New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Choco-Liar and Hillary-what-difference-does-it-make-Clinton bombshell:

Barbella

Barbella

Senator
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday unveiled a report on last's year attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that blames then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for lapses in security.

The 46-page report by the five committees of jurisdiction concludes that reductions in security levels prior to the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, including by Clinton herself.

The report also concludes that talking points from the intelligence community were altered to protect the State Department from criticism of inadequate security levels.

After the attacks, the Administration perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the violence grew out of a demonstration caused by a YouTube video. The Administration consciously decided not to discuss extremist involvement or previous attacks against Western interests in Benghazi.

The U.S. government immediately had information that the attacks were conducted by al-Qa’ida-affiliated terrorists, yet Administration officials downplayed those connections, and focused on the idea that provocation for violence resulted from a YouTube video.

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.

Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department.

The report suggests that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.

Defense Department assets were correctly positioned for the general threat across the region, but the assets were not authorized at an alert posture to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense, and were provided no notice to defend diplomatic facilities.

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.

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

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi-...i-bombshell-drops-obama-hillary#ixzz2RP8DxYBY
 
This report just confirms what we already knew.
1. Hillary Clinton lied when she testified that the requests for more security had not reached her when, in fact, those requests HAD been brought to her attention.

2. The administration intended to mislead us and provided false information.

But the really interesting (and chilling) part is that Liberal drones will STILL attack, berate, bash, and demean anyone who does not fall in line with the lies that the administration put forth..........even knowing they are lies.

I am certain that any liberal responses to your top post here will show my statement here to be true. But you knew that.

Jen
 
Jen said:
This report just confirms what we already knew.
1. Hillary Clinton lied when she testified that the requests for more security had not reached her when, in fact, those requests HAD been brought to her attention.

2. The administration intended to mislead us and provided false information.

But the really interesting (and chilling) part is that Liberal drones will STILL attack, berate, bash, and demean anyone who does not fall in line with the lies that the administration put forth..........even knowing they are lies.

I am certain that any liberal responses to your top post here will show my statement here to be true. But you knew that.

Jen
Click to expand...

You nailed it!
 
OldGaffer said:
Benghazi will have exactly zero influence on the 2016 elections, you know it, and I know it.
Click to expand...

It didn't seem to count for much in 2012 either. People questioned then, as now, the push to pin the events of Benghazi on al Qaeda when there are all sorts of possibilities as to who and what could have been behind it considering the rogue well armed militia groups roaming Libya then and now.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201304090663.html
 
If the Fox/Mitt/GOP couldn't make hay of it in '12, they sure as hell won't in '16! But, let's not discourage them from giving it a shot. And while we're at it, we should also encourage any effort on the part of the Fox/GOP, to make issue of Clinton's gender, her age, her fashion, her hairstyle, or her physical appearance.
 
So you think that whether or not something will impact an election is important? I think that it takes a morally bankrupt person or persons to think that those 4 lives lost in Benghazi deserve nothing and they just don't matter. Apparently there are people in high places in our country who are just that morally bankrupt. Apparently those men and that diplomat didn't matter to people in the administration who ignored their desperate pleas for more security.
Four people died in Benghazi.
And YOU think that it's all about impacting an election???
Chilling, indeed.
Shameful ........those in this country who diminish 4 lives to how they will affect an election. :tsk: :tsk:

OldGaffer said:
Benghazi will have exactly zero influence on the 2016 elections, you know it, and I know it.
Click to expand...
 
no, that's just a function of your ignorance. The proof she was aware, contrasry to her tesitmony, is where outside of your fox news corrupted little brain?

It's not clear who in the State Department sent the April 19 response. But as a general rule, "every single cable sent from Washington to the field is sent over the secretary of state's name," a former State Department official noted, adding, "Though they are trying to make this new, it's not. After 30+ hearings and briefings, thousands of pages, this has all been addressed." http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/pos...nton_of_lying_approving_lax_benghazi_security

there's nothing here that hasn't been covered already, and debunked.

it's apparently just the woefully ignorant like you that are unaware of that
 
no, actually he's referring to the fact that best efforts of lying idiots on the benghazi matter won't mean spit in 2016, and he's likely right.

It'll be just one of many dishonest, morally bankrupt efforts of those like you that failed.
 
Thank you for agreeing exactly with what I said. Benghazi won't mean spit in 2016. Actually, to Hillary et al, it never meant spit.

Mytzlplk said:
no, actually he's referring to the fact that best efforts of lying idiots on the benghazi matter won't mean spit in 2016, and he's likely right.

It'll be just one of many dishonest, morally bankrupt efforts of those like you that failed.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top