Then call her out. I am the messenger. If you don't like it then don't open the thread. Just reporting what is out there. Individuals are capable of an agenda when evidence isn't shining very brightly in their favor.
I call bull****. I doubt someone with such a christian conservative ideology as you would ever vote for Obama unless you were "born again" post 2008.
Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton Should Never Hold High Office Again After Benghazi 5/10/2013 12:28:00 PM In light of testimony given by State Department whistleblowers this week about the September 11 attack in Benghazi, Senator Rand Paul has penned an op-ed in the Washington Times essentially saying former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should never hold high office again. When I took Hillary Rodham Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, I told her that if I had been president at the time, I would have relieved her of her post. Some politicians and pundits took offense at my line of questioning. During those hearings, I reminded Mrs. Clinton that multiple requests were sent to the State Department asking for increased security measures. I asked if she had read the cables from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens asking for increased security. She replied that she was busy and had not read them. I find that inexcusable. Paul is expected to run for President in 2016. Considering Clinton has already left her position as Secretary of State, she can't resign however, that doesn't mean she can't be held accountable by Congress and the American people should she decide to run for president in 2015.
Rand Paul never wanted Hilary to run for high office. What breaking ****ing news bro. Can you post any more obvious crap?
I didn't start getting closer in my relationship with God until right about that time. I also believed Obama, that he was a Christian. Also, my mom voted for him and she kind of helped concinvce me he was the one to vote for.
Peggy Noonan: The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi Did the Obama administration's politically expedient story cost American lives? By PEGGY NOONAN of the Wall Street Journal The Benghazi story until now has been a jumble of factoids that didn't quite cohere, didn't produce a story that people could absorb and hold in their minds. This week that changed. Three State Department officials testifying under oath to a House committee changed it, by adding information that gave form to a growing picture. Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom were authoritative and credible. You knew you were hearing the truth as they saw and experienced it. Not one of them seemed political. You had no sense of how they voted. They were professionals. They'd seen a bad thing. They came forward to tell the story. They put the lie to the idea that all questioning of Obama administration actions in Benghazi are partisan and low. What happened in Benghazi last Sept. 11 and 12 was terrible in every way. The genesis of the scandal? It looks to me like this: The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador. Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it. Because the White House could not tolerate the idea of Benghazi as a planned and deliberate terrorist assault, it had to be made into something else. So they said it was a spontaneous street demonstration over an anti-Muhammad YouTube video made by a nutty California con man. After all, that had happened earlier in the day, in Cairo. It sounded plausible. And maybe they believed it at first. Maybe they wanted to believe it. But the message was out: Provocative video plus primitive street Arabs equals sparky explosion. Not our fault. Blame the producer! Who was promptly jailed. If what happened in Benghazi was not a planned and prolonged terrorist assault, if it was merely a street demonstration gone bad, the administration could not take military action to protect Americans there. You take military action in response to a planned and coordinated attack by armed combatants. You don't if it's an essentially meaningless street demonstration that came and went. Why couldn't the administration tolerate the idea that Benghazi was a planned terrorist event? Because they didn't want this attack dominating the headline with an election coming. It would open the administration to criticism of its intervention in Libya. President Obama had supported overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi and put U.S. force behind the Libyan rebels. Now Libyans were killing our diplomats. Was our policy wrong? More importantly, the administration's efforts against al Qaeda would suddenly come under scrutiny and questioning. The president, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, had taken to suggesting al Qaeda was over. Al Qaeda was done. But if an al Qaeda offshoot in Libya was killing our diplomats, the age of terrorism was not over. The Obama White House didn't want any story that might harm, get in the way of or lessen the extent of the president's coming victory. The White House probably anticipated that Mitt Romney would soon attempt to make points with Benghazi. And indeed he did pounce, too quickly, the very next morning, giving a statement that was at once aggressive and forgettable, as was his wont. The president's Republican challenger was looking for gain and didn't find it. But here's the thing. More is expected from the president than mere politics. That's why we tend to re-elect them. A sitting president is supposed to be bigger, weightier, more serious than his rival. This week's testimony from Messrs. Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom was clarifying, to say the least. Mr. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the time of the attack, said the YouTube video was never an event in Libya, and no one in Benghazi or Tripoli saw what was happening as a spontaneous street protest. Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, sent an email on Sept. 12 saying: "The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." Mr. Hicks himself said he spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. Benghazi time the day after the attack and told her it was a planned attack, not a street protest. Still, the administration stuck to its story and sent out Susan Rice—the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., someone with no direct connection to the event—to go on the Sunday talk shows and insist it was all about a video. They sent someone who could function as a mouther of talking points, someone who was told what to say and could be relied upon to say it. Mr. Hicks said that when he saw what Ms. Rice said his jaw dropped. All of this is bad enough. Far worse is the implied question that hung over the House hearing, and that cries out for further investigation. That is the idea that if the administration was to play down the nature of the attack it would have to play down the response—that is, if you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse. So you don't launch a military rescue operation, you don't scramble jets, and you have a rationalization—they're too far away, they'll never make it in time. This was probably true, but why not take the chance when American lives are at stake? Mr. Hicks told the compelling story of his talk with the leader of a special operations team that wanted to fly to Benghazi from Tripoli to help. The team leader was told to stand down, and he was enraged. Mark Thompson wanted an emergency support team sent to the consulate and was confounded when his superiors in Washington would not agree. Was all this incompetence? Or was it politics disguised as the fog of war? Who called these shots and made these decisions? Who decided to do nothing? From the day of the attack until this week, the White House spin was too clever by half. In the weeks and months after the attack White House spokesmen said they were investigating the story, an internal review was under way. When the story blew open again, last week, they said it was too far in the past: "Benghazi happened a long time ago." Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, really said that. Think of that. They can't give answers when the story's fresh because it just happened, they're looking into it. Eight months later they don't have anything to say because it all happened so long ago. Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that. Will this story ever be completely told? Maybe not. But it's not going to go away, either. It's a prime example of the stupidity of all-politics-all-the-time. You make some bad moves for political reasons. And then you suffer politically because you made bad moves.
[Breaking:] Can the wingnut blogesphere maintain Benghazi outrage for the next 3 1/2 years? Story @ 8
If this such a non-story why are u reading and posting here all day? You have posted nothing regarding the loads of evidence that has come out ezcept a TPM article. Oh the irony.
There has been no evidence. Just spin and conjecture. Here’s the kicker about all of this. This might have been more of a story if republicans (Romney and his campaign) hadn’t jumped the shark and started screaming about this before they even knew what was happening and it blew up in their faces. now that's irony
Paid advocacy feeds stupidity, that creates controversy, that get the advocates more PR money, that feeds more stupidity, that creates a designed sense of reality. Until it evaporates. What was the Ambassador doing 400 miles from the Embassy?
No evidence? What planet do u live on? What do u call Hicks testimony? What do u call all the emails? Not evidence?
Gen. Hayden: Continuing Benghazi False Narrative 'Not Forgivable' By: Greg Richter and Kathleen Walter The continuation of a false narrative for weeks after the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead is "not understandable and is not forgivable," former director of the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency Gen. Michael Hayden told Newsmax TV. Hayden, in an exclusive interview, said he's been in the shoes of the State Department staff who had to deal with the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Knowing what they were going through, he tells Newsmax that he doesn't want to accuse anyone of wrongdoing in how they handled the situation while it was ongoing – or immediately afterward. But he is curious about why so few options were available in the first place and why the State Department and the White House weeks later were sticking with the narrative of a demonstration over a video. "I’ve been in these kinds of circumstances where if you’ve got a worldview, if you’ve got a narrative that you believe in, you try to make the facts presented to you fit the narrative," Hayden said. "I fear there may have been some people in our government who kind of fell into that trap in the days after Benghazi, which is understandable and, frankly, forgivable, and then in the weeks after Benghazi, which is not understandable and is not forgivable." "Anyone like me who saw those events would quickly conclude it was a terrorist attack," Hayden said. "It was fairly complex, synchronized, direct and indirect fire weapons on multiple locations, and it took place in a part of Libya that was the heartland of the Libyan Islamic fighting group." "I mean, the immediate explanation that this was a bad movie review, that just beggared comprehension," he said "You don’t have to do anything bad or stupid or unwise for bad things to happen, he said. He's more concerned with what happened before and after the Benghazi events. Wednesday's testimony touched on that, he said, but added that more questions need to be answered. "If you had this very short menu of very bad choices to make during the event, why is that? Why do you put people in harm’s way the way we did when there was solid intelligence that Benghazi was very dangerous?" he said. "And then, afterward, I guess I would say don’t treat me like a child. It’s very obvious as to what happened here so give me some clarity, rather than obfuscating what really happened on the ground." In a report three months after the events, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Ambassador Thomas Pickering concluded that, indeed, few options were available, and Hayden said he believes, after hearing Wednesday's testimony, that everyone on the ground did exactly what they should have. "They were choosing from a short list of very bad options," Hayden said. "My point is, why is there only a short list of very bad options? Why did you create the circumstances in which there was almost nothing that could be done to save the ambassador and the other individuals?" When he was head of the National Security Agency every intelligence report was sent with his name on it regardless of whether he personally knew about it, so he isn't surprised that some had then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name on them. Still, the report by Mullen and Pickering found "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies." There were lots of mistakes in Benghazi, Hayden said, "The question is, just at what level were they finalized?"
So what's the story of why the Ambassador was exposed, what was he doing? Was this a trap set by a turncoat militia over the the US support of a Moderate faction leader? It seems our revolutionary friends and enemies were in flux at that point.
Hicks recount of events is not an opinion. What about the 12 emails ABCNews relwased today? Not evidence?
