Benghazi terrorist attacks and the Whistleblowers (Congress, FBI, weapons, conspiracy)
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.
This was brought up by Hicks but really was not a solution, they were 3 hours away, the aircraft did not have any refueling tankers and they were stationed in Italy for the NATO aliance, not for DOD. What would they have accomplished is another story, there are limits to our military ability.
Some people refuse to acknowledge that there are limits, especially when their own limits know no boundaries. Regardless if aircraft was 15 minutes away or even a drone, it was still in a residential neighborhood and to drop bombs for the sake of dropping them or using a drone (as the republicans think should have been an alternative??), that would still have been another story. Two arguments: one: the killing of civilians, and two: the right to kill civilians if it meant getting terrorists. The same argument used when Israel stikes back at Palestinians embedded in residential neighborhoods, except the blow back from Banghazi would have been bigger.
The location was not a random choice. It had to be thought through. How can they not think about the possibility of a location being attacked and the logistics to defend a location considering the conditions and where they were, and possibly the purpose the location served?
[The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.
The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible. [/quote]
You can't determine the origin to something when you don't have all the material needed to find the origin. Rep or Dem - makes no difference - when any investigation comes up in an administrations rule - things are held back and it's like pulling teeth to get these things released.
Or you have witness availability - after watching the C Span coverage - I went back and reviewed what I had missed previously. I was very confused that Hillary's aneurysm was supposedly caused by a fall and yet there was no news coverage of this until she was supeonaed for the investigation. Now here you have an ex president with Secret Service coverage and the Sec. of State, who falls, receiving a head injury and there was no coverage on the incident and yet we've always known when the Presidents, past and present, get their yearly health exams or have a potentially cancerous mole removed - but no indication that medical treatment was received by her - and you know the Secret Service would have made sure she was checked out.
Lawyers have a nack of coming up with new developements for stall tactics, while they circle their wagons and plan their stratedgy. And her demeanor was reprehensible when finally questioned. As a parent, if something happens to my child then I want to know the circumstances in full. I don't want to be told, "It's in the past." I've just lost a family member and you're just dismissing that death. According to Smith's mother, she was told by Rice, Obama and Clinton that the situation occured because of a Youtube video and that was on Sept 14th - when emails that have been released show they knew more was going on. If at that time you don't have the full facts - don't make something up!
When Bush choked on a pretzel it became "Breaking News". The media went on for days about it.
I'd also like to ask, as I may have missed it. But it was a contention of the Democrat Representatives that they never had a meeting with Mr. Thompson. Instead of continuing on this path, fighting with the Republic representatives - why wasn't one smart enough when given his time to simply ask Mr. Thompson - why when they asked to speak to him, his lawyer denied the request. Instead of inferring the Republicans were doing something underhanded or denying them access - if they had simply asked Mr. Thompson - they would have gotten their answer right from the horse's mouth.
Does anyone know why Thompson refused to speak with the Democratic representatives?
I'd also like to ask, as I may have missed it. But it was a contention of the Democrat Representatives that they never had a meeting with Mr. Thompson. Instead of continuing on this path, fighting with the Republic representatives - why wasn't one smart enough when given his time to simply ask Mr. Thompson - why when they asked to speak to him, his lawyer denied the request. Instead of inferring the Republicans were doing something underhanded or denying them access - if they had simply asked Mr. Thompson - they would have gotten their answer right from the horse's mouth.
Does anyone know why Thompson refused to speak with the Democratic representatives?
I agree, Cummings could have done something like you said. I do think Cummings was really trying to focus on real issues and ideas to prevent such tragedies from occurring. Of course in an Issa hearing, getting anything positive out is, well, impossible. I suspect the reason Thompson refused to talk to the Dems, will come out.
[The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.
The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.
[/quote]
Yeah and if you want a smoking gun look at 9/11. When Clinton briefed incoming president Bush he told him that his administration would be spending a lot of time dealing with the antics of Osama Bin Laden. The FBI and CIA knew that Bin Laden had threatened to use passenger jets as weapons and for months the hijackers were in this country receiving training on, get this, taking off and flying big jets but turning down the instructions concerning landing. You are looking at the gun...you are looking at the smoke.
This phony conspiracy theory has about run it's course.. What's up next?
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.
Father Of Slain Navy SEAL: I Knew Hillary Clinton Was Lying To Me When She Said It Was The Video
