• 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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
The only "bombshell" about Benghazi that dumb Americans are too stupid to understand is that if we didn't bomb Libya in the first place there wouldn't have been a Benghazi incident.
 
The only "bombshell" about Benghazi that dumb Americans are too stupid to understand is that if we didn't bomb Libya in the first place there wouldn't have been a Benghazi incident.

Dumb non-Americans are too stupid to understand that if Gaddafi had not bombed his own people, the EU would not have dragged the US into the war.
 
I have worked somewhere in the federal govt since about 1980. Never once have I seen whatever enitity I work for not ask for more money, more people, more vehicles, more material, more police, more everything all the time.
 
I have worked somewhere in the federal govt since about 1980. Never once have I seen whatever enitity I work for not ask for more money, more people, more vehicles, more material, more police, more everything all the time.

Yep. If you think you need 10 of something, ask for 20.
 
Dumb non-Americans are too stupid to understand that if Gaddafi had not bombed his own people, the EU would not have dragged the US into the war.

Irrelevant. So what if Gaddafi was bombing Al Qaeda terrorists? What does that have to do with us involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern war with no benefit to our country?
 
I have worked somewhere in the federal govt since about 1980. Never once have I seen whatever enitity I work for not ask for more money, more people, more vehicles, more material, more police, more everything all the time.

That's all very interesting but you are avoiding the subject of the OP which is Hillary lied to congress when she said she never saw the request for more security from our now deceased ambassador.
 
Is there a non-crap source for this story?
 
That's all very interesting but you are avoiding the subject of the OP which is Hillary lied to congress when she said she never saw the request for more security from our now deceased ambassador.

Why did they need more security? Why wasn't Benghazi secure?

Because we destroyed their central government and police forces, and allowed Al Qaeda to roam freely.
 
Nothing is ever secure. Not ever.
Why did they need more security? Why wasn't Benghazi secure?

Because we destroyed their central government and police forces, and allowed Al Qaeda to roam freely.
 
Why did they need more security? Why wasn't Benghazi secure?

Because we destroyed their central government and police forces, and allowed Al Qaeda to roam freely
 
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

From the real source of the story, The Hill:

“Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department,” it said. “For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador [Gene] Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.”

Clinton testified that the more than 1 million cables that come to the State Department from the field every year are addressed to her and those that go out from Foggy Bottom bear her signature, regardless of who wrote them.

Read more: GOP Benghazi report blames Clinton - The Hill's Global Affairs
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

So, pretty much another non-issue if I understand everything correctly.
 
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



a post at FOXNATION, a user content contribution site, says that there is a "bomb shell" re: Benghazi


LOL, why is this not on the FRONT PAGE of FOXNEWS or any other right wing tabloid?? :lamo
 
O.

Is this still a thing?
 
Another Fauxrage. whowuddathunkit?
 
From the real source of the story, The Hill:



So, pretty much another non-issue if I understand everything correctly.

Lets see if we can bring some more clarity to the issue. ;)

CBS News ticks down the three major findings of House Republicans' interim report (numerals mine):

(1) The committees' Republicans conclude that Clinton approved security reductions at the consulate, pointing to evidence such as an April 2012 State Department cable bearing her signature. The cable was a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security. In her testimony before Congress in January, Clinton said, "With specific security requests they didn't come to me. I had no knowledge of them."

(2) The interim report also charges that White House and senior State Department officials attempted to protect the State Department from criticism by altering accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community. For instance, the report says that, after a Sept. 15, 2012 meeting, administration officials removed references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists.

(3) The report also contradicts administration claims that the talking points were changed to protect classified information. None of the email exchanges reviewed ever mentioned a concern about classified information, according to the report.

The first item is the most damning, but let's work from the bottom up. Democrats and the White House have attempted hide behind "national security" and "classified information" to block the public from hearing details about what exactly happened on September 11, 2012. They used the same excuse to retool Susan Rice's ludicrous talking points before she appeared on five Sunday morning shows, spreading misinformation about the nature of the terrorist attack at every step. Internal documents obtained by House investigators also reveal that the administration's contemporaneous deliberations didn't mention these concerns; instead, they lay a trail of bread crumbs down the path of political ass-covering. The original talking points assembled by the intelligence community were accurate; they were altered by face-saving officials at State. And if they were so worried about sensitive information and documents getting into the wrong hands, why did they allow the compound to remain unsecured for weeks? Finally, Secretary Clinton wasn't truthful -- or at least wasn't accurate -- when she asserted that none of the requests for increased security measures in Benghazi reached her level.

Cretz's successor, Chris Stevens, pleaded for more resources, too, including on the day of his murder. It's important to remember that the administration didn't merely deny "repeated" appeals for more protection, they actually reduced our security footprint on the ground, for reasons that remain a mystery. We still don't know why the consulate's protection was so breathtakingly insufficient (despite the administration's insulting suggestions to the contrary). The report -- which remains incomplete -- also does not explain why numerous urgent requests for immediate help went unheeded during the hours-long raid itself. We still don't know where the President of the United States was during the bloodbath, nor is there an explanation for why zero forces or assets were deployed to help our people. Men died because of this unjustifiable inaction. Perhaps the "multiple" new whistle-blowers can help answer some of these critical, unanswered inquiries. People like Patricia Smith and Charlie Woods deserve the truth.....snip~

Benghazi Report: Hillary Approved Reduced Security Measures, Contradicting Previous Testimony - Guy Benson
 
What a shocker, turns out to not be the bombshell that Fox Nation thinks it is.
 
Dumb non-Americans are too stupid to understand that if Gaddafi had not bombed his own people, the EU would not have dragged the US into the war.

Actually

Q: Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

Source: Defense.gov News Transcript: DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon

Look here as well: Russia Intel Satelite shows Gaddafi Did NOT Attack His People - YouTube

And this:

Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

Source: Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent

I don't like Gaddafi, but if we are gonna slam him on something, let's slam him on things that are the truth such as his human rights abuses (Factbox: Gaddafi rule marked by abuses, rights groups say | Reuters)
 
Lets see if we can bring some more clarity to the issue. ;)

CBS News ticks down the three major findings of House Republicans' interim report (numerals mine):

(1) The committees' Republicans conclude that Clinton approved security reductions at the consulate, pointing to evidence such as an April 2012 State Department cable bearing her signature. The cable was a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security. In her testimony before Congress in January, Clinton said, "With specific security requests they didn't come to me. I had no knowledge of them."

I've already pointed out that the original source that FoxNation is twisting, says inside the same article that more than a million cables come in every year, and all of them bear her signature, regardless of if she actually signed them. I can understand if you have a problem with this practice of putting her signature on everything even if she's never seen it, because it is an odd practice, although I'm sure it's a common practice, but you can't just ignore it outright as you and foxnation and the republicans are trying to do.

If you had a reason not to believe that response then I'd be interested to hear it, but you do actually have to address it before you can just assume she lied, or was wrong, as you have in this post.
 
What a shocker, turns out to not be the bombshell that Fox Nation thinks it is.

Yea, I used to look at fox nation every once in a while, but I got so tired of being absolutely shocked by breaking news only to find out that nothing actually happened.

The absolutely funniest thing is when you see them put up a headline like "Conservative demolishes Liberal in debate!", then you go to dailykos or crooksandliars to see them have the exact same video up with the title "Liberal destroys Conservative in debate!". It makes me giggle, lol.
 
I have worked somewhere in the federal govt since about 1980. Never once have I seen whatever enitity I work for not ask for more money, more people, more vehicles, more material, more police, more everything all the time.

I believe this to be true - that doesn't, however, obscure the facts around Obama and his administration slow walking the truth and flat out lying in order to save his Presidency.
 
As is so obvious on this thread, the childlike loons have emotionally chosen their heros to worship forever and there is nothing in the world, in all of human history that would change their closed and padlocked minds.

The slightest criticism of their sacred Ones sends them into fits of blind rage and tempter tantrums. They love Hillary more than life itself and they will tolerate not the slightest deviation from total adulation of all that Hillary says and does. Truth and right be damned. Hillary is a saint in their religion of Liberalism.
 
As is so obvious on this thread, the childlike loons have emotionally chosen their heros to worship forever and there is nothing in the world, in all of human history that would change their closed and padlocked minds.

The slightest criticism of their sacred Ones sends them into fits of blind rage and tempter tantrums. They love Hillary more than life itself and they will tolerate not the slightest deviation from total adulation of all that Hillary says and does. Truth and right be damned. Hillary is a saint in their religion of Liberalism.

Yes, we all adore her, which is why she beat Obama in the 2008 election.

You can't just argue that any prominent liberal is "worshiped" simply because sometimes people defend them, or because they might be popular. It's a silly argument.
 
I've already pointed out that the original source that FoxNation is twisting, says inside the same article that more than a million cables come in every year, and all of them bear her signature, regardless of if she actually signed them. I can understand if you have a problem with this practice of putting her signature on everything even if she's never seen it, because it is an odd practice, although I'm sure it's a common practice, but you can't just ignore it outright as you and foxnation and the republicans are trying to do.

If you had a reason not to believe that response then I'd be interested to hear it, but you do actually have to address it before you can just assume she lied, or was wrong, as you have in this post.

Well, for one Hillary cannot state under Oath that she had no knowledge of any Specific security requests and then Later testify that she receives 1000 of requests and pieces of mail that come across her desk. Moreover she has a budget that she has to go thru and in this case was keenly aware that she had signed off on lessening security for that Specific Consulate.


-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
 
Back
Top Bottom