• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Benghazi Bombshell Drops On Obama, Hillary

I don't particularly care about your point.

That was obvious.

Tucker Case said:
I just don't like the silly assumption that Muslim Nation = Middle East.

I didn't make that assumption, I've been to both areas in question plus Central Asia. It was a mistake.
 
Its seems as though this information didn't refute anything my link had and I note you didn't supply a link to the CBS Report, is the something in that report you don't want seen?

If you would have read the other link you would have noticed it referenced in the piece. But here it is in it's original. Although I doubt you will find any difference.

House GOP faults Clinton, State Dept for Benghazi security - CBS News

And from the report’s executive summary on the ongoing Congressional investigation’s several determinations to date, which “illustrate the need for continued examination and oversight by the five House Committees”:


-Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

-In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

-Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

The problem there, however, is that there’s a chance Hillary’s political cred isn’t the unassailable fortress of awesome that some might presume, especially if the “highest levels of the state department,” cough cough, were willfully negligent about providing adequate security to the consulate:


After the U.S.-backed Libyan revolution ended the Gadhafi regime, the U.S. government did not deploy sufficient U.S. security elements to protect U.S. interests and personnel that remained on the ground. Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel. Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.....snip~

House GOP releases report on Benghazi investigation, faulting Clinton « Hot Air

But seeing here that Hot Air does and with CBS.....I would think so!
 
They stated there was a reduction in security from March to the Dec attack. That was the finding of separate committees. Also we know the Commander of the 17th brigade in Libya Providing Security for that Region of Libyan and Benghazi warned Clinton's People 3 days in Advance that things were to dangerous to conduct foreign business in Benghazi. That they felt there was not enough Security.

The report established that the attack on the US mission on 11 September 2012 involved "arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars."

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the report found.

State department budget shortfalls were one obstacle to reinforcing security at diplomatic outposts worldwide, the report said.

She was replying to the first question from a Republican. A moment four months in coming.

Senator Corker says, "to my knowledge, no one was held accountable." "These officials [on the ground in Benghazi] were screaming out for more security," he says.

He asks Clinton to mention one reform that would have fixed the lack of communication about the security situation in Benghazi.

"The specific security requests" on Benghazi were handled by security professionals, Clinton says, and she never reviewed them.
She was replying to the first question from a Republican. A moment four months in coming.

Clinton replies that the two have a "simple disagreement." She says the state department followed protocol in handling an unfolding security crisis.

Then she turns the conversation to budget issues. She says Congressional holds had been placed on money for the mission in Libya. "We have got to get our act together between the administration and Congress... we have to work together," she says.

Hillary Clinton is about to appear before a House committee to continue her testimony on the Benghazi attack and US anti-terror strategy in the region.

Michael T. McCaul of Texas is grilling Clinton about why she didn't know about cables from Libya asking for additional security for the Benghazi mission.

"Was this cable a surprise to you?" he says. "When you have a US ambassador personally warning [about security]?"

Clinton says there are 1.43m cables that come to the state department every year "and they're all addressed to me."

McCaul: "This cable went unnoticed by your office, and that's the bottom line.".....snip~

Hillary Clinton testifies before House committee on Benghazi

The UK's Guardian Play by play of Clinton's hearings and by Time and response.
The only thing that she said, in your entire post, was a surprise to her was the cable for additional security. My comment was directly aimed at your assertion:

-Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

You did nothing to show this. You only talked about her testimony that she didn't see the cable about additional security. At no point, that I can find, has she ever made the claim that she knew nothing of the reduction of security, as you argued.
 
The only thing that she said, in your entire post, was a surprise to her was the cable for additional security. My comment was directly aimed at your assertion:



You did nothing to show this. You only talked about her testimony that she didn't see the cable about additional security. At no point, that I can find, has she ever made the claim that she knew nothing of the reduction of security, as you argued.

Look at the Post above this one.....note Personally Warned and Note: But ordered the Withdrawal of Security to Proceed as Planned. Which was in the Post I gave you prior to that one you have now.
 
Look at the Post above this one.....note Personally Warned and Note: But ordered the Withdrawal of Security to Proceed as Planned. Which was in the Post I gave you prior to that one you have now.
Ok, just want to be sure we are on the same page here, you are arguing that she lied about claiming that she didn't know about the request from the embassy for additional security, correct?

Before you stated that she lied about not knowing that there was a plan to reduce security, unless I mistook what you said.
 
Ok, just want to be sure we are on the same page here, you are arguing that she lied about claiming that she didn't know about the request from the embassy for additional security, correct?

Before you stated that she lied about not knowing that there was a plan to reduce security, unless I mistook what you said.

She Was personally Warned by Stevens.....and she ordered to proceed with reducing the security.
 
She Was personally Warned by Stevens.....and she ordered to proceed with reducing the security.

I'm sorry, but where did you get that information?

There was a cable that came as a request for additional security, and it was denied. You are claiming that she personally denied it because it has her name on it, but ever cable, 1.42 million have her signature whether she saw them or not, and the overwhelming majority she didn't see. So unless you have some kind of proof that she personally denied the request, I don't see what you're getting at.
 
I'm sorry, but where did you get that information?

There was a cable that came as a request for additional security, and it was denied. You are claiming that she personally denied it because it has her name on it, but ever cable, 1.42 million have her signature whether she saw them or not, and the overwhelming majority she didn't see. So unless you have some kind of proof that she personally denied the request, I don't see what you're getting at.

From this Post to you where Clinton was told about being personally warned by Stevens.....

Michael T. McCaul of Texas is grilling Clinton about why she didn't know about cables from Libya asking for additional security for the Benghazi mission.

"Was this cable a surprise to you?" he says. "When you have a US ambassador personally warning [about security]?"

Clinton says there are 1.43m cables that come to the state department every year "and they're all addressed to me."

McCaul: "This cable went unnoticed by your office, and that's the bottom line.".....snip~

Then from what I posted in Post 78.....

After the U.S.-backed Libyan revolution ended the Gadhafi regime, the U.S. government did not deploy sufficient U.S. security elements to protect U.S. interests and personnel that remained on the ground. Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel. Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.....snip~
 
A mistake based on what, exactly, if not that assumption?

Thinking of wars in the Middle East while talking about Libya. I made a similar mistake when I said "pre-pubescent adolescents" even when that term doesn't make any sense because they are mutually exclusive.
 
It's amusing to watch people go back and forth about who said what when where. All missing the big picture. The reason they are dead is because we bombed Libya, period. End of discussion.
 
It's amusing to watch people go back and forth about who said what when where. All missing the big picture. The reason they are dead is because we bombed Libya, period. End of discussion.

Please cite your sources, oh All Knowing Savant.
 
Thinking of wars in the Middle East while talking about Libya. I made a similar mistake when I said "pre-pubescent adolescents" even when that term doesn't make any sense because they are mutually exclusive.

Fair enough.
 
From this Post to you where Clinton was told about being personally warned by Stevens.....

Michael T. McCaul of Texas is grilling Clinton about why she didn't know about cables from Libya asking for additional security for the Benghazi mission.

"Was this cable a surprise to you?" he says. "When you have a US ambassador personally warning [about security]?"

Clinton says there are 1.43m cables that come to the state department every year "and they're all addressed to me."

McCaul: "This cable went unnoticed by your office, and that's the bottom line.".....snip~

Then from what I posted in Post 78.....

After the U.S.-backed Libyan revolution ended the Gadhafi regime, the U.S. government did not deploy sufficient U.S. security elements to protect U.S. interests and personnel that remained on the ground. Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel. Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.....snip~

I'm not really sure how else to say this. It is common practice for all response to contain her signature. Just because the Republicans wrote a report saying she signed it, that doesn't mean it actually happened. You seem to be ignoring this. If you have proof that she did actually sign this then I'd be interested in seeing it. You have to prove it was a cable that she personally responded to and signed off on, because all of them are sent out with her signature, whether she saw them or not.
 
It's amusing to watch people go back and forth about who said what when where. All missing the big picture. The reason they are dead is because we bombed Libya, period. End of discussion.

Despite that.....theres a Story that needs to be told about 2 Navy Seals that took on over 100 attackers while killing over 60 of them and while helping others to escape until they were killed.

So for one thing. I think knowing all they did needs to be brought out.....other than Obama and Clinton muttering a few half azzed words over their Coffin.
 
We had hearings on this already, Hilliary already testified before the senate and house.

Do you think she is going to answer differently to the same question?
 
I do not understand what it is that detractors think they'll find in all this Benghazi stuff. Do they really expect to find evidence of the president cackling like Mr. Burns, declaring that he's refusing to send more people to the consulate in the hopes that everyone will die? Do they expect to find Clinton doing the same? Are they really so far removed from the rest of the human race that they think that a Democratic administration is composed of cartoon villains who sit around all day laughing about kicking puppies?



Save his presidency from what? From there not being room in a budget to prioritize one embassy over others? From terrorists committing terrorism and us not having a stranglehold on every square inch of the world to stop every psycho from doing every psycho thing?

I think there's a cover-up on Benghazi because they were engaged in some kind of deal over there, and don't want to reveal it. Probably something similar to Iran-Contra. Why else would they have a CIA office in that dump?
 
Despite that.....theres a Story that needs to be told about 2 Navy Seals that took on over 100 attackers while killing over 60 of them and while helping others to escape until they were killed.

So for one thing. I think knowing all they did needs to be brought out.....other than Obama and Clinton muttering a few half azzed words over their Coffin.

Yes, the story that needs to be told is how Benghazi used to be secure but wasn't after we intervened, which is how this situation came to be in the first place.

The BIGGEST story here is US intervention being directly responsible for their deaths.
 
I think there's a cover-up on Benghazi because they were engaged in some kind of deal over there, and don't want to reveal it. Probably something similar to Iran-Contra. Why else would they have a CIA office in that dump?
now i see the "logic" of this exercise
placing USA posts in "dumps" is an indication that we are engaged in a nefarious exercise
come back when you actually have something - something that does not require lots of tin foil to understand
 
I'm not really sure how else to say this. It is common practice for all response to contain her signature. Just because the Republicans wrote a report saying she signed it, that doesn't mean it actually happened. You seem to be ignoring this. If you have proof that she did actually sign this then I'd be interested in seeing it. You have to prove it was a cable that she personally responded to and signed off on, because all of them are sent out with her signature, whether she saw them or not.

Well, I certainly don't see how you read that out of a Formal Request and that you can state that Ambassador Cretz was lying! Did you think all Formal Request came across as all others? Did you think it just layed there in a stack of papers. Considering Cretz was removed and Stevens was the replacement.

Also its. Not just a report that Republicans Wrote. Did you forget the Independent Investigation started by Hillary. Why do all the reports say the same thing about what Ambassador Cretz stated?

Did ya notice how Hillary didn't answer the question about Stevens Personal Warning. He was talking about a Specific Cable. Was he not? I am sure once they release them to the public. Then we will have them to put out.

So you actually think.....that Hillary never acknowledged either Ambassador due to all the mail on her desk.....Correct? Is that what you are trying to tell us. That she only sent them a paper with her signature on them. Plus one stating to proceed with reducing security. That it was some stamped signature for a Formal Request?
 
We had hearings on this already, Hilliary already testified before the senate and house.

Do you think she is going to answer differently to the same question?

Did ya read the link that has both testimonies?
 
I think there's a cover-up on Benghazi because they were engaged in some kind of deal over there, and don't want to reveal it. Probably something similar to Iran-Contra. Why else would they have a CIA office in that dump?

That has been my position pretty much all along too--some kind of false flag fiasco gone haywire.
 
Well, I certainly don't see how you read that out of a Formal Request and that you can state that Ambassador Cretz was lying! Did you think all Formal Request came across as all others? Did you think it just layed there in a stack of papers. Considering Cretz was removed and Stevens was the replacement.

Also its. Not just a report that Republicans Wrote. Did you forget the Independent Investigation started by Hillary. Why do all the reports say the same thing about what Ambassador Cretz stated?

Did ya notice how Hillary didn't answer the question about Stevens Personal Warning. He was talking about a Specific Cable. Was he not? I am sure once they release them to the public. Then we will have them to put out.

So you actually think.....that Hillary never acknowledged either Ambassador due to all the mail on her desk.....Correct? Is that what you are trying to tell us. That she only sent them a paper with her signature on them. Plus one stating to proceed with reducing security. That it was some stamped signature for a Formal Request?

I'm sorry, but my response was to what you posted. The guy sent in a formal request, and a response was sent bearing Hillary Clintons signature, just as the other 1.43 million got. I'm not saying that anybody is lying.

A formal request is just a request. It's an official request. As all others would be. When you're dealing with 1.43 million cables a year, there's a process. By formal, that doesn't mean that the guy called Hillary Clinton and asked her for more security. He sent in some kind of form asking for additional security. That was responded to by a response bearing Hillary Clintons signature, though we have no proof it's really hers, since apparently all responses bear her signature, even though she doesn't see most of them.

So to keep arguing that because we have a cable response with her signature we know she's lying, is a faulty argument. They have given a good reason as to why it's completely possible, and in my opinion, likely, that she never saw the request, just as she'd never personally deal with the other million or so requests they get every year.
 
I'm sorry, but my response was to what you posted. The guy sent in a formal request, and a response was sent bearing Hillary Clintons signature, just as the other 1.43 million got. I'm not saying that anybody is lying.

A formal request is just a request. It's an official request. As all others would be. When you're dealing with 1.43 million cables a year, there's a process. By formal, that doesn't mean that the guy called Hillary Clinton and asked her for more security. He sent in some kind of form asking for additional security. That was responded to by a response bearing Hillary Clintons signature, though we have no proof it's really hers, since apparently all responses bear her signature, even though she doesn't see most of them.

So to keep arguing that because we have a cable response with her signature we know she's lying, is a faulty argument. They have given a good reason as to why it's completely possible, and in my opinion, likely, that she never saw the request, just as she'd never personally deal with the other million or so requests they get every year.

I never said she lied.....although I did say she knew what the situation was like from the time Gadhafi was out-ed. There is no doubt of that. Also We know from the first attack they blew holes in the Iron gate. The gates were removed and never put back on. So proceeding with reducing security even if it is a stamp would then show for some reason. Libya just wasn't worth Hillary's Time. Or that she had no time for this Policy despite the conflict that was occurring. Which began before the Syrian Conflict.

So not looking at if anyone is lying.....we certainly have some very damaging info with Hillarys Signature.....and like you say. Even up on a Formal Request, which you think is the same as all other Diplomatic Cables. Like those sent by Underlings and Clerks wherein Hillary's signature is forged thru a stamp. We shouldn't think there is anything else to it.....Right?

Myself I doubt Hillary wouldn't have ever been on the phone with either Ambassador. Knowing what went down with Gadhafi and then the TNC afterwards. See I don't think Hillary is to much of paper pusher and is more direct and hands on.
 
Back
Top Bottom