• 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

sawyerloggingon said:
Her name signed by an aid is not her signature. The report states her signature is on this document.
Click to expand...

Then let them release the document. All I know is that thing has been publicized to high heavens in order to try to stir up trouble, and so far 25,000 emails and documents have been turned over for the Republicans to sift through and they've found nothing. It's just gotten to the point where it's sad that Republicans really feel as though this there last leg to stand on.
 
BMCM said:
Most likely a signature on the computer that is just copied to the bottom of the page by whoever writes the letters. Happens all the time in business and government.
Click to expand...

Wrong, a signature is a signature and a photo copy is a photo copy. A hand written in pen signature is very obvious compared to a copy and her "signature" is on this document.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Then let them release the document. All I know is that thing has been publicized to high heavens in order to try to stir up trouble, and so far 25,000 emails and documents have been turned over for the Republicans to sift through and they've found nothing. It's just gotten to the point where it's sad that Republicans really feel as though this there last leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

The administration is blocking the release of the document,they are hiding behind "national security' ask yourself why.
 
I don't recall...

Hillary.jpg
 
roughdraft274 said:
Hillary knew of the budget, but she has claimed she never saw the letter you are talking about, and that is likely since there are over a million of them, all bearing her signature.

This is starting to just look more and more like a wild goose chase.
Click to expand...

How does that change the Ambassador from following the directive despite her formal request? Moreover we already know they have one personal cable to Stevens. Which has not been released. Now whether it is from Hillary that is the question.....but like the Senator pointed out. If it was on her desk she dropped the ball.

One reason is so basic.....which is to believe that the SOS didn't know what was going in Benghazi after the death of Gadhafi. Knowing Obama and her backed the TNC and Officially Recognized them. Hence her comments on the Country's Host Security.

I wouldn't think that any could go with the Presumption that she did not know what the conditions were on the ground.
 
Werent the SEALS there working for a private contractor?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong, a signature is a signature and a photo copy is a photo copy. A hand written in pen signature is very obvious compared to a copy and her "signature" is on this document.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the document?
 
MMC said:
I already put it up In front of the Thread. I think the Story should be told of the What those Navy Seals did. I think they Need to be Decorated for saving the Lives of Embassy Staff and others. For taking on over a 100 armed attackers and with Rpg's Killing 60 of them. They are taking care of some of the other measures over security from the Findings of the Independent Investigation. To prevent this from happening again. So that issue is being dealt with.

They also need to bring those to Justice that Obama said he would. Which putting out the truth who we got attacked by. Which was the Security Force that was also Allegedly protecting our people For that Part of Benghazi.

Then to bring in that Sunni Leading Cleric In Egypt for some questioning and causing the Riots to jump off.

Since it was a major foul up......for it all to go down on Team Obama for the records. Politically killing any possible chances for Clinton to run for anything ever again. Thus sending her out to pasture. As well as Obama getting the credit For not remaining vigilant with the Anniversary of 911. Pretty much politically killing anything he would want to do over Politics after he finishes out his term.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but i seem to remember that they were ex-seals, as in no longer in the Navy but working for a civilian contractor.
 
That is what I thought too. In that case the private contractor was responsible for egress. They should have had a better escape plan than the govt employees. They probably just fought either because it was the right thing to do or they had no choice.
BMCM said:
I could be wrong, but i seem to remember that they were ex-seals, as in no longer in the Navy but working for a civilian contractor.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Have the terrorists claimed that this was the underlying cause? If that's the case why did Hillary and Barry blame it all on a video and arrest an American in California?
Click to expand...

It's objectively the case. Let's say China bombed the **** out of America and destroyed the federal government, including all military and police forces. Then let's say the Chinese embassy was attacked because of the deteriorating security situation due to the fact that there is no longer a government, military or police.

Would you seriously try to argue that China was not responsible for this situation?

The biggest problem with dumb Americans is that we're unable to view things through the eyes of other people. How would we feel if it happened to us? It explains everything about our foreign policy. It's like explaining to a child why it's wrong to hit other people. The message only seems to sink in when you spank the **** out of them.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Luuuuucy, you has some esplainin to do. This Benghazi cover up is falling apart and the lies are bubbling to the surface.


" 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.
But on January 23, 2013 Secretary Clinton testified that security requests had not been brought to her attention."


Read more: Benghazi Bombshell Drops On Obama, Hillary | Benghazi Attacks | Fox Nation
Click to expand...

Upon closer examination, it turns out that the "bombshell" was actually a dud.

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

One needs to know the context in which things occur to have an understanding as to what happened. Unfortunately, the initial report quoted at the start of this thread lacked that context. Now that the context is available, the initial report is not a major development nor a significant revelation.

In general, in the face of incomplete information, it makes sense to wait before reaching conclusions, unless there is urgency (as can be the case during a crisis). There was no urgency involved in reaching a conclusion as to what happened. Now that additional information has become available, namely the context in which cables carry the Secretary's signature, the report is essentially a non-story. This case provides just another example of the benefit of waiting for sufficient information to become available.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong, a signature is a signature and a photo copy is a photo copy. A hand written in pen signature is very obvious compared to a copy and her "signature" is on this document.
Click to expand...

Sorry that's just not true. If I were to show you a photocopied contract that I owed you a million dollars, you wouldn't argue that it's not my signature because it's a photocopy. A photocopy with a signature on it, still contains a signature, all be it a photocopied one.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Upon closer examination, it turns out that the "bombshell" was actually a dud.

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

One needs to know the context in which things occur to have an understanding as to what happened. Unfortunately, the initial report quoted at the start of this thread lacked that context. Now that the context is available, the initial report is not a major development nor a significant revelation.

In general, in the face of incomplete information, it makes sense to wait before reaching conclusions, unless there is urgency (as can be the case during a crisis). There was no urgency involved in reaching a conclusion as to what happened. Now that additional information has become available, namely the context in which cables carry the Secretary's signature, the report is essentially a non-story. This case provides just another example of the benefit of waiting for sufficient information to become available.
Click to expand...

Can't say I'm very surprised.
 
BMCM said:
I could be wrong, but i seem to remember that they were ex-seals, as in no longer in the Navy but working for a civilian contractor.
Click to expand...

No you are Right.....they were former Seals. But they deserve more than a few words. Plus lets not forget No investigation has talked to any of the Survivors Under Oath. Which is another thing that needs to come out. Which is what they have to say and report on it.
 
mak2 said:
That is what I thought too. In that case the private contractor was responsible for egress. They should have had a better escape plan than the govt employees. They probably just fought either because it was the right thing to do or they had no choice.
Click to expand...

Heya Mak. :2wave:They could have took off.....they went to help and set up a firing zone. Getting people out while they laid down fire. Killing 60 until they were killed. Remember there was no gate and they were just being bumrushed.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Sorry that's just not true. If I were to show you a photocopied contract that I owed you a million dollars, you wouldn't argue that it's not my signature because it's a photocopy. A photocopy with a signature on it, still contains a signature, all be it a photocopied one.
Click to expand...

You ignored my question, why won't the white house release this document?
 
MMC said:
Heya SL. :2wave: A Better question is why they wont let any of the Survivors Testify before Congress. ;)
Click to expand...
i missed that
what body is prohibiting the survivors from being able to offer sworn testimony before the congress
 
justabubba said:
i missed that
what body is prohibiting the survivors from being able to offer sworn testimony before the congress
Click to expand...

Heya JB. :2wave:.....this is what Graham had to say about it. ;)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says the Americans who survived the terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya are afraid to talk about what happened on the night of Sept. 11, 2012 when four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.

"I've had contact with some of the survivors. Their story is chilling," Graham told Fox News on Friday.

"The bottom line is, they feel that they cannot come forward. They've been told to be quiet. And at the end of the day, we can't let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and the Congress people who were there in real-time to tell the story.

Some of the Benghazi survivors will not speak publicly because it would blow their cover. But that's no excuse, Graham added:

"Congress has an oversight rule. If you have a CIA operative and you want to know what happened that night, then do it in a classified setting. Make a record so that we can learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. There are a lot of people there who could testify publicly.

“I'm not asking the administration to turn over witnesses to the Congress, to compromise intelligence. I'm asking the administration to turn over to the Congress and the American people the witnesses, the people who lived through this, so we can learn from our mistakes.....snip~

Sen. Graham: Benghazi Survivors 'Told to Be Quiet' | CNS News
 
MMC said:
Heya JB. :2wave:.....this is what Graham had to say about it. ;)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says the Americans who survived the terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya are afraid to talk about what happened on the night of Sept. 11, 2012 when four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.

"I've had contact with some of the survivors. Their story is chilling," Graham told Fox News on Friday.

"The bottom line is, they feel that they cannot come forward. They've been told to be quiet. And at the end of the day, we can't let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and the Congress people who were there in real-time to tell the story.

Some of the Benghazi survivors will not speak publicly because it would blow their cover. But that's no excuse, Graham added:

"Congress has an oversight rule. If you have a CIA operative and you want to know what happened that night, then do it in a classified setting. Make a record so that we can learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. There are a lot of people there who could testify publicly.

“I'm not asking the administration to turn over witnesses to the Congress, to compromise intelligence. I'm asking the administration to turn over to the Congress and the American people the witnesses, the people who lived through this, so we can learn from our mistakes.....snip~

Sen. Graham: Benghazi Survivors 'Told to Be Quiet' | CNS News
Click to expand...

and that's the point
congress can subpoena the benghazi participants if it so chooses
so, if they have information important for our nation to know, why does the congress fail to issue those subpoenas
if it is the democrats who want to out the information, the senate can conduct hearings with sworn testimony. the republicans in the house can do the same
but it appears this is a partisan talking point and not a truly legitimate issue ... because if it were truly important to hear from the folks, the congress has the means to make it happen
 
mak2 said:
Nothing is ever secure. Not ever.
Click to expand...
But remember, Clinton said that the US didn't know who the rebels were. Which is of course why the US became their de-facto air force.
 
justabubba said:
and that's the point
congress can subpoena the benghazi participants if it so chooses
so, if they have information important for our nation to know, why does the congress fail to issue those subpoenas
if it is the democrats who want to out the information, the senate can conduct hearings with sworn testimony. the republicans in the house can do the same
but it appears this is a partisan talking point and not a truly legitimate issue ... because if it were truly important to hear from the folks, the congress has the means to make it happen
Click to expand...

I can understand the partisan talking points and there is nothing to stop Congress from sending them subpenoas......but to do so places some at Risk some that are still working in the State Dept. So like Graham said.....then why Can't they hold an Oversight committee and do it in a classified setting? What is stopping them? Why is Graham in front of a Camera asking the Administration to turn over those who Are under a Classified heading?
 
MMC said:
I can understand the partisan talking points and there is nothing to stop Congress from sending them subpenoas......but to do so places some at Risk some that are still working in the State Dept. So like Graham said.....then why Can't they hold an Oversight committee and do it in a classified setting? What is stopping them? Why is Graham in front of a Camera asking the Administration to turn over those who Are under a Classified heading?
Click to expand...
why isn't graham busy issuing subpoenas?
 
justabubba said:
why isn't graham busy issuing subpoenas?
Click to expand...

He says he is going to do something about it.....hence his statement about behind closed doors settings. I was able to find this.

Reports indicate that as many as 30 Americans, including State Department and CIA officers and government contractors, were wounded in the attack and at least seven were treated at Walter Reed Hospital.

In a letter dated March 1, Representatives Frank Wolf (R–VA) and Jim Gerlach (R–PA) demanded names and contact information for each survivor, some State Department employees, and some CIA contractors to make it possible to contact them. Wolfe’s argument is that the Benghazi survivors should not just be questioned but also publicly acknowledged for their bravery that night in September. “We should be honoring them,” Wolf said. “We should be thanking them.”

“That’s why this story continues to perpetuate itself,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on National Security. “And it will not end, because the State Department’s not allowing us to put a nice, tight ribbon on it.”

There are still questions that need to be answered, and thus far no one has been held accountable. Not one person has had justice brought upon their heads. Not one person has lost their job. These Benghazi survivors need to be brought forward and testify before Congress, not in secret, but openly on national television and then once the truth is known, bring justice upon those who are responsible.....snip~

Benghazi Survivors: Where Are They And Why Have They Been Told To Be Quiet? | Pakalert Press

According to Cheffetz he is placing the blame on the State Dept. But that still wouldn't have to do anything with the CIA. Which Issa already told the CIA to get their Attorneys ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom