Thread: Clinton/ Paul on Benghazi

Hindsight is 20-20, a tired cliche, like Paul's tired " I know everything".

LOL @ Rand Paul....."the worst tragedy since 9-11" get the fuck out of here you little pussy. what about the 2,000-3,000 contractors and the 4,000 troops that have been killed in the middle east since 9-11?

4 people died in Libya...big fucking deal

Originally Posted by LAM

LOL @ Rand Paul....."the worst tragedy since 9-11" get the fuck out of here you little pussy. what about the 2,000-3,000 contractors and the 4,000 troops that have been killed in the middle east since 9-11?

4 people died in Libya...big fucking deal

I agree with the first statement... Those 4 people are still Americans and could have been saved. Those Navy SEALS fought for 7 hours. There is a SEAL Detachment Unit in Germany that was only 2 hours away. In general it's sad that anyone had to die.

Just trying to assign blame to one person when probably dozens are to blame. A huge cluster fuck and everyone fumbled the ball.

Originally Posted by NoCode8511

I agree with the first statement... Those 4 people are still Americans and could have been saved. Those Navy SEALS fought for 7 hours. There is a SEAL Detachment Unit in Germany that was only 2 hours away. In general it's sad that anyone had to die.

Christopher Stevens was one of 7 ambassadors killed in the middle east in the past 3-4 decades and at no other time was the Sec of State required to step down.

fuck Rand Paul, he's a weasel and a charlatan and only fools those that are easily fooled by his shtick.

We fucked up...but we're working on legislation.

Originally Posted by troubador

We fucked up...but we're working on legislation.

It's always about more legislation. Without more legislation they can't fill up the pork barrels.

There was a massive cover up, the reasons we may never know, so naturally those that smell the BS are going to be pissed they aren't in on the secret. Just because the body count is 4 instead of 400 makes it no less of a tragedy when there was the ability to intervene with force just hours away. That fact is what people will never look past, something could have and should have been done, we all know this which is why you get the strong reaction from so many.

Originally Posted by oufinny

There was a massive cover up, the reasons we may never know, so naturally those that smell the BS are going to be pissed they aren't in on the secret. Just because the body count is 4 instead of 400 makes it no less of a tragedy when there was the ability to intervene with force just hours away. That fact is what people will never look past, something could have and should have been done, we all know this which is why you get the strong reaction from so many.

or maybe he was intentionally sacrificed like so many others have "volunteered" to do over the decades. history plainly shows the US gov has no problems with that.

Originally Posted by oufinny

There was a massive cover up, the reasons we may never know, so naturally those that smell the BS are going to be pissed they aren't in on the secret. Just because the body count is 4 instead of 400 makes it no less of a tragedy when there was the ability to intervene with force just hours away. That fact is what people will never look past, something could have and should have been done, we all know this which is why you get the strong reaction from so many.

Umm, call me crazy but 400 dead seems more of a tragedy than 4. Not that 4 isn't tragic but you know.... Calling this the worst tragedy since 9/11 is sensationalism at its best though and somebody should have called bullshit.

^ Of course its sensationalism. Thats how you stir shit up until someone takes responsibility and is held accountable. she claims the information changed and they recanted because of the new intel that trickled in. Thats a crock. These people are criminal. Negligent at best.

She looks like a cross between Joe Scarborough and Ben Franklin. Her Lifeless, dead shark eyes are the windows into her blackened soul.

I'm glad she recovered from her booboo and was able to finally attend the hearing but the american people will never get the full story. This was just a dog and pony show for the public. Nothing more.

Rand Paul is a professional ass,,,grandstanding jerkoff

Originally Posted by SFW

^ Of course its sensationalism. Thats how you stir shit up until someone takes responsibility and is held accountable. she claims the information changed and they recanted because of the new intel that trickled in. Thats a crock. These people are criminal. Negligent at best.

you mean like those who allowed 9-11 to occur were held accountable? like that?

Originally Posted by LAM

you mean like those who allowed 9-11 to occur were held accountable? like that?

Inside jobs or false flag attacks will be guarded secrets and those that speak up will likely find a quick demise. Though your parallel is accurate, these are two different situations entirely. Once the story changed and the BS initial response was found. To be that, the obvious cover up came front and center into the spotlight.

Hillary knows from experience how these R's try to act like they have their shiite together on panels, and how they're wise beyond all. But if they were truly so concerned with appropiate actions, they would have held condoleesa rice and bozo the cowboy president accountable.

But No! Everything ever said about their boy and all his phuq ups, they have to try and turn that shiite around like we all forgot about the shiite.

This stuff is really absurd, almost comical, if it weren't so tragic.

Originally Posted by IronAddict

Hillary knows from experience how these R's try to act like they have their shiite together on panels, and how they're wise beyond all. But if they were truly so concerned with appropiate actions, they would have held condoleesa rice and bozo the cowboy president accountable.

But No! Everything ever said about their boy and all his phuq ups, they have to try and turn that shiite around like we all forgot about the shiite.

This stuff is really absurd, almost comical, if it weren't so tragic.

Except Rand Paul wasn't in office until 2 years after Bush left. Rand Paul certainly isn't an establishment republican. He's more concerned about corporate welfare than most of the democrats in office.

Originally Posted by oufinny

Inside jobs or false flag attacks will be guarded secrets and those that speak up will likely find a quick demise. Though your parallel is accurate, these are two different situations entirely. Once the story changed and the BS initial response was found. To be that, the obvious cover up came front and center into the spotlight.

the US gov does plenty of stupid things like invading the middle east again after 9-11 when neither the troops or vehicles had proper armor, etc. like how they put most of ST-6 on a flying fucking couch a.ka. a Chinook, etc. like using 3rd generation nuclear arms or anything that used depleted uranium, etc.

to single out this one event is ridiculous when they are dozens of instances of massive failures in regards to the executive branch, the US military and "security" agency's in recent years and decades.

Originally Posted by 99raptor

Rand Paul is a professional ass,,,grandstanding jerkoff

This is true But I hate Clinton.

Bob makes excellent points

Obama made no phone calls on night of Benghazi attack, White House says


President Obama didn?t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.
?During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,? said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama?s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.
The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mr. Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though the White House downplayed that notion in the first five days after the attack.
Republican senators said they will still push for more information on who changed the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday talk shows after the attacks and blamed protests against an anti-Islam video.
Mr. Graham said he will block the president?s nominee to head the CIA until he hears more details about what Mr. Obama was doing.
Sen. John McCain said the White House?s reticence in releasing information contrasts poorly with the flood of details the White House put out about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, which has spawned two movies.
?We still don?t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn?t talking to,? Mr. McCain said.
Obama made no phone calls on night of Benghazi attack, White House says - Washington Times

U.S Embassy and Consulate Attacks under George w. Bush
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...47559393_n.png

I wonder how many ambassadors were killed during the attacks under bush. oh zero.

it's about the lack of response and the White House purposely lying and covering up the attack as a demonstration about a phony video for political purposes. shameful

BENGHAZI: Names of ?whistleblower? witnesses revealed

By James Rosen, Chad Pergram
Published May 04, 2013
FoxNews.com


Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi ?whistleblowers? who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.
Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency?s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
Hicks was at the time of the highest-ranking American diplomat in the country.
Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall's hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.
"For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building," Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating,
The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.
Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens? earliest phone calls amid the crisis.
?We?re under attack! We?re under attack!? the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks.
Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy ?immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms? for an inter-agency response.
?The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,? Chaffetz recalled to Fox News? Greta Van Susteren, ?I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He?s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.?
According to the State Department website, Thompson ?advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.?
Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled ?The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.?
Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Republicans -- disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation?s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as ?whistleblowers? and would be testifying before Issa?s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.
The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.
?I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened,? Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. ?And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA?.It's frightening?.They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.?
DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing?s respective clients: ?There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them.
?The people that we are representing are career civil servants...people who have served the country overseas?in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.?
BENGHAZI: Names of

Originally Posted by Swiper

I wonder how many ambassadors were killed during the attacks under bush. oh zero.

it's about the lack of response and the White House purposely lying and covering up the attack as a demonstration about a phony video for political purposes. shameful

dont see how you can blame something like this on somebody, its a random attack. I guess under this rationalism we could say how many highjacked planes were flown into buildings before bush?