CUT the budget for security at US embassies.... I don't think Clinton would have even been able to send additional security..

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize
Click to expand...

OK, keep nit picking why it is Republican and not Democrat problems. But did you read the stuff I have posted about the FBI not ending its look into Hillary's actions. The time left to investigate is really open. Someday there will be an end and until then we have no ideas about Hillary being in trouble or not. Right now I think there are some issues still needing looked into and answers made available. Till Hillary is declared clean, there will always be doubt. Come next spring we can really see who will be running for President from both parties and maybe independents too. Right now it is far too early to make any predictions. I hope Hillary gets formally cleared as I don't like having the far far left guy become our President. His Progressive Democrat group has the idea of taking over and slowly changing our government into far left socialist like the ones in Europe.
 
Last edited:
I've been watching the latest hearing on Benghazi this morning....what a farce and sham...this will only help Hillary Clinton's campaign....the witch hunt has backfired on these republicans, their agenda is clear to all.
 
Jackie22 said:
I've been watching the latest hearing on Benghazi this morning....what a farce and sham...this will only help Hillary Clinton's campaign....the witch hunt has backfired on these republicans, their agenda is clear to all.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how that was going... I'm hoping she chews them up and spits them out..
 
....they have NOTHING....

151022-benghazi-investigation-is-a-total-farce.jpg
 
A bunch of cry babies. Wait till it is over. Then you can cheer or complain. The FBI is still active on security problems and this about protection. It won't stop because some think it should.
 
GOD!!!! Clinton looks so old and worn out there, looks like she miss her appointment with her make up artist. He did a great job on her for the debate, she looks 20 years younger.:cool:
 
EVERYTHING I've seen of today's hearing shows this committee as nothing but a witch hunt. Of all the false accusations made and rhetoric, Secretary Clinton handled herself quite well. If you want to know just how well she did, tune in to Faux Noise. Those pundits are going nuts because nothing incriminating or damaging came out of today's testimony. This was supposed to be a slam dunk for the Pubs, knocking Clinton out of the possibility of gaining the Presidency. It turned out to be a few hard right-wing Congressmen sermonizing about their political stance and their opinion... OPINION.

A number of pundits, this afternoon, are saying "If you disliked Clinton before today... you still dislike her. If you liked Clinton before today... you still like her." Most voters are far more interested in baseball, right now, than in listening to political posturing.

Any investigation should be totally and completely about what happened that resulted in the death of 4 Americans and what can be done to, hopefully, keep it from happening again. Instead, this seems to be all about what happened AFTER the event and how decisions AFTER the event can be used for political gain by Republicans today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top