simple facts are...Obama and Clinton politicized Benghazi by FIRST
creating an illusion of their politics succeeding in Libya, which included
minimal and stripped down security for the ambassador.Second, disregarding
ALL requests for even retaining the security they had just weeks prior. Third,
after the murders blatantly distorting the truth and blaming the attack on a
video, although they clearly knew that it was not. THIS was the worst of all
accusations! By blaming the video the administration caused even more violance
in the region and gave a false indicator of the video demonstrations by adding
to it violance that was not part of it at all.Sadly Obama blamed Romney of
politicizing Benghazi when they had done it months earlier.... and still
continue.US ambassadors are first and foremost representing the PRESIDENT!
But this president did not represent/protect his ambassador. BO and Hillary knew
what was taking place.
It would be perfectly understandable if after the attack Sec. Clinton came
forward and said "We messed up. They asked for additional security and did
not get it." However, the fact that they made up a story with no
intelligence to support it and repeatedly told the American people that its
because of an internet video. The only reason to make up a story is if you are
trying to hide something.Also, early on it was made very clear that
Pres. Obama was not involved in decisions made that night. He allegedly had one
brief conversation about it and there was no follow-up A U.S. Consulate is
being attacked while the Ambassador is there and the President does not even
follow-up on it before going to bed?! Either Pres. Obama is as cold-hearted as
they come or there is more to this story.
The bottom line is that Ronald Reagan was responsible for IRAN-CONTRA.Ronald Reagan lied for 19 months regarding his administrations culpability.No Problem!The bottom line is that George Bush was
responsible for the deaths of over 3000 American Citizens on American soil. He
was responsible for security.No Problem!I'm sure
@whatnext would agree with this sort of logic.According to his
logic, Reagan and Bush should be held to the same standard he has held
Democrats.To do otherwise would be sheer hypocrisy.
The bottom line is Hilary Clinton was responsible for the security in that
region. If you remember it was reported request after request where sent asking
for more protection due to the increasing threats of violence in that area.
Repeatedly their request were denied. There is know way she did not know what
was going on in Benghazi unless she had her head buried in the sand. The
decision to not send more troops to help before the attack may have been made by
someone else, but she was aware of the growing risk of violence in the area and
could have over ridden that decision. The way I see it there was time to act
before the attack took place and if that is true then everyone who made the
decision not to act should be held accountable and that includes Hilary Clinton
and anyone else in the chain of command who should have had knowledge of the
They have turned a tragedy into a political circus for personal gains the GOP
should be ashamed.
"The administration covered up"Covered what up? The terrorist
attack? Within 2 weeks, everyone knew and spoke openly about the terrorist
attack. Not a very effective "cover up".I appreciate your
passion for a conspiracy, though. Every conspiracy has a motive, wo what is it
here? To gain an advantage in the election? That can't be it. Again,
within two weeks, everyone spoke of Benghazi as a terrist attack. Even Mitt
Romney rejected a political ad about Benghazi. So, what was gained?
Moderate,You are missing the point. The administration covered up,
and I don't see how letting the terrorists know that we know it's a
terrorist attack is going to change anything. Besides, Obama refused to call it
a terrorist attack, but then claims to have called it a terrorist attack from
the beginning.UtahBlueDevil,Again, the issue is that
Obama's administration lied about knowing it was a terrorist attack. You
did not answer the question as to why Obama did that. My guess is that you have
no answer and are proceeding to blame Bush like the Democrats tend to do when
they can't face the pressure. At least Moderate tried to answer the
question, although his claim of their "knowledge evolving" fails when
you realize that Hicks and the Libyan president informed them immediately
exactly what was happening and they knew soon enough that terrorists planned the
attack.Again, I pose the question: If the White House knew it was a
terrorist attack from the beginning (Hicks testifies this is true), why did they
lie about it being mob violence?Also, another more difficult
question: Why were reinforcements told to stand down?
All together now, say "a willful suspension of disbelief"!
@RivertonCouger.... "they KNEW it was a terrorist attack!" ok.....
so they did. So what. What is your next point. They knew it. Now what?
We have known for 20 years that terrorist are trying to strike US
targets in the past....and will do so moving forward. What
difference does it make if it was declared a terrorist attack 5 minutes after,
or 5 months after? Would our response been different? Would we all feel better
or worse regardless of who did it? What is the smoking gun you all think you
have found here?Please explain to me in the grand scheme of
political events over the last 40 years... how this rises to the Grand Crime you
all make it to be... especially in the context of all the other events that have
come before it. Lets say there was complete and total incompetence here.... so
now what? What crime was done? Greater than lying to the UN about our
intentions in Iraq? Greater than Travelgate? Greater than the bombing in
Lebanon.... or the Oklahoma City Fed building? Greater than the Atlanta
Olympics bombing, or Ruby Ridge, or the Branch Dividians? Iran-Contra?
WaterGate? Hosteges for weapons?
"Somebody please answer these questions: Why did they call it mob violence
when they knew it was a terrorist attack?"Because knowledge
evolves. Your expectation that they instantly know everything is unrealistic.
You don't deny that there was a mob that day, do you? Sorting through all
the information coming in from various sources, one had to consider if that mob
played a role.Once the information sifted down to "this was a
planned terrorist attack", you expect the administration to reveal
everything. Is nothing classified in your world? Why do you insist that we let
the terrorists know all that we know?
So, according to Hick's testimony, he talked to Clinton on the phone while
the attack was happening, yet the Democrats still want us to believe that
Clinton didn't make the call? What did she do, go to the people under her
and say, "You make the call, and make sure they know it's your
decision, not mine"?What also makes me laugh is that they have
said multiple times that they did not "mislead" the American people, but
that is EXACTLY what they did when they called it spontaneous mob violence when
apparently they KNEW it was a terrorist attack!Somebody please
answer these questions: Why did they call it mob violence when they knew it was
a terrorist attack?Also, I can't stand these AP articles. They
are vilifying Republicans and defending Democrats as much as possible.
Objectivity is long gone from the liberal media.This article makes
it sound like they never called it anything but a terrorist attack. Well,
I've got news for you AP: the White House already said before "we
don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not
in reaction to the film."
alt134,"This is the problem I've had with this
investigation. If it would just stick to finding out the facts and truth about
the situation then that's a discussion we should have...."______________________________Absolutely. When fault-finding
precedes fact-finding, it smells like partisanship straining at the leash.
Integrity in government applies equally to Congressional investigations and how
they are conducted as it does to those whom Congress is investigating. The
dishonesty with which the McCarthy hearings did its work in the 1950s should be
a lesson we never forget.
Furry 1993 You say: That sounds to me like he took responsibiity for Benghazi.
He also said he would have the most transparant administration ever. Does not
look the case now. Yea right believe what Obama says.
"When a ship runs aground, it is the captains responsibility. "Ok.... lets run with this example. if a ship runs aground... it is the
Captain who is responsible. Exactly! Not the president, not the highest level
admiral, not the president of the company that owns the ship... but the
captain.Ms. Clinton was not the captain. The captain is the person
who was in charge of security for that region. The system works through
delegation.... not the "chief" making every or even most of the
decisions. No company, branch of military, or church works without delegating
responsibility. So while it is a cute little phrase - making the
assertion that Clinton was the "captain" of the ship there for should be
ultimately responsible shows a misunderstanding how the chain of command
works.Mistakes were made. That is without doubt. I am not even a
Clinton fan.... but this is just beyond silly. Using Hemlocks
example, how in the world did the buck stop with Oliver North instead of running
all the way up to President Reagan - whom I supported? The double talk\double
standard is amusing.
Politicians lie about Benghazi and everything else. But Why? If politicians are
truly American, why cover-up "the truth that will set you free?" No God,
No religion; No truth: No value. Has anything good ever come out of a lie; only
more never-ending lies that always make matters worse. And the never-ending
state of denial. Evidently the populace is in denial about the source of life,
like today's know-it-alls created themselves.
As a whole, American people cannot think for themselves. The media is the
shepherd, and citizens are the sheep. The legalizing gay marriage, and Obama
winning the last presidential election is proof.The media will
decide the fate of Hillary, and Benghazi, not the Republicans.
A1994 says it is incompetence. Depraved indifference would be a
Tongue in cheek responsibility is never the truth. The President's words
were just words without meaning. President Nixon did a similar thing for months
to two years and two months later, when he left the White House with his V sign
between his legs. No one died in his debacle and he never fessed up to his
part. He went down piece by piece with Spiro T. Agnew out of the way for
another reason. This Vice-President is always running off at the mouth and no
one takes him seriously from shotgun to abortion. He is the fall man and is the
one that will take the hit for this problem, as Hillary is out of the picture
except for being subpoenaed for at least one hearing. Her man has shown her the
way to integrity and honor. In the debate, the President let the
moderator fill in his gaps with her words and lack of journalistic ability.
I have voted for both parties the last few years so I feel objective in saying
the Clinton's are not people of high moral standard. Anyone who works with
these people come out looking terribly and the Clinton's are absolved.
It's a drama that has been played out over and over.
Hillary Clinton needs to go away. Her Presidency would be as big a disaster as
Barack Obama's. We have 4 Americans dead in Benghazi. We have a dead
boarder patrol agent thanks to 'Fast and Furious' (not to mention
countless dead Mexicans.) Now we have word that the IRS is targeting obvious
political rivals of the left. It's all incompetence, wrapped in secrecy
and plausible deniability. Obama and Clinton are saints with pure motives who
are really the victims of mean old Republicans. They will never be held
accountable for their actions because people like One Old Man think this is
still about Democrats vs. Republicans.
One follows plans and checklists that are approved in order to cut down
confusion. The Ambassador from our country to Libya was in Benghazi for a
reason, even though it was the most terroristic spot in Libya without proper
support. If the CIA was involved, they would not have been at another location
on the most potentially hostile day, 9/11/2012 when alerts were out for all
middle-east embassies. The military weren't even involved and appears were
holed up in their SAFE locations in Europe. They weren't even on a special
alert to launch from a holding point somewhere off the coast of Africa north of
Egypt or Libya. Tankers not available is a farce as tankers can hold at various
locations for support. Military plans exist for this purpose and to have a
Secretary of State and Defense both political bureaucrats without direction from
the President is abhorrent behavior. Military men and women leaders
cannot exist with this kind or lack of support. They have to have someone back
them up. Of course, the 4-star Generals have not been very strong on their
ethics and behaviors. When the top dog for the Generals display contempt, what?
one old man:What difference does this make?The media
decides who will be president.
As a military person, you have to depend on the chain of command to protect you
through thick and thin. Every military and government employee defending our
truth and freedoms have to depend on the next person up to defend you. That is
why those CIA agents did what they did from their experiences and expertise and
the code of ethics from the President on down to the lowliest in the field.
Without that trust, you do not know where to turn. Whether being in a guard
post with nuclear weapons in a foreign country, flying an airplane responsible
for people on the ground and in the air, staffing a command post, making calls
as to operational readiness or stating you are not mission ready, you have a
trust. Whether President Nixon, Johnson, Clinton, Bush or Obama, you have to
have trust. From the beginning, in September 2012, it wasn't a political
move, it was a move of incompetence up and down the chain. Having lived in many
countries, this demonstrates the kind of government that many shows everyday.
Trust, Integrity, Honor/Ethics are a must not just political convenience. Those
that say this is political don't understand leadership.
@JWB 2:08 p.m. May 12, 2013Quoting President Obama in his debate
with Romney 10/17/2012: “Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job
but she works for me,” he said. “I’m the president and
I’m always responsible.“The suggestion that anyone in my
team, the secretary of state, our UN ambassador, anybody on my team, would play
politics or mislead when we have lost four of our own is offensive. “That’s not what we do,” Obama said. “That’s not
what I do as president, that’s not what I do as commander in
chief.”That sounds to me like he took responsibiity for
Benghazi. Shame on anyone who says differently.
Somehow critics have bought into the American action-thriller movie fantasy
about how fantastic and amazing military intelligence and rapid special
operations can be where solutions are solved in the last hour of a movie.
Unfortunately the real world doesn't work this way. Hopefully our
Republican Congressional critics can somehow be called down to reality as their
voices because their influence in the real world impact real live people not
actors who can die and live another day.
This is the problem I've had with this investigation. If it would just
stick to finding out the facts and truth about the situation then that's a
discussion we should have. It's the matter of turning it into partisan
sniping against Secretary Clinton or the President that turns me off of this and
even this chairman who is very critical of the response is frustrated with the
attempt to turn this into something else for political gain.
Government runs on a chain of command. President Truman knew who was
responsible for actions, when he lived by The buck stops here. This President
doesn't know what that means. Anyone that is born in this country knows
what that means. Hillary misled the people prior, during and after the last
election. She had the responsibility to reprimand her appointed Ambassador to
the United Nations when she misspoke after Benghazi. She was the wife of
President Clinton for 8 years with her aspirations of the top spot so she could
have the man who didn't know the definition of is is as her first lady.
Hillary has lost sight of Integrity and the definition of that. She is not
qualified to be a President if she can't stand up and speak for herself.
Even after she resigned, she hasn't spoken up. This is a liability for
her. President Obama has already shown his metal for 5 plus years. He took
credit for Osama but doesn't take credit for Benghazi. The
President's face in the Romney debate was telling for our top leader of Joe
Biden who routinely does the dirty work of the President.
Ms. Clinton's primary responsibility was serving as Secretary of State, not
campaigning for president. She has all the credibility of her husband.
When a ship runs aground, it is the captains responsibility. Ms. Clinton cannot
have authority without also having the responsibility. It is sounding more like
the "brilliant" corporate CEOs who lost billions of dollars claiming
that they had no idea of what was going on. When the athletic director ignores
sexual predation by a coach, the university president who looked the other way
resigns too. As the summons and complaint in a negligence lawsuit says, "Ms.
Clinton knew or should have known...."
Republicans are desperate to do anything they can to impede Clinton as a
possible presidential candidate because they know they have no one who will be
able to defeat her in an election.