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.
According to some sources I've read Benghazi was largely a CIA operation, with only a small number of state dept employees there, whose main function was to provide cover for the CIA people. My bet is that the GOP-controlled House issued this report in this form because they saw a need to provide cover for the CIA, i.e. to avoid jeopardizing other operations around the world.
Letting Hillary and the Obama admin off the hook is part of the price of making sure the CIA gets cover. According to Ed Klein, the failures were not even really Hillary's fault--she was assuming that the CIA would have the security covered, but the CIA didn't. But the CIA involvement had to be kept under wraps, so Hillary Clinton was kind of left holding the bag.
I suspect this is just a move to provide cover for the sake of national security--can't really complain about that.
Seriously? Do you own homework. You know darn well that Navy Seals have given accounts of the evening.
None were present in the Embassy until well after the Ambassador was dead or well on his way. You claim someone was on top of this before Stevens was in trouble. So which of the Seals was on scene when the oil was spread and set afire?
For one who thinks they know what happened you really don't seem to have the sequence down.
If you remember the Seals failed to find the body. Which may have contributed to his death.
I suspect this is just a move to provide cover for the sake of national security--can't really complain about that.
Except that Issa and his ilk were able to make a lot of hay attempting to throw a wrench in the presidential election before they presumably got a 'come to Jesus' talk from the CIA, if your theory is true.
Except that Issa and his ilk were able to make a lot of hay attempting to throw a wrench in the presidential election before they presumably got a 'come to Jesus' talk from the CIA, if your theory is true.
Really? This is your concern? What about the people who died?
Hillary knew Chris Stevens and convinced him to take that job. I am sure, in his naivete, he thought that his country would look out for him. What difference does it make after all? Dead is dead, right?
An ambassador in a foreign country where a dictator has just been deposed, naïve doesn't come to mind. Very courageous representing his country especially leaving the embassy under those conditions, he was a professional and I give him credit for risking his life.
Spin it any way you want lvoc. This Administration let this man and others die. So shameful of you to defend the failure of Obama and Clinton imo.
You have been asked several times in this thread to provide some evidence for your bold statements, claims that fly in the face of reports of numerous investigations, and this is your only response. Just like all right wingers who have been screeching Benghazi!! for two years, you have nothing to back your claims but your flapping gums. Even most Republicans have admitted as much.
What is shameful is that you continue to smear this administration in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. You show yourself for the partisan hater that you are.
Wrong doing would be impeachable; but there is no dispute that they asked for increased security and were ignored. Fact is I never thought they intended the results ;just responsible actions which lead to it.Same type of thinking that lead to his plan to pull out of Iraq that lead to ISIS filling the vacuum. Seen any firings. But then its the federal government. Seen any of the secret service fired yet . Now about IRS employees who targeted citizens because they were in a opposing group. Two appointees resigned. But who do voters blame; we don't vote for those appointees. But we do the appointer.
An ambassador in a foreign country where a dictator has just been deposed, naïve doesn't come to mind. Very courageous representing his country especially leaving the embassy under those conditions, he was a professional and I give him credit for risking his life.
As do I, but I am sure he never thought he would be denied when he requested additional security. It turned out that he was naive to trust this Administration to protect him and others. If he had considered the track record of the Obama administration, he should have known that they were committed only to political expedience.
You have been asked several times in this thread to provide some evidence for your bold statements, claims that fly in the face of reports of numerous investigations, and this is your only response. Just like all right wingers who have been screeching Benghazi!! for two years, you have nothing to back your claims but your flapping gums. Even most Republicans have admitted as much.
What is shameful is that you continue to smear this administration in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. You show yourself for the partisan hater that you are.
I am not a right winger. I am a person with common sense who is aware of what happened in Benghazi. If you don't like that I coundn't care less. I will post as I please. I have no obligation to you. Do you get that?
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.
