Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And hopefully she'll lose - she did nothing for the people here in Western NY and we were nothing but her stepping stone to the White Hosue. I don't think that they will actually be held accountable - heck - they've never been held accountable for anything else they've done - but it will defintiely come back to haunt her in the primaries and if she for president in the national election. Time will tell
I don't see what is so hard to understand. She was stating the Intelligence community best assessment at the time. You can argue that the Intelligence community knew more, but they also need to have proof of allegations, unlike McCain, Crudz, Issa, Garham, Ihoffe, Ayotte, etal. I am sure the Congressional Intelligence oversight people, got the info in total, some of which they could not broadcast.
Stevens last words to Hicks: We are under attack. While it was going on all communications described it as an attack. Who, specifically, in the intelligence community, and which department(s), assessed it wasn't a terrorist attack but a (protest?) reaction to a video? Why was the Ambassador of the UN appearing in the media explaining what happened when she was far removed from knowing anything? Someone just handed her a script and she memorized her lines??? She was a pawn.
There were protests and demonstrations all over the world at embassies and consulates taking place during the daytime and certain embassies were breached, all of them pointing to the video, but none of them reached the level as did Benghazi.
The "intelligence community" ASSumed the attack was due to the video, if they even did make that assumption. I guess it wouldn't cross their mind that it was a terrorist attack considering the level it reached? It took how many days to confirm it was a terrorist attack?? but minutes to make an ASSessment that it was a protest gone wrong due to a video??
But let's not forget: what difference does it make? It happened.
When you are being shot at, your compound is being overtaken, fires are set off, one would be able to tell the difference between a terrorist attack, in a country that was a hotbed and a protest. Do you understand that???
I tend to think that some people are incapable understanding much because that would require a level of thinking that is beyond their capacity.
Stevens last words to Hicks: We are under attack. While it was going on all communications described it as an attack. Who, specifically, in the intelligence community, and which department(s), assessed it wasn't a terrorist attack but a (protest?) reaction to a video? Why was the Ambassador of the UN appearing in the media explaining what happened when she was far removed from knowing anything? Someone just handed her a script and she memorized her lines??? She was a pawn.
There were protests and demonstrations all over the world at embassies and consulates taking place during the daytime and certain embassies were breached, all of them pointing to the video, but none of them reached the level as did Benghazi.
The "intelligence community" ASSumed the attack was due to the video, if they even did make that assumption. I guess it wouldn't cross their mind that it was a terrorist attack considering the level it reached? It took how many days to confirm it was a terrorist attack?? but minutes to make an ASSessment that it was a protest gone wrong due to a video??
But let's not forget: what difference does it make? It happened.
When you are being shot at, your compound is being overtaken, fires are set off, one would be able to tell the difference between a terrorist attack, in a country that was a hotbed and a protest. Do you understand that???
I tend to think that some people are incapable understanding much because that would require a level of thinking that is beyond their capacity.
There was no doubt that it was a terrorist attack, there was no dubt in the Intelligence community that it was a terrorist attack, there was no doubt in the WH that is was a terrorist attack, there was no doubt in the State Dept that it was a terrorist attack. What was, and still seems to be, the case... is who?
People who are weeping about "callous disregard of lives" never showed that sensitivity when Bush's invasion was massacring people by the thousands. Or his callous disregard for the families whose sons died there and were brought secretly back so that the media wouldn't broadcast the long procession of coffins. There's no honesty or sincerity anywhere in this thread. Even now these people are just using dead people for their political aims. More disrespect for the dead. Hatred has no respect for anything. If I were family members of the dead in Libya, I'd thank these people to stay the hell out of our grieving and to kindly STOP using these people as some sort of convenient flay in a political war.
oh, stop defending lies and cover-ups.
most normal people would want answers if their family members were calling for help and were IGNORED.
most normal people would want some justice, and that doesn't mean imprisoning a stupid filmmaker.(that our administration drew attention to )
and I can only hope that obama isn't doing more dirty deals behind the scenes:
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan President Hamid Karzai says he is ready to let the U.S. have nine bases in the country after the 2014 combat troop pullout but wants Washington's "security and economic guarantees" first.
Speaking at a ceremony Thursday at Kabul University, Karzai said Afghanistan is ready to sign a partnership agreement to that effect.
Karzai says: "When they (the U.S.) do this, we are ready to sign." (end quote)
economic guarantees? this is such a losing proposition for us.
"Death is part of life," said Democrat Elijah Cummings, ranking Democrat.
None of the Democrats at the hearings will admit to the plain truth that everyone has know since early on in the investigation into the terrorist attack on our Embassy in Benghazi, that there was a "stand down" order given by the administration, that help was refused, and Americans allowed to die. Help was available, and ready to respond. They were ordered not to go in.
Further, there has been an intentional cover-up of the truth, with the White House treating it as a non-event, something that happened "a long time ago."
Yet the testimony reveals the truth.
Democrats are uninterested, which seems strange since, where other investigations initiated by Democrats have been concerned, they have always insisted, "It's the seriousness of the charge."
Apparently that only applies if it is a Republican under investigation.
Apparently that only applies if it is a Republican under investigation.
Apparently Republicans only give a rip if an attack happens under a Democratic president. Just admit this is a blatantly partisan witch hunt already and save yourself some more angst.
Apparently Republicans only give a rip if an attack happens under a Democratic president. Just admit this is a blatantly partisan witch hunt already and save yourself some more angst.
How can you continue to support these lying POS?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Benghazi Hearings Not Televised On ABC, CBS & NBC--Pat Caddell Was Right The Media Enemy Of The American People
