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.
How much has the cost of guns gone up in the past 8 years? Obama has Ben coming for our guns for years ad right wingers would say with no proof of that ever happening.
As for Benghazi, this is nothing more than a hot air piece that Republicans won't let go.
.... and "Watergate" was just some overzealous campaign workers trying to collect some intel about the DNC to help with the election.
Hillary didnt do well in the Watergate investigation as she was fired...
Just like Capone, she will get busted sometime, maybe in a future history book of a foreign country in the next century.. Until Bill dies, she is untouchable.
I wouldn't compare this to Watergate, quite different know exposing private emails to public scrutiny which would have amounted to documentation for many conversations inside and outside the office back then. Nixon actually did erase some of the tapes but both sides were fair and did a great job at the hearing.
Anyway they will get their opportunity to ask her why that name was redacted on that email, is it meaningful? A The issue is Moussa Koussa an inteligence officer for Gaddafi at one time who provided the CIA information, I can see why some might see that as classified to protect him. Also the intelligence committee should have had access to his name although they were not part of the hearing.
In a memo from the Phoenix FBI to headquarters, the agents recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools "for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions" of a terrorist connection. The memo reportedly cited Osama bin Laden by name.
Quote:
It was not the only signal FBI headquarters missed. Just weeks later, agents in Minnesota told headquarters of the arrest of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui at a flight school in St. Paul, suggesting he might be planning to hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center.
I don't know that many people think Bush is blameless for 911. Also remember that Bill Clinton was advised to get Bin Laden before he went into hiding. Clinton passed on several opportunities to capture/kill Bin Laden, including a couple of time when troops were in the plans ready to launch the missions. So Bill Clinton, as well as Bush are not blameless for 911.
So, it would go without saying that Hilary is not blameless for Benghazi.
GWB isn't blameless. He has a measure of fault, just not all of it.. The terrorists who flew the planes came here under Clinton's watch. Clinton implemented procedure changes that prevented Federal agencies from communicating. These issues were identified by a bi-partisan commission.
Not sure anyone is blaming 100% of Benghazi on Hillary. People are questioning how it was handled before and after the fact. The lack of taking responsibility of a failure under her watch. The dishonesty, the failure to to follow security protocols etc. People died, most likely they would have no matter what short of sending in a company of Marines before hand or doing an vac as other embassies did.
It's Hillary's demonstrated dishonesty that makes her such a ripe target.
Clinton implemented procedure changes that prevented Federal agencies from communicating. These issues were identified by a bi-partisan commission.
No, that wasn't Clinton, that was the 1980 Intelligence Oversight Act. When I attended the Defense Intelligence College in the late 80s, they schooled us fully in the communication "wall" created by that law between the domestic and the foreign intelligence agencies.
GWB ignored multiple CIA reports that Bin Laden was determined to strike in U.S.
Exactly how is Hillary Clinton culpable for Benghazi in a way that GWB was not for the largest attack on US soil in history?
1. bush and bill clinton were warned, that alq wanted to attack
....1a. the warnings said they did NOT KNOW when, where or how
....1b. the hijack warnings (of hijackings , not using planes as destruction devices) were for EXTERNAL international flights coming into the USA, not internal flights
2. the clinton admin passed very little on to bush, and he took what he had and INCREASEd the assault
Quote:
In August 2002 Richard A. Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser, discusses US strategy in dealing with islamic terrorists:
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against, uh, the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
hillary was the sec of state..SHE DIRECTLY was responsible for all actions and policies within our embassies
Quote:
was she or was she not the sec of state??? YES she was
does all policy, security, troop movement, etc for the ebmasies come through her office?? YES it does
did she use a non-secure email for her duties as SoS?? YES she did
did she violate G6, cyber security proticol??? YES she did
did she hide the truth??? YES she did
did an ambassador get killed, because of her offices incompetence??? YES
did she lie, and say security for the ambassador was not her call??? YES
did she lie, and say nothing secret or confidential went through her email??? YES
was it asked of her office to increase the security for that embassy.....YES....did her office honor that request.....NO
that is why the bullseye is on her...it was her RESPONSIBILITY to do her job PROPERLY
GWB isn't blameless. He has a measure of fault, just not all of it.. The terrorists who flew the planes came here under Clinton's watch. Clinton implemented procedure changes that prevented Federal agencies from communicating. These issues were identified by a bi-partisan commission.
Not sure anyone is blaming 100% of Benghazi on Hillary. People are questioning how it was handled before and after the fact. The lack of taking responsibility of a failure under her watch. The dishonesty, the failure to to follow security protocols etc. People died, most likely they would have no matter what short of sending in a company of Marines before hand or doing an vac as other embassies did.
It's Hillary's demonstrated dishonesty that makes her such a ripe target.
Why didn't congress spend as much time investigating the 9/11 attacks?
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.
If GWB is blameless for 9/11 why is Hillary Clinton responsible for Benghazi?
