Never Hillary

[Stoked]

you deserve a stink for this position. Headlines should have been "Hillary Lied while Americans Died".

That is the fact, and that is why the House select committee was interested in getting the facts on the record. Dissing it as politics minimizes the importance of Americans actually knowing the truth of what their government has done.

You deserve a stink for many things babe. Like your jumping to conclusions.

I am arguing one single tennet of this case. not the entire case. For example, I absolutely think Clinton lied (like blaming the video), and as said in this very thread I do not trust her at all. SO next time you want to jump at someone try to know what the hell you're talking about.

This panel wanted to get to the facts not for their sake but to damage a rival. You want to buy their song and dance fine. Go for it. I don't trust them either.

Oh, this is where you blame the British.

 

[babe]

You deserve a stink for many things babe. Like your jumping to conclusions.

I am arguing one single tennet of this case. not the entire case. For example, I absolutely think Clinton lied (like blaming the video), and as said in this very thread I do not trust her at all. SO next time you want to jump at someone try to know what the hell you're talking about.

This panel wanted to get to the facts not for their sake but to damage a rival. You want to buy their song and dance fine. Go for it. I don't trust them either.

Oh, this is where you blame the British.

I don't blame the British people for voting for what amounts to an illusion of sovereignty for their nation, or an illusion of democracy, or an illusory hope for actual relevance to their own government. I am amazed they could dig so deep they could find some of their roots that made them great in the first place.

you used to be a different person, before you were a mod. I saw some pretty realistic and decent posting back then. Now you're blind to what you have become.

I say stuff I hope will make people think again, and probably most of the time it's a useless rhetorical exercise.

Here is what you said///// I consider it important to focus on that as the basis of my comment, not your denials of what you actually said//:

This review was extremely partisan. Justified or not it was done for political reasons. That by itself makes me suspicious of it. This report make claims like "It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk -- short of an attack" but gives no basis for that claim.

I am supposed to just take their word? No thank you. I don't trust her but I don't trust them either.

My comment was responded by saying it was not partisan, but factual:

you deserve a stink for this position. Headlines should have been "Hillary Lied while Americans Died".

That is the fact, and that is why the House select committee was interested in getting the facts on the record. Dissing it as politics minimizes the importance of Americans actually knowing the truth of what their government has done.

Some important things came out of the investigation, which we wouldn't have known without it. Stuff like Hillary's server in a utility closet, the private server which was not secure, and designed to keep a lot of official correspondence undiscoverable by meddling security personnel. A violation of the Federal Records Act and our FOIA rights.

It's easy for political pundits to say someone lied. Without the investigation we would just be throwing unfounded insults back and forth. Now, if you or I throw out unfounded insults, it is because we refuse to educate ourselves, not because the truth in unobtainable.

Historians will have a resource, if they're inclined to reference it, they would not have had without the investigation.

You are giving folks above a lot of crap asking for them to substantiate their views. If you are going to diss the report as "partisan", go get the report and show us the partisanship in specific statements of the report that are not supported by fact.

 

[Stoked]

The motivations are partisan. I never said anything about whether anything good came from this. Also how dare I ask for the facts themselves someone used to form their opinion. The outrage!

If you cannot see the partisan motivations on one political party going after the other and being suspicious than I cannot help you and see no point in continuing.

Good day Babe

 

[Gameface]

The ambassador who was killed in Benghazi, his sister doesn't blame Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta (for Stevens' death). They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world," Dr. Anne Stevens, who has acted as a spokesperson for the family, said in an interview with the New Yorker published Tuesday."But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted," she added. "I would love to hear they are drastically increasing the budget."

@joe, maybe she just needs you to provide her with the facts?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The ambassador who was killed in Benghazi, his sister doesn't blame Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html



@joe, maybe she just needs you to provide her with the facts?

It's abundantly obvious that different people can see the same facts and come to different conclusions. For me it is unconscionable for the US government not to send help during the actual attack for fear of offending someone. For other people that's apparently okay.

I also think it's terrible that our government tried to pin these events on the video when the evidence is conclusive that they knew the real cause.

It's an extrapolation to imagine why the Obama administration handled things the way they did. If they did it for the reasons that some on the political right believe that is a very bad thing, but the reports (as far as I know) do not attempt to attach justifications to the actions They simply tried to recreate a record of the actual actions.

 

[Stoked]

It's abundantly obvious that different people can see the same facts and come to different conclusions. For me it is unconscionable for the US government not to send help during the actual attack for fear of offending someone. For other people that's apparently okay.

I also think it's terrible that our government tried to pin these events on the video when the evidence is conclusive that they knew the real cause.

It's an extrapolation to imagine why the Obama administration handled things the way they did. If they did it for the reasons that some on the political right believe that is a very bad thing, but the reports (as far as I know) do not attempt to attach justifications to the actions They simply tried to recreate a record of the actual actions.

I would agree with this premise. But I would want to see the facts proving this to be true. I have not so I am withholding judgment here on if that is what happened.

Agreed. This is something I have seen the proof on and I agree it is a lie told by Clinton. Untrustworthy

 

[babe]

The motivations are partisan. I never said anything about whether anything good came from this. Also how dare I ask for the facts themselves someone used to form their opinion. The outrage!

If you cannot see the partisan motivations on one political party going after the other and being suspicious than I cannot help you and see no point in continuing.

Good day Babe

I'd suggest you reserve your outrage for political partisanship for those who attempt to whitewash or minimize the motives of the Obamas and Clintons. . . .of course there's no partisanship there, they are just loyal defenders of all that's right with America. How could Obama keep this from becoming a problem in his re-election campaign? That's what the lies were all about. Hillary fell on her sword for Obama so she could have the next Dem nod. The truth be damned. The failure of responsible democrats to be as interested in the truth is a totally damning indictment of the Dems. A lot of the Reps were tepid or lukewarm to the investigation, as well. That sorta forced the committee to focus on the objective facts, and might have contributed to making it what it is.. . . . a fine report with outstanding objectivity and non-partisanship. It was about nothing but the facts.

I don't think I can expect that much from a good ol' boy like Game, or political crusaders like Rev8 or Kicky, but I had some hope you'd see the light.

I think the report was done responsibly, and with a high level of non-partisan objectivity. Thus I consider those who throw out unfounded charges of partisanship to be too emotionally involved to think coherently.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I would agree with this premise. But I would want to see the facts proving this to be true. I have not so I am withholding judgment here on if that is what happened.

Read the report. It includes the action item notes of a meeting Clinton held during the attack. Also, marines are claiming that they were told to change uniforms numerous times for this reason:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/st...weapons-and-uniforms-commander-says/86478466/

I'm interested whether that article provides sufficient evidence for you to make a judgement on this.

 

[Stoked]

I'd suggest you reserve your outrage for political partisanship for those who attempt to whitewash or minimize the motives of the Obamas and Clintons. . . .of course there's no partisanship there, they are just loyal defenders of all that's right with America. How could Obama keep this from becoming a problem in his re-election campaign? That's what the lies were all about. Hillary fell on her sword for Obama so she could have the next Dem nod. The truth be damned. The failure of responsible democrats to be as interested in the truth is a totally damning indictment of the Dems. A lot of the Reps were tepid or lukewarm to the investigation, as well. That sorta forced the committee to focus on the objective facts, and might have contributed to making it what it is.. . . . a fine report with outstanding objectivity and non-partisanship. It was about nothing but the facts.

I don't think I can expect that much from a good ol' boy like Game, or political crusaders like Rev8 or Kicky, but I had some hope you'd see the light.

I think the report was done responsibly, and with a high level of non-partisan objectivity. Thus I consider those who throw out unfounded charges of partisanship to be too emotionally involved to think coherently.

There is no "outrage". There is distrust. Stop trying to hype it up.

Also lawl at you coming at me as an Obama excuser.

HAHAHAHA

 

[Stoked]

Read the report. It includes the action item notes of a meeting Clinton held during the attack. Also, marines are claiming that they were told to change uniforms numerous times for this reason:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/st...weapons-and-uniforms-commander-says/86478466/

I'm interested whether that article provides sufficient evidence for you to make a judgement on this.

I will have to read it to find out.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I will have to read it to find out.

From the article:

The platoon commander of a fleet anti-terrorism security team, which can be dispatched to embassies and consulates in times of crises, told the committee that his Marines changed into and out of their uniforms four times on the plane before taking off for Libya, the report states.

The team did not arrive there until 23 hours after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

"We were told multiple times to change what we were wearing, to change from cammies into civilian attire, civilian attire into cammies, cammies into civilian attire," the platoon commander, who was not identified, told the committee. "There was also some talk of whether or not we could carry our personal weapons.

"I was basically holding hard and fast to the point where we were carrying our personal weapons. Like, we’ve got a very violent thing going on the ground where we’re going, so we’re going to be carrying something that can protect ourselves. But as far as what the Marines were wearing, that continually changed, and we had to make those changes inside of the aircraft."

I cannot believe discussions like this are even happening. Our embassy was under terrorist attack and we had Marines available to protect it, but instead of doing anything a ridiculous discussion ensued. Meanwhile our ambassador and his staff died. If politics were not involved every sane person would agree that the Marines should have been sent.

 

[Stoked]

From the article:

I cannot believe discussions like this are even happening. Our embassy was under terrorist attack and we had Marines available to protect it, but instead of doing anything a ridiculous discussion ensued. Meanwhile our ambassador and his staff died. If politics were not involved every sane person would agree that the Marines should have been sent.

Then you must be astounded a lot in this life. I have not read it yet but I will.

 

[Stoked]

Read the report. It includes the action item notes of a meeting Clinton held during the attack. Also, marines are claiming that they were told to change uniforms numerous times for this reason:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/st...weapons-and-uniforms-commander-says/86478466/

I'm interested whether that article provides sufficient evidence for you to make a judgement on this.

Couple of things.

1. That they debated what outfit to wear at that time is absurd to me. Just asinine.

2. It wasn't a "meeting Clinton held". It was a White House meeting.

3. This says that is was the Defense Sec. Panettas call to send in the Marines, not Clintons.


This is just from that report. It mentions the official report, not news articles written on it, is over 75,000 pages. Jesus that's long.

So many of my earlier questions are still unanswered. Like what security requests before the attacks were denied and which were approved.

But as for the marines being held up. Panetta should have his *** in a sling for that.

 

[babe]

From the article:

I cannot believe discussions like this are even happening. Our embassy was under terrorist attack and we had Marines available to protect it, but instead of doing anything a ridiculous discussion ensued. Meanwhile our ambassador and his staff died. If politics were not involved every sane person would agree that the Marines should have been sent.

So. . . . this is perfectly reasonable, given the priorities of folks like Obama and Hillary, whose perspective is firmly post-American global community. Like the bureaucrats of Brussels being post-national Euro statists, the decisions that follow are natural. We have to consider how our actions will be seen in the eyes of relevant others, beyond the archaic national perspective. We had new "friends" in Libya, whom we had helped come to power. Of course we did not want to seem overbearing, nor too weak somehow. Ya gotta think things over carefully, paying great attention to the table settings. . . .

Actually, I do think anyone who is not outraged at this betrayal of American citizens is simmering in the same globalist pot, cooking ever so slowly they hardly know it, and can't just decide to get out.

Hence my whole vain effort to wake up Stoked, lol.

More to the point, I think if anything, the report missed some important aspects they should have hit hard on, and in effect actually "covered" for the Obama Administration. Yah gotta play your cards right, ya know, don't over-reach or nobody will like you.

The fact is, this attack was crucial to the development of ISIS, and the arms seized were put there for them, and the Obama Administration wanted to run cover for the operation with the video story. The people on the ground at the annex were supposed to run and hide, not fight. What kind of staff do we have anymore anyway, a bunch of local yokel red-necks who think national honor counts more than discretion?

As for Games report of relatives of the Obama Administration foreign service official's relatives who "understood", well, that is precisely what it takes to be a good American citizen under globalism.

Stockholm syndrome compliance and support for the new way.

 

[Gameface]

From the article:

I cannot believe discussions like this are even happening. Our embassy was under terrorist attack and we had Marines available to protect it, but instead of doing anything a ridiculous discussion ensued. Meanwhile our ambassador and his staff died. If politics were not involved every sane person would agree that the Marines should have been sent.

The Marines were on the plane. Where did it say them changing close happened while the plane was on the ground.

Maybe it seems silly but the military ID downright silly when it comes to retire regarding when to wear and to not wear your uniform.

Before 9-11 we were sometimes required to wear our uniform when flying on civilian aircraft under orders (changing our duty station, for instance). If it wasn't explicitly required it was encouraged. After 9-11 it was forbidden.

Overseas we were sometimes required to be in uniform while on liberty, other times we could wear civilian clothes, but we were typically required to wear a collared shirt and long pants with no frays.

On ship while in port we were required to wear our covers (ball caps) but once at sea we were forbidden from wearing them.

It's the military. They play uniform games constantly. You wanna blame that on Hillary?

 

[babe]

The Marines were on the plane. Where did it say them changing close happened while the plane was on the ground.

Maybe it seems silly but the military ID downright silly when it comes to retire regarding when to wear and to not wear your uniform.

Before 9-11 we were sometimes required to wear our uniform when flying on civilian aircraft under orders (changing our duty station, for instance). If it wasn't explicitly required it was encouraged. After 9-11 it was forbidden.

Overseas we were sometimes required to be in uniform while on liberty, other times we could wear civilian clothes, but we were typically required to wear a collared shirt and long pants with no frays.

On ship while in port we were required to wear our covers (ball caps) but once at sea we were forbidden from wearing them.

It's the military. They play uniform games constantly. You wanna blame that on Hillary?

Military has military reasons, politicians have political reasons. The report indicated political actors expressing concerns about appearances on the ground in Libya. Would uniformed American military personnel responding be a provocation of more widespread violence? It's an understandable issue, both on the military and political scale of the concerns these leaders were putting on their top burners, conceptually-speaking.

There has to be a reason, a real reason for this indecision or seeming indecision. Hillary is not one to be indecisive. She's one of the most focused purposed humans on the planet. I don't like her agenda or values, but I have to respect her intelligence, and competence. With Hillary involved, you have to find a reason, or you have not done your work well enough.

That is my criticism of the house report. They did not uncover the reason.

I said before that it was intended to be an incident, downplayed by the media as a popular uprising, to get some guns in the hands of ISIS. Conspiracy theory? yeah, I don't have any proof, except that's where the weapons seized went. Intended? Obama overtly stated his need to get some strength on the ground to oust Assad. All the "nice" rebels were being beaten back, and somehow the serious contenders needed to be legitimized? Russia was helping Assad. Putin criticizes America for not considering where our weapons were going to end up.

I pay attention to the news. Obama joked early on about the mistakes ISIS was making and how they needed some help to actually dc the job on Assad. Once Assad was out, it would be a pure American play, Russia booted out. Just us and our "friends", including ISIS. As brutal as they are, they are respected for their strength of purpose, just like HIllary should be.

Obama's agenda was to get Assad out at any cost.

Putin also notes that we know where ISIS is selling the oil, and we could stop it if we wanted, and that immediately the mercenaries would go back to fight for some other moneyed organization. Clearly, Putin says that means we are funding ISIS, indirectly, by buying the oil or allowing it to be bought on our markets. ISIS, the Russians, believe, is our baby. Of course they would blame ISIS on us, but the reasons they give are pretty strong.

We've been playing war games too long, in too many places, with too much impunity. Stoked is right to just not trust anyone in our government. We're tpp messed up.

That's why we need an alpha leader with a no nonsense attitude to restore our sensibilities a smidgeon.

 

[babe]

Some people take themselves pretty seriously in here. I'm not here to mock or put you down, though. Most of you seem not to understand that there must be reasons our leaders do what they do. Their reasons might not be your reasons, certainly they are not mine.

The "America" we are sold on the news, and in our politics, is not "The America" I want. Our nation has been hijacked by a movement, and ideologically-rationalized movement. I don't believe the ideology is valid, and I think it's put out on purpose to sell a load of stuff we're not really being told much about. It's a power grab, pure and simple, a wresting of power from the hands of the supposedly ignorant and incompetent, a placing of great power in the hands of the supposedlty knowledgeable, professional and competent.

We fear the migration of third-world refugees into developed countries, "they" don't. They see it as an excuse for more power, "to keep the peace", and a dilution of local interests and the capacity of people to unite in any way to reject the power grab.

It's a global power grab, and a lot of little pockets of strength have gotta be downgraded somehow. Some wars, some local conflicts, here and there, all carefully incited, are called for.

I don't like our global agenda. I like national governments that are independent, and that are controlled by the locals.

Nothing personal, really, but this forum is not a representative cross section of America. It's a little pocket of pretty intelligent, idealistic believers in globalism and various associated values. It seems like a different point of view is not really appreciated in here.

I like Assad, and Putin. I'd call in the dogs, all the little games we got our irons in, give some respect to the people in the region and keep Israel as our main ally. All the crap the conservatives dish out about the Saudi's is off the table for me. I'm not going to change the world one country at a time, I'm gonna figure out what Americans want for American, and give them their government back.

trump is my kind of practical problem solver. He doesn't care to push the progressive ideology, a made-up fiction, a vision for the world the only benefits a few, really. He wants real progress, and Americans being justly proud of who they are and what they can do. Make America great again, and a whole lot of folks will follow our example and make their own places on earth great too.

Alliance with none, commerce with all.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I didn't make it through your post Babe, but my belief is that the reason for the inaction and ultimately the attempt to define this attack as something other than terror was that the election was two months away. Keeping us safe from terrorism is a big deal, so it's important to minimize or redefine any attacks that might be interpreted as terror. We are still seeing the same pattern. In Orlando the government tried to scrub info that indicated it was a terror attack. Just previous to the Republican report on Benghazi the Dems released a report that said it wasn't known what the reason for that attack was.

Game's comments about uniforms are interesting to me. I'm going to discuss those issues with my military friends. The reason I thought it was relevant to this story is that my impression is that this administration cares a lot more about world impressions than getting the job done and this seemed to be yet another indication of that. Maybe I was wrong.

One final thing. I heard on CNN that the report indicated that Panetta did order the military to Benghazi and that Hillary and Obama were aware of that, but for some reason the orders were never carried out. Apparently nobody knows what went wrong. Frustrating.

 

[Stoked]

I didn't make it through your post Babe, but my belief is that the reason for the inaction and ultimately the attempt to define this attack as something other than terror was that the election was two months away. Keeping us safe from terrorism is a big deal, so it's important to minimize or redefine any attacks that might be interpreted as terror. We are still seeing the same pattern. In Orlando the government tried to scrub info that indicated it was a terror attack. Just previous to the Republican report on Benghazi the Dems released a report that said it wasn't known what the reason for that attack was.

Game's comments about uniforms are interesting to me. I'm going to discuss those issues with my military friends. The reason I thought it was relevant to this story is that my impression is that this administration cares a lot more about world impressions than getting the job done and this seemed to be yet another indication of that. Maybe I was wrong.

One final thing. I heard on CNN that the report indicated that Panetta did order the military to Benghazi and that Hillary and Obama were aware of that, but for some reason the orders were never carried out. Apparently nobody knows what went wrong. Frustrating.

How convenient. And they wonder why nobody trusts them...

 

[Gameface]

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/poli...nd-charges-against-hillary-clinton/index.html

(CNN)FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that he would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state -- but he added Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless" handling classified information.
"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey announced after a lengthy recap of the investigation the FBI conducted.