Clinton "I was not aware of any consolate concerns for security in Benghazi"?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Clinton "I was not aware of any consolate concerns for security in Benghazi"?

    So, let me get this straight; you are in charge of the state dept, a request comes through from a consulate in a hostile country and says "security is inadequate and we need to maintain the strike force" "attacks and up and rebels in area are becomning more heavily armed" and "we feel the local security may be compromised and/or inadequate".

    As SoS you never even hear about it??

    That's insane and shows a complete failure of protocol within the department!

    If, that's true then the policy needs to change immediately on what is communicated!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Clinton

    The issue here is that wht happened in Libya was:

    a) not going according to the "Arab Spring" script, and

    b) came during an election cycle.

     

    Hillary is full of it.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Clinton

    For her to say and the world to believe:

    "we have 4 dead Americans so, what difference does it make if it was a terrorist attack or people walking down the street who decided to kill Americans"

    is ridiculous!

    Any one who has ever had any experience in investigations knows; you must have the details and the facts of excatly what happened to ever be able to find a suitable and definitive root cause and/or real solutions and preventative actions!

    She is either incredibly stupid or she is hoping most Americans are.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    Our state dept is not in disarray. The procedures, policies and protocols have built up over 100+ years.

    Nothing happens without approval.

    The controls in the State Dept are air tight.

    That suggests that academy award nominee Hillary Clinton lied through her teeth to the world (AGAIN) to protect the Messiah and HIS decision not to save Americans.

    We all know the Messiah is kissing Muslim azz but this time HE's trying to SAVE his own azz.

    Let's not forget this was 2 months before the election.

    We have a total p o s in the WH.

     

    Hill is a stooge, a shill, a pawn for Barry Boy and probably destroyed any chance of the WH in 2016.

     



    You have no facts to substantiate any of this.   As if you know how the State department operates...  An air tight bureaucracy?  Nuts. Obama's decision not to save Americans?  To benefit the Muslims?  That is beyond irresponsible.  That is a lie.  

    You are a stooge for your right wing paranoid fantasies.  You impress no one with a working brain.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Clinton

    Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.

    The drum beat for heads to roll has made some people deaf.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Clinton

    I think it's no coincidence that Hillary dogslaps a few senators around...

    ...on the same day SecDef allows women to serve in advanced combat roles.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    That's insane and shows a complete failure of protocol within the department!

     

    If, that's true then the policy needs to change immediately on what is communicated!




     

    It also means you have some apologizing to do to Obama and Clinton. You know, for all the disgusting lies you told and keep telling about what happened in Benghazi.

     



    Apologize for what? Neither Hillary or Obama have said anything of substance, and what they have said doesn't pass the smell test.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Get the transcript

    [QUOTE]

    I read it. 

    Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. 

    Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.

    The obvious next question everyone SHOULD want to know!

    WHY DIDNT SHE SEE THEM???

    Did these 4 willfully withhold them or not follow protocol?

    What is the protocol for communicating threats to your level?

    What is being done to change this protocol or enforce it??

    When are these 4 "senior state dept senior officials" available for questions?

     

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Clinton

     I am less concerned with the fact that the attack happened than I am with the request for more security being ignored.

     It suggests the possiblity of a very troubling scenario that the information line may have a mole in that it didn't (supposedly) reach Clinton. This would not only confirm the intent of an attack but it also confirms we screwed up royally.

     I will say that Hillary played this as badly as anyone could. You do not appear in front of a committee kicking and screaming like a 2-year-old. You act like an adult or you will be treated like the child you wish to be by your peers.

     And the words you should all be wary of: 'It doesn't matter anymore'.

     I beg to differ. It matters all too much, especially when I see a logical reason to suspect a mole within the organization.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to undead's comment:

     I am less concerned with the fact that the attack happened than I am with the request for more security being ignored.

     It suggests the possiblity of a very troubling scenario that the information line may have a mole in that it didn't (supposedly) reach Clinton. This would not only confirm the intent of an attack but it also confirms we screwed up royally.

     I will say that Hillary played this as badly as anyone could. You do not appear in front of a committee kicking and screaming like a 2-year-old. You act like an adult or you will be treated like the child you wish to be by your peers.

     And the words you should all be wary of: 'It doesn't matter anymore'.

     I beg to differ. It matters all too much, especially when I see a logical reason to suspect a mole within the organization.



    Take the simple answer over the complex one.  Bureaucracies screw up all the time.  People are negligent.  Or believe there was a conspiracy to intentionally subvert our security so some shadowy group in Libya can kill our people.  Which seems more likely if you REALLY think about it?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Clinton

    People are negligent.

     

    True, and those people should be fired.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to undead's comment:

     

     I am less concerned with the fact that the attack happened than I am with the request for more security being ignored.

     It suggests the possiblity of a very troubling scenario that the information line may have a mole in that it didn't (supposedly) reach Clinton. This would not only confirm the intent of an attack but it also confirms we screwed up royally.

     I will say that Hillary played this as badly as anyone could. You do not appear in front of a committee kicking and screaming like a 2-year-old. You act like an adult or you will be treated like the child you wish to be by your peers.

     And the words you should all be wary of: 'It doesn't matter anymore'.

     I beg to differ. It matters all too much, especially when I see a logical reason to suspect a mole within the organization.

     



    Take the simple answer over the complex one.  Bureaucracies screw up all the time.  People are negligent.  Or believe there was a conspiracy to intentionally subvert our security so some shadowy group in Libya can kill our people.  Which seems more likely if you REALLY think about it?

     

     



    Submit you are being dramatic.

     

    Conspiracy... nahhh.

    A terrible decision at a high leve perhaps. Maybe you don't think the American people deserve to know and that we should all ignore this terrorist attack and any accountability.

    If Ronnie Ray Gun was in office I would still seek the truth 

     



    Don't lie.  You think it is a conspiracy that goes up to Obama himself.  Something about pleasing the Muslims or some such paranoid nonsense...  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    People are negligent.

     

     

    True, and those people should be fired.

     



    No disagreement here.  

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Get the transcript
    I read it. 

    Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. 

    Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.

    The obvious next question everyone SHOULD want to know!

    WHY DIDNT SHE SEE THEM???

    Did these 4 willfully withhold them or not follow protocol?

    What is the protocol for communicating threats to your level?

    What is being done to change this protocol or enforce it??

    When are these 4 "senior state dept senior officials" available for questions?

    [QUOTE]

    The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassador's trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy's country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.



    LOL yea "the board" says

     

Share