Hillary on the Murder of 4 Americans - So What?

[red states rule]

This came as a surprise to me when Hillary dismissed the circumstances under which 4 Americans were murdered. Her answer shows how this administration does not give damn about their deaths and are only worried about Operation CYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JFZytEUCXu4

[red states rule]

and I post this for the Rush Limbaugh haters and to show how the liberal media circled the wagons around Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwNdnxR7Mwk&feature=player_embedded

[Gaffer]

A lot of rhetoric and double talk and no answering of questions. Typical hillary. A liar like her husband.

[red states rule]

A lot of rhetoric and double talk and no answering of questions. Typical hillary. A liar like her husband.

She learned from the best Gaffer. There will never be a better liar then Bill. She is now gearing up for 2016 and nothing else matters

[CSM]

In the end, she put the blame squarely on everyone from the Under-Secretary on down. She, of course, bears no blame at all. A true lib/Dem leader!

[red states rule]

In the end, she put the blame squarely on everyone from the Under-Secretary on down. She, of course, bears no blame at all. A true lib/Dem leader!

Obama spent 4 years blaming his economic policy failures on res Bush - and the voters bought it. With libs they are never at fault. It is always someone else's fault or as Hillary once said - "a vast right wing conspiracy"

[jimnyc]

That was Hillary's answer to getting drilled with questions yesterday. She said their job is to learn from this to ensure it doesn't happen again. I guess they don't feel any accountability is in order for the deaths of the Americans?

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rGLQ63qUHHo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38886-Hillary-on-the-Murder-of-4-Americans-So-What

[aboutime]

Everyone should always remember Hillary for her Finest Hour....4399, pissing herself OFF.

[red states rule]

Everyone should always remember Hillary for her Finest Hour....4399, pissing herself OFF.

The liberal media "reported" her outburst as showing emotion.

<iframe width="500" height="280" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119615" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

http://politicaldemotivation.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hillary_retard.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In the end, she put the blame squarely on everyone from the Under-Secretary on down. She, of course, bears no blame at all. A true lib/Dem leader!

A Dem queen,or should that be --damn queen?:laugh:
She messed up and as usual will be richly rewarded for her failures--it's the dem way..Tyr

[aboutime]

Not to be trusted, no matter how many Americans she managed to fool like Obama does.

4406 She NOSE how to Lie.

[bingster]

That was Hillary's answer to getting drilled with questions yesterday. She said their job is to learn from this to ensure it doesn't happen again. I guess they don't feel any accountability is in order for the deaths of the Americans?

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rGLQ63qUHHo" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="480"></iframe>

This is a cute thread and I'll stay off of it while you guys get each other off over trashing the next president of the United States (unless you cheat). I respect you, so watch this again, and then scrutinize everyone's post on this thread because none of them are getting the point:

He isn't attacking her for the deaths. He is attacking her for the message. Before she "blew up" at him he said "We were mislead. There was supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that...."

This whole thread is about attacking her for some warped version of the truth: "What does it matter" isn't about dead Americans. It's about the "misled" portion that I'll admit was muddled, but cleared up quickly. Those who were at the briefings after 9/11 (senators like McCain) should have known better (cia unclassified version was different than cia classified version-on purpose). This piranha-like feeding frenzy over your straw man version of Democrats is some of what makes your party look lost in space-to put it kindly.

[red states rule]

This is a cute thread and I'll stay off of it while you guys get each other off over trashing the next president of the United States, but I respect you and as you to look again, and then scrutinize everyone's post on this thread because none of them are getting the point:

He isn't attacking her for the deaths. He is attacking her for the message. Before she "blew up" at him he said "We were mislead. There was supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that...."

This whole thread is about attacking her for some warped version of the truth: "What does it matter" isn't about dead Americans. It's about the "misled" portion that I'll admit was muddled, but cleared up quickly. Those who were at the briefings after 9/11 should have known better (cia unclassified version was different than cia classified version-on purpose). And that the piranha-like feeding frenzy over b.s. is what makes your party look lost in space.

Talk about misleading - first it was the video, then is was a random mob, then we find out the State Dept denied repeated requested for extra security. The US Marines in the area were not permitted to carry live ammo. Locals provided security and not the US. Where was Obama during the 7 hour attack and while live video was streamed into the State Dept? The night of the attack in the US Obama goes off to a fund raiser (he showed how concerned he was over the murders) So yea, Bing this administration does say "SO WHAT" in many different ways

[ConHog]

Talk about misleading - first it was the video, then is was a random mob, then we find out the State Dept denied repeated requested for extra security. The US Marines in the area were not permitted to carry live ammo. Locals provided security and not the US. Where was Obama during the 7 hour attack and while live video was streamed into the State Dept? The night of the attack in the US Obama goes off to a fund raiser (he showed how concerned he was over the murders) So yea, Bing this administration does say "SO WHAT" in many different ways

Psst, the US Marines in fact are not who provides security for embassies, that's not their role.

That is a fact.

[red states rule]

Psst, the US Marines in fact are not who provides security for embassies, that's not their role.

That is a fact.

You are wrong (as usual) and I had the locations wrong
A stunning report released Wednesday night at the national security newsletter NightWatch (http://www.kforcegov.com/Solutions/IAO/NightWatch/NightWatch_12000175.aspx) says that U.S. Marines guarding the embassy in Cairo were not allowed to carry live ammunition, thereby limiting their ability to protect the facility when it came under attack, the Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/) said Thursday.
According to NightWatch, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson "did not permit US Marine guards to carry live ammunition, according to USMC blogs. Thus she neutralized any US military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy."
"In this respect," NightWatch added, "she did not defend US sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office. She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.”






NightWatch also said that "Ambassador Patterson at no time denounced in public the Islamists who violated her Embassy."
U.S. officials, however, have not commented on the report, and Time magazine’s Battleland (http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/#ixzz26MsfFwaT) blog said that "[s]enior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”
Battleland also said they could not find the blogs that former veteran Defense Intelligence Agency analyst John McCreary cited in his report.
"With or without a weapon, Marines are always armed,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said Thursday afternoon, according to an update at Battleland. “I’ve heard nothing to suggest they don’t have ammunition."
"The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols," Adam Kredo wrote at the Free Beacon.
“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the adviser told Kredo. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”
U.S. Marines are typically used to protect embassies and other facilities abroad, but Kredo wrote that that the Obama administration was apparently "relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage."
The consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was in worse shape as it had no Marines assigned to protect the facility, Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html) reported Wednesday. http://www.examiner.com/article/report-says-u-s-marines-cairo-not-allowed-to-carry-live-ammunition

[ConHog]

You are wrong (as usual) and I had the locations wrong

oh i was so waiting for that response.

YOU are wrong, as you always are

After four Americans, including an ambassador, were killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, this week, the first question some have asked was: "Where were the Marines (http://www.worldmag.com/2012/09/where_were_the_marines)?" But that question underlies a fundamental misconception about who is actually responsible for protecting diplomats and diplomatic buildings abroad, whether embassies or consulates.

Read more: Don’t Blame the Marines: Here’s Who is Supposed to Protect U.S. Diplomats - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/dont-blame-the-marines-heres-who-is-supposed-to-protect-us-diplomats-12678877#ixzz2J4ZxK1QJ)

Contrary to popular belief, Marines aren’t really stationed at embassies or consulates to protect diplomats. They are there primarily to protect secret information—




i can provide other links as necessary to cooberate if you do your usual dance instead of just admitting a fact

[red states rule]

oh i was so waiting for that response.

YOU are wrong, as you always are

After four Americans, including an ambassador, were killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, this week, the first question some have asked was: "Where were the Marines (http://www.worldmag.com/2012/09/where_were_the_marines)?" But that question underlies a fundamental misconception about who is actually responsible for protecting diplomats and diplomatic buildings abroad, whether embassies or consulates.

Read more: Don’t Blame the Marines: Here’s Who is Supposed to Protect U.S. Diplomats - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/dont-blame-the-marines-heres-who-is-supposed-to-protect-us-diplomats-12678877#ixzz2J4ZxK1QJ)

Contrary to popular belief, Marines aren’t really stationed at embassies or consulates to protect diplomats. They are there primarily to protect secret information—




i can provide other links as necessary to cooberate if you do your usual dance instead of just admitting a fact

Oh wow - who could possible dispute POPULAR MECHANICS?????
U.S. Marines are typically used to protect embassies and other facilities abroad, but Kredo wrote that that the Obama administration was apparently "relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage."
The consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was in worse shape as it had no Marines assigned to protect the facility, Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html) reported Wednesday.
"The Benghazi consulate had 'lock-and-key' security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy," Politico added.
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team consisting of 50 Marines has been deployed to Libya.
"This is startling and troubling news, especially in light of the fact that the day before yesterday's attacks, September 10, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri made direct threats against Americans in Libya (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/12/Al-Qaeda-Catches-Obama-White-House-Flat-Footed-During-Egypt-Libya-Attacks) to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-ranking al-Qaeda official taken out by an American drone attack last June," John Nolte wrote at Breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/12/No-Marines-Guarding-US-Consulate-In-Libya) on Wednesday.

[ConHog]

Oh wow - who could possible dispute POPULAR MECHANICS?????

What are DS's responsibilities?
Overseas, DS develops and implements the security programs that protect all U.S. diplomatic personnel who work in every U.S. diplomatic mission around the world, and serve as the chief of mission's personal advisor on all security matters. In the United States, DS protects the Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and cabinet-level foreign dignitaries who visit the United States. DS also assists foreign embassies and consulates in the United States with the security for their missions and personnel. Diplomatic Security also conducts criminal investigations into passport and visa fraud violations, conducts personnel security investigations, and issues security clearances.

http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/faq/index.htm#2


who would know who protects US embassies better than the State Department.


oh, and to add to the point, here is this


Marine Corps Enlisted Job Descriptions MOS 8156 -- Marine Security Guard (MSG) By Rod Powers (http://usmilitary.about.com/bio/Rod-Powers-6341.htm), About.com Guide

See More About:


marine corps enlisted jobs (http://usmilitary.about.com/lr/marine_corps_enlisted_jobs/289315/1/)
usmc military occupation specialties (http://usmilitary.about.com/lr/usmc_military_occupation_specialties/289315/2/)
marine security guard (http://usmilitary.about.com/lr/marine_security_guard/289315/3/)


Ads #1 U.S. Marine Educator (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CKyCk7KcDUeKZLKiG2wWs34DABtHQsP4C6aGM3yPAjbcBEA EgqKX3ASgJUN-9rLICYMnWu4bAo7AToAGzlN3-A8gBAagDAaoEe0_QYwyBC7XBtEQrcQfI33vcYBrSNwWz5zzCA-MdCaFNzJtDccHdVnKELJlq0gsG_UWCF7hRcx69YonzSUdp0AT0 UUY9dq3_PnuF2eoxf2z0ntEUQXsEOdlLcs8UfnOcL0Udclx1oC sJqSGskI5yxuPr9WxXAlIFc2rLWYgGAYAHteuiAQ&num=1&cid=5Ghc9-AjPbc7JIZM24XVSKD2&sig=AOD64_2kS31_4hOhO15oixARW-AoX3-oGA&client=ca-primedia-premium_js&adurl=http://www.amu.apus.edu/lp2/marines/index.htm/%3Futm_source%3Dgoogle-amu%26utm_medium%3Dcpc%26utm_term%3Dcontent-targeting%26utm_campaign%3DCT%2520-%2520Military%2520-%2520Marines)www.AMU.APUS.edu/Marines (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CKyCk7KcDUeKZLKiG2wWs34DABtHQsP4C6aGM3yPAjbcBEA EgqKX3ASgJUN-9rLICYMnWu4bAo7AToAGzlN3-A8gBAagDAaoEe0_QYwyBC7XBtEQrcQfI33vcYBrSNwWz5zzCA-MdCaFNzJtDccHdVnKELJlq0gsG_UWCF7hRcx69YonzSUdp0AT0 UUY9dq3_PnuF2eoxf2z0ntEUQXsEOdlLcs8UfnOcL0Udclx1oC sJqSGskI5yxuPr9WxXAlIFc2rLWYgGAYAHteuiAQ&num=1&cid=5Ghc9-AjPbc7JIZM24XVSKD2&sig=AOD64_2kS31_4hOhO15oixARW-AoX3-oGA&client=ca-primedia-premium_js&adurl=http://www.amu.apus.edu/lp2/marines/index.htm/%3Futm_source%3Dgoogle-amu%26utm_medium%3Dcpc%26utm_term%3Dcontent-targeting%26utm_campaign%3DCT%2520-%2520Military%2520-%2520Marines)5,000 Marines Study Online at AMU. TA & GI Bill Benefits Available.
Warrior Dash Arkansas (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CKf-v7KcDUeKZLKiG2wWs34DABsHB8owDgauexUvAjbcBEAIgqKX3A SgJUK-u8OT-_____wFgyda7hsCjsBOgAb_RrfcDyAEBqAMBqgR4T9BzTnQSr_ iM9phkZs7Bf9llB8ckDuSoP88Z4kdErU97QHcs3d1SOJEsw2zM DwP4WJcEswY8HbB4iKkES2uSRP8aDDZ0qOU5aoTX72xiIrqJ2B BCY0IlwKa4zB391WuUpBVyXHmrNglHJ1kVe3XGZR7mjFG3pjZ8 iAYBgAeprtII&num=2&cid=5Ghc9-AjPbc7JIZM24XVSKD2&sig=AOD64_3PeGbU-S8GfvsQRzZ5dIVZ7CpwNg&client=ca-primedia-premium_js&adurl=http://www.warriordash.com/register.php%3Floc%3DArkansas%26yr%3D2013)www.warr iordash.com (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=CKf-v7KcDUeKZLKiG2wWs34DABsHB8owDgauexUvAjbcBEAIgqKX3A SgJUK-u8OT-_____wFgyda7hsCjsBOgAb_RrfcDyAEBqAMBqgR4T9BzTnQSr_ iM9phkZs7Bf9llB8ckDuSoP88Z4kdErU97QHcs3d1SOJEsw2zM DwP4WJcEswY8HbB4iKkES2uSRP8aDDZ0qOU5aoTX72xiIrqJ2B BCY0IlwKa4zB391WuUpBVyXHmrNglHJ1kVe3XGZR7mjFG3pjZ8 iAYBgAeprtII&num=2&cid=5Ghc9-AjPbc7JIZM24XVSKD2&sig=AOD64_3PeGbU-S8GfvsQRzZ5dIVZ7CpwNg&client=ca-primedia-premium_js&adurl=http://www.warriordash.com/register.php%3Floc%3DArkansas%26yr%3D2013)Sign-Up Today For the Obstacle Race Event Near You. More Info Online!
National Guard (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=CAG7L7KcDUeKZLKiG2wWs34DABvzwy4gD_NHgjkHAjbcBEA MgqKX3ASgJUPCE0aAFYMnWu4bAo7ATyAEBqAMBqgR6T9BjD34S rviM9phkZs7Bf9llB8ckDuSoP88Z4kdErU97QHcs3d1SOJEsw2 zMDwP4WJcEswY8HbB4iKkES2uSRP8aDDZ0qOU5aoTX72xiIrqJ 2BBCY0IlwO64QS9l8TuUR_SZvZ5BwORF1lqTinZAkB32bFcSou OZaxWAB_LkjAE&num=3&sig=AOD64_0TLmlP2Fho2mCikxxBJoAF1f1VBA&client=ca-primedia-premium_js&adurl=http://track.searchignite.com/si/cm/tracking/clickredirect.aspx%3Fsicontent%3D1%26sicreative%3D 17420254204%26sitrackingid%3D137104363)www.Nationa lGuard.com (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=CAG7L7KcDUeKZLKiG2wWs34DABvzwy4gD_NHgjkHAjbcBEA MgqKX3ASgJUPCE0aAFYMnWu4bAo7ATyAEBqAMBqgR6T9BjD34S rviM9phkZs7Bf9llB8ckDuSoP88Z4kdErU97QHcs3d1SOJEsw2 zMDwP4WJcEswY8HbB4iKkES2uSRP8aDDZ0qOU5aoTX72xiIrqJ 2BBCY0IlwO64QS9l8TuUR_SZvZ5BwORF1lqTinZAkB32bFcSou OZaxWAB_LkjAE&num=3&sig=AOD64_0TLmlP2Fho2mCikxxBJoAF1f1VBA&client=ca-primedia-premium_js&adurl=http://track.searchignite.com/si/cm/tracking/clickredirect.aspx%3Fsicontent%3D1%26sicreative%3D 17420254204%26sitrackingid%3D137104363)Build Your Resumé by Joining the National Guard Part-Time.

More US Military Ads

Marine Corps (http://usmilitary.about.com/z/js/o.htm?k=marine%20corps&d=Marine%20Corps&r=http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/8156.htm)
USMC Infantry Officer (http://usmilitary.about.com/z/js/o.htm?k=usmc%20infantry%20officer&d=USMC%20Infantry%20Officer&r=http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/8156.htm)
USMC (http://usmilitary.about.com/z/js/o.htm?k=usmc&d=USMC&r=http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/8156.htm)
Marine Security Guard (http://usmilitary.about.com/z/js/o.htm?k=marine%20security%20guard&d=Marine%20Security%20Guard&r=http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/8156.htm)
Enlisted Marine (http://usmilitary.about.com/z/js/o.htm?k=enlisted%20marine&d=Enlisted%20Marine&r=http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/8156.htm)



Type of MOS (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/mosdef.htm) : FMOS
Rank (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blenlrank.htm) Range: MGySgt to PFC
Job Description: The MSG will be assigned to duty to one of 140 plus MSG detachments around the world. The MSG will provide armed internal security to designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified information and equipment vital to the national security of the Unites States. As part of the MSG detachment, the detachment member's secondary mission is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. government property located within designated U.S. diplomatic and consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action. The detachment member will be physically and mentally capable of enduring a direct counter-intelligence and combat environment, master interior guard procedures, be proficient with security, anti-terrorism, and counter espionage tactics. The MSG member must also be knowledgeable in law enforcement techniques, small arms handling and employment, emergency first aide, force continuum, less than lethal application, and entry and access control procedures.


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/8156.htm

They are only called on to provide outside security in the event of an emergency, it is NOT their primary duty. As I said .. Diplomatic Services is in charge of that.

[red states rule]

and we have this
(CNSNews.com) -- When terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, there were no U.S. Marines deployed in Libya to defend U.S. diplomats, diplomatic facilities and classified information and equipment.
However, says the State Department, a Marine Security Detachment was deployed on that day to carry out those duties at the U.S. Embassy in Bridgetown, Barbados.
“U.S. Marine Security Guards serve at the U.S. Embassy in Bridgetown, and at other diplomatic missions around the world, to protect and safeguard American diplomacy,” Rebecca Ross, the U.S. Embassy to Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean Counselor for Public Affairs, said in a statement to CNSNews.com.
“On September 11, 2012, our U.S. Marine Security Detachment carried out its regular duties which include providing internal security, preventing the compromise of classified information and equipment, and providing protection for U.S. citizens and property located within official U.S. facilities,” Ross said. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-dept-confirms-marines-91112-were-protecting-us-embassy-barbados and

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt laid the blame for the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the Benghazi, Libya American mission on Hillary Clinton and the State Department:
The State Department just allowed our guys to get killed. If you approve no bullets in guns for the mission security guards and an outhouse for a mission, you’re inviting it.
Earlier, on Howie Carr's radio show (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/13/Colonel-Hillary-Responsible-For-Unarmed-Security-Vulnerable-Embassies) Thursday, Colonel Hunt said that the American mission at Benghazi "was like a cardboard building, there wasn't even bullet proof glass." In addition, Hunt said the security guards inside the mission didn't have bullets:

Howie Carr: They weren't allowed to have bullets, is that correct?
Colonel Hunt: That's true. They were private security. The rules of engagement were ridiculous.
Hunt told Breitbart News that the new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, approved and signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since the 2011 fall of Khadafi's regime, severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.
He also stated that the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Secretary of State Clinton when she attached her signature to the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya document. Breitbart News has subsequently learned that under those rules of engagement, Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/State-Department-Rules-of-Engagement-Kept-Marines-Out-of-Tripoli-as-Well-as-Benghazi-in-Libya).
Hunt told Breitbart News that "the rules of engagement have been changing drastically over the last 10 years. . . The reason the surge in Iraq worked was we had another 40,000 soldiers and the rules of engagement were changed to allow our guys to shoot. What’s happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness. We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can't have bullets. This was all part of the point of not having a high profile in Libya."
According to Hunt, the debacle at the American mission in Benghazi is directly the result of Obama's new policies. "The policy of the Obama administration led to this," he said http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-Benghazi

[red states rule]

In the end, she put the blame squarely on everyone from the Under-Secretary on down. She, of course, bears no blame at all. A true lib/Dem leader!

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10673420130126120100.jpg

[red states rule]

This is a cute thread and I'll stay off of it while you guys get each other off over trashing the next president of the United States (unless you cheat). I respect you, so watch this again, and then scrutinize everyone's post on this thread because none of them are getting the point:

He isn't attacking her for the deaths. He is attacking her for the message. Before she "blew up" at him he said "We were mislead. There was supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that...."

This whole thread is about attacking her for some warped version of the truth: "What does it matter" isn't about dead Americans. It's about the "misled" portion that I'll admit was muddled, but cleared up quickly. Those who were at the briefings after 9/11 (senators like McCain) should have known better (cia unclassified version was different than cia classified version-on purpose). This piranha-like feeding frenzy over your straw man version of Democrats is some of what makes your party look lost in space-to put it kindly.

No the thread is about how she could not care less about the slaughter of four Americans and how the liberal media is protecting her from her incompetent performance and attacking anyone who asks her hard questions

And even ConMan joins in and tries to take the attention away from another foreign policy screw-up of this administration

[taft2012]

4407

[ConHog]

No the thread is about how she could not care less about the slaughter of four Americans and how the liberal media is protecting her from her incompetent performance and attacking anyone who asks her hard questions

And even ConMan joins in and tries to take the attention away from another foreign policy screw-up of this administration

Actually, I didn't address that at all, except to say that ultimately she is responsible.

I joined the thread to point out that YOU were wrong when you claimed the Marines were responsible for external security for embassies, I proved that point to and you , as usual, cowardly refused to just type the words "yeah obviously I was wrong about that"

Once again to the point about Hilary I did NOT say she wasn't responsible. You lied, again.

[jimnyc]

This is a cute thread and I'll stay off of it while you guys get each other off over trashing the next president of the United States (unless you cheat). I respect you, so watch this again, and then scrutinize everyone's post on this thread because none of them are getting the point:

He isn't attacking her for the deaths. He is attacking her for the message. Before she "blew up" at him he said "We were mislead. There was supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that...."

This whole thread is about attacking her for some warped version of the truth: "What does it matter" isn't about dead Americans. It's about the "misled" portion that I'll admit was muddled, but cleared up quickly. Those who were at the briefings after 9/11 (senators like McCain) should have known better (cia unclassified version was different than cia classified version-on purpose). This piranha-like feeding frenzy over your straw man version of Democrats is some of what makes your party look lost in space-to put it kindly.

Think of ANYTHING he was asking her, now ask yourself, out of her ENTIRE testimony, why is there no accountability from those in charge. We have an OBVIOUS fuck up in communication, security requests being ignored, the Secretary not even aware of mission critical information - and no accountability for people dead as a DIRECT result of this inept leadership.

[ConHog]

Think of ANYTHING he was asking her, now ask yourself, out of her ENTIRE testimony, why is there no accountability from those in charge. We have an OBVIOUS fuck up in communication, security requests being ignored, the Secretary not even aware of mission critical information - and no accountability for people dead as a DIRECT result of this inept leadership.

Simple Jim

Because Harry Truman was the last politician on a national level who truly believed "the buck stops here" applied to them.

Well, that might be a bit of hyperbole, but certainly in the last say 20 years the theory has instead been "quick, find a scapegoat"

I fully expect that at some point some mid level dude from Diplomatic Security will find himself without a job over this.

[jimnyc]

Contrary to popular belief, Marines aren’t really stationed at embassies or consulates to protect diplomats. They are there primarily to protect secret information—


The key word there is "primarily", as they ARE also in charge of protecting diplomats and such. And further point being, these Marines should be supported, and have additional soldiers on site if it is needed to protect the embassy. This was requested directly from a US diplomat and was denied. I believe that diplomat, and this facility, fall under the below.


The primary mission of the MSG is to provide security, particularly the protection of classified information and equipment vital to the national security of the United States at American diplomatic posts. This is accomplished under the guidance and operational control of a civilian federal agent of the Diplomatic Security Service, known as the Regional Security Officer (RSO) who is the senior U.S. law enforcement representative and security attaché at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world.[5] In addition, MSGs provide security for visiting American dignitaries and frequently assist the RSO in supervising host country and/or locally employed security forces which provide additional security for the exterior of embassies. The MSGs fall under operational control of the RSO and are administratively controlled by the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. The secondary mission of Marine Security Guards is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action.

MSGs focus on the interior security of a diplomatic post's building(s). In only the most extreme emergency situations are they authorized duties exterior to the building(s) or to provide special protection to the senior diplomatic officer off of the diplomatic compound. MSGs carry a certain level of diplomatic immunity in the performance of their official duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard

[jimnyc]

Simple Jim

Because Harry Truman was the last politician on a national level who truly believed "the buck stops here" applied to them.

Well, that might be a bit of hyperbole, but certainly in the last say 20 years the theory has instead been "quick, find a scapegoat"

I fully expect that at some point some mid level dude from Diplomatic Security will find himself without a job over this.

And that's sad, probably because you are right. And others think that's ok, and see the woman, ultimately in charge here, as our next president.

[Abbey Marie]

What kills me is that the same people who think Hillary is not responsible for this, had no qualms blaming George Bush for problems caused by a hurricane. Go figure.

[ConHog]

[/LEFT]

The key word there is "primarily", as they ARE also in charge of protecting diplomats and such. And further point being, these Marines should be supported, and have additional soldiers on site if it is needed to protect the embassy. This was requested directly from a US diplomat and was denied. I believe that diplomat, and this facility, fall under the below.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard

Still and yet, they are a back up of sorts. Essentially a SWAT team if shit happens that DS can't handle.

They do NOT handle the day to day security issues. DS does, so saying that anything related to them had ANY effect on this situation being allowed to happen is BS

That's just a simple fact.

[ConHog]

And that's sad, probably because you are right. And others think that's ok, and see the woman, ultimately in charge here, as our next president.

Oh, I'm absolutely right Jim, as a quick easy to see example remember when the White House orchestrated a photo op of Air Force One flying over NYC and when it just about caused a panic some staffer lost his job when the fact is Air Force One flies NOWHERE without the President's say so.

No one needed to lose their job over that, fuck it was just a dumb mistake in judgement , all Obama had to do was say "Hey, I made a stupid insensitive choice, my bad" and done. But nope, can't admit to error.

And it's trickled down, look at this message board, how many people ever admit to an error?

[jimnyc]

What kills me is that the same people who think Hillary is not responsible for this, had no qualms blaming George Bush for problems cause by a hurricane. Go figure.

And the party of no personal responsibility, so it really all makes sense. :coffee:

[jimnyc]

Still and yet, they are a back up of sorts. Essentially a SWAT team if shit happens that DS can't handle.

They do NOT handle the day to day security issues. DS does, so saying that anything related to them had ANY effect on this situation being allowed to happen is BS

That's just a simple fact.

If not day to day security - who does - what does DS stand for?

[Abbey Marie]

If not day to day security - who does - what does DS stand for?

I would hardly call that situation "day to day" anyway.

[ConHog]

If not day to day security - who does - what does DS stand for?

stands for Diplomatic Security. They are part of the State Department. And it is they who provide security. I posted the link to such earlier in the thread.

[jimnyc]

stands for Diplomatic Security. They are part of the State Department. And it is they who provide security. I posted the link to such earlier in the thread.

But the Marines I pointed out to you - THEY report to the state department. The "Marine Security Guard" is a branch of the Marines, but they report to the State Department - and their primary goals are to secure embassies.

Even a different insignia:

http://i.imgur.com/JSDL6GC.jpg

[ConHog]

I would hardly call that situation "day to day" anyway.

but it is. Diplomatic Security is in charge of managing ALL aspects of providing security for embassies, that means they are the ones who seen all the cables in question, they are the ones who had any intercepts indicating there might be trouble, if any existed, they are the ones who allowed this to happen.

blaming the Marines would be like blaming the local police instead of the Secret Service if something happened to Obama while he was in your town.

[ConHog]

But the Marines I pointed out to you - THEY report to the state department. The "Marine Security Guard" is a branch of the Marines, but they report to the State Department - and their primary goals are to secure embassies.

Even a different insignia:

http://i.imgur.com/JSDL6GC.jpg

correct, but they provide INTERNAL security. they are only a back up to Diplomatic Security when it comes to EXTERNAL security.


Job Description: The MSG will be assigned to duty to one of 140 plus MSG detachments around the world. The MSG will provide armed internal security to designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified information and equipment vital to the national security of the Unites States.

of course they are authorized to repel external attacks as a secondary mission if needed. That does NOT mean they are the ones collecting intelligence, or providing day to day external security.

They just don't do that.

[jimnyc]

And they are also in charge of assisting the RSO in protecting the US ambassador at their locations. The lack of "increased security" at this location is the reason he is dead. And what happens when you increase security at our embassies, like Obama did at all of them after this? That's right, sent in the US Marines - which is what "whoever is in charge" should have done when the security was first requested.

[ConHog]

And they are also in charge of assisting the RSO in protecting the US ambassador at their locations. The lack of "increased security" at this location is the reason he is dead. And what happens when you increase security at our embassies, like Obama did at all of them after this? That's right, sent in the US Marines - which is what "whoever is in charge" should have done when the security was first requested.

I won't disagree with you at all. That has nothing to do with what RSR and I were discussing which is that the US Marines were not in charge of security at that embassy when this happened.

Diplomatic Security allowed this to happen. PERIOD. I use as an example again the Secret Service. They get assistance from every local law enforcement agency when the President goes somewhere, but THEY are responsible if something happens. PERIOD.

In Embassies the Marines don't act on external threats unless told to by the Ambasador, they are under his direct authority, they are effectively HIS Marines. Diplomatic Security is not , they are under the authority of the State Department, the Director of Diplomatic Security to be specific, they do NOT answer to the ambassadors at each embassy.

[Robert A Whit]

She learned from the best Gaffer. There will never be a better liar then Bill. She is now gearing up for 2016 and nothing else matters



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.

[Robert A Whit]

This is a cute thread and I'll stay off of it while you guys get each other off over trashing the next president of the United States (unless you cheat). I respect you, so watch this again, and then scrutinize everyone's post on this thread because none of them are getting the point:

He isn't attacking her for the deaths. He is attacking her for the message. Before she "blew up" at him he said "We were mislead. There was supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that...."

This whole thread is about attacking her for some warped version of the truth: "What does it matter" isn't about dead Americans. It's about the "misled" portion that I'll admit was muddled, but cleared up quickly. Those who were at the briefings after 9/11 (senators like McCain) should have known better (cia unclassified version was different than cia classified version-on purpose). This piranha-like feeding frenzy over your straw man version of Democrats is some of what makes your party look lost in space-to put it kindly.

Roughly by 6:05 pm you got no thanks.

Say, I wonder about one more thing.

Suppose on that moment of the attack, Queen Hillary happened to be in Libya and also died during the attack?

Who do you suppose Bill the humper Clinton would have blamed? Do you think he would raise holy hell she was not defended?

What this is all about is that poor Ambassador left behind a family weeping and she got pissed off she was questioned. What if her daughter was in Libya and counted as one of the dead?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Roughly by 6:05 pm you got no thanks.

Say, I wonder about one more thing.

Suppose on that moment of the attack, Queen Hillary happened to be in Libya and also died during the attack?

Who do you suppose Bill the humper Clinton would have blamed? Do you think he would raise holy hell she was not defended?

What this is all about is that poor Ambassador left behind a family weeping and she got pissed off she was questioned. What if her daughter was in Libya and counted as one of the dead?

Brilliant point Robert, one thats largely being ignored by so many that blindly following the current Pied Piper!

What you miss is that binger thinks your questioning of either the holy Dem based obama monarchy or the Clinton monarchy is well beyond your pay grade or scope.

The now socialist order demands no questioning of its actions! Just shut up and eat your hay...because after they take your guns , you will be located and arrested, neutered , neutralized if not worse!;)--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

I see nothing at Wikipedia claiming that the people are not guarded and only the secret information is guarded. Wonder why not if Conhog is correct as he constantly claims he is?


HistoryThe Marine Corps has a long history of cooperation with the Department of State, going back to the early days of the nation. From the raising of the United States flag (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Battle_of_Derne) at Derna (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Derna,_Libya), Tripoli (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tripoli) and the secret mission of Archibald H. Gillespie (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Archibald_H._Gillespie) in California, to the Boxer Rebellion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) at Peking (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Peking), Marines have served many times on special missions as couriers (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Courier), guards for embassies and legations, and to protect American citizens in unsettled areas.
The formal and permanent use of Marines as security guards began with the Foreign Service Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Foreign_Service_Act) of 1946, which authorized the Secretary of Navy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Navy) to, upon the request of the Secretary of State (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State), assign Marines to serve as custodians under the supervision of the senior diplomatic officer at a diplomatic post. The first joint Memorandum of Agreement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Memorandum_of_Agreement) was signed on 15 December 1948 regarding the provisions of assigning Marines overseas. Trained at the Foreign Service Institute (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Foreign_Service_Institute), the first Marines arrived at Tangier (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tangier) and Bangkok (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Bangkok) in early 1949. The Marine Corps assumed the primary training responsibility in November 1954. The authority granted in the Foreign Service Act of 1946 has since been replaced by 10 U.S.C. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code) § 5983 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/5983.html) and the most recent Memorandum of Agreement was signed in August 2008.
In response to the 2012 Benghazi attack (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack), Congress ordered a near doubling of Marine Security Guards in the midst of a post-war drawdown in overall USMC numbers.[4] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-4)

[ConHog]

I see nothing at Wikipedia claiming that the people are not guarded and only the secret information is guarded. Wonder why not if Conhog is correct as he constantly claims he is?


HistoryThe Marine Corps has a long history of cooperation with the Department of State, going back to the early days of the nation. From the raising of the United States flag (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Battle_of_Derne) at Derna (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Derna,_Libya), Tripoli (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tripoli) and the secret mission of Archibald H. Gillespie (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Archibald_H._Gillespie) in California, to the Boxer Rebellion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) at Peking (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Peking), Marines have served many times on special missions as couriers (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Courier), guards for embassies and legations, and to protect American citizens in unsettled areas.
The formal and permanent use of Marines as security guards began with the Foreign Service Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Foreign_Service_Act) of 1946, which authorized the Secretary of Navy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Navy) to, upon the request of the Secretary of State (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State), assign Marines to serve as custodians under the supervision of the senior diplomatic officer at a diplomatic post. The first joint Memorandum of Agreement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Memorandum_of_Agreement) was signed on 15 December 1948 regarding the provisions of assigning Marines overseas. Trained at the Foreign Service Institute (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Foreign_Service_Institute), the first Marines arrived at Tangier (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tangier) and Bangkok (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Bangkok) in early 1949. The Marine Corps assumed the primary training responsibility in November 1954. The authority granted in the Foreign Service Act of 1946 has since been replaced by 10 U.S.C. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code) § 5983 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/5983.html) and the most recent Memorandum of Agreement was signed in August 2008.
In response to the 2012 Benghazi attack (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack), Congress ordered a near doubling of Marine Security Guards in the midst of a post-war drawdown in overall USMC numbers.[4] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-4)

none of that disputes what I said. Marines provide INTERNAL security, Diplomatic Security provides EXTERNAL security.

Are you ever capable of just admitting you're wrong? I mean one would think that with the AMPLE opportunities you have to admit you're wrong you would know how to do so.

[Robert A Whit]

but it is. Diplomatic Security is in charge of managing ALL aspects of providing security for embassies, that means they are the ones who seen all the cables in question, they are the ones who had any intercepts indicating there might be trouble, if any existed, they are the ones who allowed this to happen.

blaming the Marines would be like blaming the local police instead of the Secret Service if something happened to Obama while he was in your town.

What diplomatic security do you refer to?

Nobody that I have read says the blame is on the Marines.

No, hell no. The blame is on the Obama administration for a breech of trust that Ambassadors have to provide them a safe setting.

One of the missions of the Marines is to provide protection. If there were Marines there (it was not an Embassy as we normally call them, since the actual embassy is in Tripoli,) how the hell can the Obama admin get away with allowing this to happen despite warnings at the top level, please for help and so forth.

Hillary sure would be a hell of a lot more involved and interested had her daughter been there that day and died during the attack. She may not have minded had Bil the Humper Clinton died though. Not sure on that one.

[Robert A Whit]

none of that disputes what I said. Marines provide INTERNAL security, Diplomatic Security provides EXTERNAL security.

Are you ever capable of just admitting you're wrong? I mean one would think that with the AMPLE opportunities you have to admit you're wrong you would know how to do so.

Me wrong? What part of I did not write the material I got from Wikipedia do you blame me for?

Why do you seem to be posting in a way that makes it seem you defend Democrats in this matter?

[ConHog]

What diplomatic security do you refer to?

Nobody that I have read says the blame is on the Marines.

No, hell no. The blame is on the Obama administration for a breech of trust that Ambassadors have to provide them a safe setting.

One of the missions of the Marines is to provide protection. If there were Marines there (it was not an Embassy as we normally call them, since the actual embassy is in Tripoli,) how the hell can the Obama admin get away with allowing this to happen despite warnings at the top level, please for help and so forth.

Hillary sure would be a hell of a lot more involved and interested had her daughter been there that day and died during the attack. She may not have minded had Bil the Humper Clinton died though. Not sure on that one.

:laugh::laugh: dude that right there tells me you don't have a fucking clue what we're discussing here, you simply saw "conhog" and wanted to fight

take that shit to the steel cage

[ConHog]

Me wrong? What part of I did not write the material I got from Wikipedia do you blame me for?

Why do you seem to be posting in a way that makes it seem you defend Democrats in this matter?

:laugh: Good Lord you are illiterate. I didn't defend Democrats, and in fact I SPECIFICALLY said that ultimately the blame is on Hillary, and Obama. Last I checked, they are Democrats.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611752#post611752)
What diplomatic security do you refer to?

Nobody that I have read says the blame is on the Marines.

No, hell no. The blame is on the Obama administration for a breech of trust that Ambassadors have to provide them a safe setting.

One of the missions of the Marines is to provide protection. If there were Marines there (it was not an Embassy as we normally call them, since the actual embassy is in Tripoli,) how the hell can the Obama admin get away with allowing this to happen despite warnings at the top level, please for help and so forth.

Hillary sure would be a hell of a lot more involved and interested had her daughter been there that day and died during the attack. She may not have minded had Bil the Humper Clinton died though. Not sure on that one.

:laugh::laugh: dude that right there tells me you don't have a fucking clue what we're discussing here, you simply saw "conhog" and wanted to fight




Negative. I removed your invitation to go to the Cage but you got me all wrong. Why don't you simply reply to what I actually said.

I have no clue? Fucking clue? And you want me to go to the cage?

I don't think so.

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png




Negative. I removed your invitation to go to the Cage but you got me all wrong. Why don't you simply reply to what I actually said.

I have no clue? Fucking clue? And you want me to go to the cage?

I don't think so.

Dude, I've posted at least 4 times in this thread what Diplomatic Security is, every other poster knows who they are. You're admittance that you don't indicates that you haven't even bothered to slightly educate yourself on the topic, so I'm not interested in debating it with you.

Yes, I want you to take your attempts to start fights to the steel cage.

Last response from me to you in this thread.

Educate yourself at least a little before you respond to a topic.

[Robert A Whit]

FYI to all posters. I searched for diplomatic security.

Finding the .gov site, I pulled it up and it showed a photo of Hillary with diplomatic security guarding her.

Then I tried to use their site to obtain more information. Suddenly I was removed from the site and told that internet explorer can't find anything.

Well, I backed out of everything.

I even got off the internet.

I got back on and once more went to see if I can get Diplomatic security to come up.

Now it refuses to show me her photo or the page.

I tried one more site to get into it and again it blocks me.

I want to know if only I am blocked or are you guys also blocked?

Try to find out what the duties of diplomatic security entail. Also when in other countries try to find out if they preempt the Marines and do their jobs as I have always understood those jobs to be. I recall very well when our Marines defended our Embasy in Iran. Hell, they did not mention diplomatic security but showed uniformed marines standing at the perimeter and gates doing the guarding.

See what all you can get since Conhog seems to think two things....
1. That we blame the Marines. Who said they blame the Marines? I don't recall any posts saying that is the case.
2. See if you can find out if Embassies in other lands are primarily guarded not by the Marines but by what looks to me to be body guards for the Diplomatic corps. The guys I saw on Hillary's page in civlilan clothes seemed to be her bodyguards.

Anyway, that SOB Hillary would act a lot better to the congress had her kid gone down in gunfire.

Ask Conhog how civilian guards manage to defeat an incoming mortar attack too.

[Robert A Whit]

HistoryThe Marine Corps has a long history of cooperation with the Department of State, going back to the early days of the nation. From the raising of the United States flag (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Battle_of_Derne) at Derna (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Derna,_Libya), Tripoli (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tripoli) and the secret mission of Archibald H. Gillespie (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Archibald_H._Gillespie) in California, to the Boxer Rebellion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) at Peking (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Peking), Marines have served many times on special missions as couriers (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Courier), guards for embassies and legations, and to protect American citizens in unsettled areas.
The formal and permanent use of Marines as security guards began with the Foreign Service Act (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Foreign_Service_Act) of 1946, which authorized the Secretary of Navy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Navy) to, upon the request of the Secretary of State (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State), assign Marines to serve as custodians under the supervision of the senior diplomatic officer at a diplomatic post. The first joint Memorandum of Agreement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Memorandum_of_Agreement) was signed on 15 December 1948 regarding the provisions of assigning Marines overseas. Trained at the Foreign Service Institute (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Foreign_Service_Institute), the first Marines arrived at Tangier (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Tangier) and Bangkok (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Bangkok) in early 1949. The Marine Corps assumed the primary training responsibility in November 1954. The authority granted in the Foreign Service Act of 1946 has since been replaced by 10 U.S.C. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code) § 5983 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/5983.html) and the most recent Memorandum of Agreement was signed in August 2008.
In response to the 2012 Benghazi attack (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack), Congress ordered a near doubling of Marine Security Guards in the midst of a post-war drawdown in overall USMC numbers.[4] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-4)



If the Marines don't do the guarding, then why did Congress order Marines to be doubled yet not double Diplomatic security?

[Robert A Whit]

none of that disputes what I said. Marines provide INTERNAL security, Diplomatic Security provides EXTERNAL security.

Are you ever capable of just admitting you're wrong? I mean one would think that with the AMPLE opportunities you have to admit you're wrong you would know how to do so.

This does not belong in the CAGE since all it amounts to is a request to the board.

This is his first hostile post to me on this topic. Why is he attacking me then lower when i gave a very reasonable reply, with none of this shit, he accuses me of starting the fight?

I started no fight. He wanted me in the Cage but I find no need to be in the Cage.

Rather than deal with the post of Wikipedia material, he preferred to simply get all over my ass. Any comments?

[ConHog]

If the Marines don't do the guarding, then why did Congress order Marines to be doubled yet not double Diplomatic security?

okay one more post Robert, just to point out the ridiculousness of the above post.

If guns don't kill people, why then is Congress contemplating further gun bans?

Answer: Congress is stupid.

The State Department provides their own external security for embassies. In the form of the Diplomatic Security corp.

They are NOT civilians, they are a paramilitary unit of the State Dept.

Now, you have been schooled. Just admit it and move on. Sheesh

[Robert A Whit]

I won't disagree with you at all. That has nothing to do with what RSR and I were discussing which is that the US Marines were not in charge of security at that embassy when this happened.

Diplomatic Security allowed this to happen. PERIOD. I use as an example again the Secret Service. They get assistance from every local law enforcement agency when the President goes somewhere, but THEY are responsible if something happens. PERIOD.

In Embassies the Marines don't act on external threats unless told to by the Ambasador, they are under his direct authority, they are effectively HIS Marines. Diplomatic Security is not , they are under the authority of the State Department, the Director of Diplomatic Security to be specific, they do NOT answer to the ambassadors at each embassy.

If this is true, it would appear that the Ambassador can't use them to repel attacks. That order per your statement would have to come from DC.

Care to clear this up?

[taft2012]

Because Harry Truman was the last politician on a national level who truly believed "the buck stops here" applied to them.



Except when it came to the question of "Who lost China?"

That particular buck got passed around more than Taylor Swift.

[ConHog]

If this is true, it would appear that the Ambassador can't use them to repel attacks. That order per your statement would have to come from DC.

Care to clear this up?

okay, I tried to let you off easily, but I see you're going to persist, so forget what I said about not answering you in this thread .

Prepare thy anus Robert b/c I'm going to kick it.

So to your answer your latest inanity. You're right, the Ambassador does NOT control the Diplomatic Security team assigned to the Embassy, and they don't have to wait for an order to defend the embassy from DC because they have, are you ready for this standing orders from DC to defend the embassy.

Jesus Christ.

[Robert A Whit]

Has Conhog read all posts as he accused me of not doing?

What made him think the Marines got blamed? That is a bogus argument since RSR clearly posted that no Marines were on site.

So why the strawman argument over what Marines do or not do?

Then there is the matter that Hunt, Col Ret. I believe, stated that the onsite security were banned by Hillary from having any ammo?

So why should Conhog mount a full scale attack on me demanding me to say I am wrong when I simply posted from Wikipedia information anybody can read?

And why did he try to get me to head over to the Cage when my issue was not even with him so much as it is with Hillary?


Red States Rule says this: an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt laid the blame for the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the Benghazi, Libya American mission on Hillary Clinton and the State Department:


The State Department just allowed our guys to get killed. If you approve no bullets in guns for the mission security guards and an outhouse for a mission, you’re inviting it.
Earlier, on Howie Carr's radio show (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/13/Colonel-Hillary-Responsible-For-Unarmed-Security-Vulnerable-Embassies) Thursday, Colonel Hunt said that the American mission at Benghazi "was like a cardboard building, there wasn't even bullet proof glass." In addition, Hunt said the security guards inside the mission didn't have bullets:

Howie Carr: They weren't allowed to have bullets, is that correct?
Colonel Hunt: That's true. They were private security. The rules of engagement were ridiculous.
Hunt told Breitbart News that the new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, approved and signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since the 2011 fall of Khadafi's regime, severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.
He also stated that the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Secretary of State Clinton when she attached her signature to the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya document. Breitbart News has subsequently learned that under those rules of engagement, Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/State-Department-Rules-of-Engagement-Kept-Marines-Out-of-Tripoli-as-Well-as-Benghazi-in-Libya).
Hunt told Breitbart News that "the rules of engagement have been changing drastically over the last 10 years. . . The reason the surge in Iraq worked was we had another 40,000 soldiers and the rules of engagement were changed to allow our guys to shoot. What’s happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness. We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can't have bullets. This was all part of the point of not having a high profile in Libya."
According to Hunt, the debacle at the American mission in Benghazi is directly the result of Obama's new policies. "The policy of the Obama administration led to this," he said http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...es-at-Benghazi (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-Benghazi)

[ConHog]

Has Conhog read all posts as he accused me of not doing?

What made him think the Marines got blamed? That is a bogus argument since RSR clearly posted that no Marines were on site.

So why the strawman argument over what Marines do or not do?

Then there is the matter that Hunt, Col Ret. I believe, stated that the onsite security were banned by Hillary from having any ammo?

So why should Conhog mount a full scale attack on me demanding me to say I am wrong when I simply posted from Wikipedia information anybody can read?

And why did he try to get me to head over to the Cage when my issue was not even with him so much as it is with Hillary?



That's not how the debate about Marines got started Robert. It started as a discussion of giving the marines live ammo would have made no difference since they don't provide external security.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This does not belong in the CAGE since all it amounts to is a request to the board.

This is his first hostile post to me on this topic. Why is he attacking me then lower when i gave a very reasonable reply, with none of this shit, he accuses me of starting the fight?

I started no fight. He wanted me in the Cage but I find no need to be in the Cage.

Rather than deal with the post of Wikipedia material, he preferred to simply get all over my ass. Any comments?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Robert A Whit again.

Robert is there a fence post handy? One that you can easily get to?
If so , you will have better edification talking to the fence post than the person you are attempting to rationally debate with. Wise advice, don't knock your head against a stonewall.-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Will one or more of you please explain to me why Conhog acts all pissed off all the time?

I am watching weekly a program on Discovery and the subject is Bering Sea Gold. Maybe some of you watch it.

well, this jack off Captain of a barge to dredge gold is an ass hole.

He has the dispositon of a Lion who thinks somebody else will stick it to his female lion.

He has this god damned aura of total and sole authority that Conhog has.

When anybody talks to the man, he flies into a rage. He even was hired by some other guy to Captain a dredge last season and got so wild with the owner he punched him out in some Bar in Nome Alaska. This season he is using a dredge he got others to pay for and all we know of this ass hole is those on that barge get shouted at, cursed at and the only reason I can see why anybody stays on his dredge is for the gold. They flat despise the man.

Fucking Conhog announces he wants me in the Cage. What the fuck for?

Then he takes posts I obtain from Wikipedia personal and announces on his post in reply he will kick my ass after telling me I am correct.

What the hell is going on?

Maybe he pulled that shit in the Army but this forum is not the Army.

Conhog shows up pissed off and departs pissed off.

I sure need an explanation from some of you who know this guy.

[ConHog]

Will one or more of you please explain to me why Conhog acts all pissed off all the time?

I am watching weekly a program on Discovery and the subject is Bering Sea Gold. Maybe some of you watch it.

well, this jack off Captain of a barge to dredge gold is an ass hole.

He has the dispositon of a Lion who thinks somebody else will stick it to his female lion.

He has this god damned aura of total and sole authority that Conhog has.

When anybody talks to the man, he flies into a rage. He even was hired by some other guy to Captain a dredge last season and got so wild with the owner he punched him out in some Bar in Nome Alaska. This season he is using a dredge he got others to pay for and all we know of this ass hole is those on that barge get shouted at, cursed at and the only reason I can see why anybody stays on his dredge is for the gold. They flat despise the man.

Fucking Conhog announces he wants me in the Cage. What the fuck for?

Then he takes posts I obtain from Wikipedia personal and announces on his post in reply he will kick my ass after telling me I am correct.

What the hell is going on?

Maybe he pulled that shit in the Army but this forum is not the Army.

Conhog shows up pissed off and departs pissed off.

I sure need an explanation from some of you who know this guy.

:poop:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Will one or more of you please explain to me why Conhog acts all pissed off all the time?

I am watching weekly a program on Discovery and the subject is Bering Sea Gold. Maybe some of you watch it.

well, this jack off Captain of a barge to dredge gold is an ass hole.

He has the dispositon of a Lion who thinks somebody else will stick it to his female lion.

He has this god damned aura of total and sole authority that Conhog has.

When anybody talks to the man, he flies into a rage. He even was hired by some other guy to Captain a dredge last season and got so wild with the owner he punched him out in some Bar in Nome Alaska. This season he is using a dredge he got others to pay for and all we know of this ass hole is those on that barge get shouted at, cursed at and the only reason I can see why anybody stays on his dredge is for the gold. They flat despise the man.

Fucking Conhog announces he wants me in the Cage. What the fuck for?

Then he takes posts I obtain from Wikipedia personal and announces on his post in reply he will kick my ass after telling me I am correct.

What the hell is going on?

Maybe he pulled that shit in the Army but this forum is not the Army.

Conhog shows up pissed off and departs pissed off.

I sure need an explanation from some of you who know this guy.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Robert A Whit again.

My advice is chill dude. The brick wall can not do anything to you that you do not allow..
Jim gave ADVICE HERE TO IGNORE OTHERS THAT ACT THAT WAY. I took it , maybe you should consider it too.-Tyr

[red states rule]

Cal Thomas summed up the coverage of the liberal media on Hillary and the murder of the 4 US citizens

<iframe width="500" height="281" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119645" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[gabosaurus]

Conhog shows up pissed off and departs pissed off.
.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AH7pOUm5s9k" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[red states rule]

I would hardly call that situation "day to day" anyway.

Based on the past statements from the administration, the 9/11 attack on the embassy was "a bump in the road"

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Abbey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611728#post611728)
I would hardly call that situation "day to day" anyway."

Missed this one. yes Abbey, you're right, it wasn't a day to day thing. But certainly, the events that led to it were, and that is what the Diplomatic Security department does. They are the ones who read the tea leaves so to speak to sniff these things out before they happen. It's on THEIR advice that the State Department makes further decisions.

[Kathianne]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Abbey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611728#post611728)
I would hardly call that situation "day to day" anyway."

Missed this one. yes Abbey, you're right, it wasn't a day to day thing. But certainly, the events that led to it were, and that is what the Diplomatic Security department does. They are the ones who read the tea leaves so to speak to sniff these things out before they happen. It's on THEIR advice that the State Department makes further decisions.

Actually considering that the Brits and I believe Canadians had pulled all their people out of the area for lack of security, this was not a 'day-to-day' locale. Since State had decided to keep people there, should have been their communiques had top priority for months.

[red states rule]

As Hilary said " So what?" As of now no one has lost their job over this debacle. Hillary is held up as a role model for women in the liberal media. Situation normal when it comes to Obama's foreign policy

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Abbey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611728#post611728)
I would hardly call that situation "day to day" anyway."

Missed this one. yes Abbey, you're right, it wasn't a day to day thing. But certainly, the events that led to it were, and that is what the Diplomatic Security department does. They are the ones who read the tea leaves so to speak to sniff these things out before they happen. It's on THEIR advice that the State Department makes further decisions.

Oh hell yes. Hillary allowed that location 2 of your favorite guards. No Marines either.

Gee, she sure worked her ass off to protect that ambassador guy, huh?

Aren't you pleased that 2 lone state department protection was there?

What keeps you from complaining over this event?

Oh yeah, if you did bitch, I only missed it.

[ConHog]

Oh hell yes. Hillary allowed that location 2 of your favorite guards.
my favorite guards?



No Marines either.

now there were NO Marines there?



Gee, she sure worked her ass off to protect that ambassador guy, huh?

you do realize that the Sec of State is not directly overseeing every single person in the State Dept, right?


Aren't you pleased that 2 lone state department protection was there?

not particularly


What keeps you from complaining over this event?

more fun to make fun of your faux rage


Oh yeah, if you did bitch, I only missed it.
you miss so much that quibbling over one more seems unnecessary.

[red states rule]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Robert A Whit again.

Robert is there a fence post handy? One that you can easily get to?
If so , you will have better edification talking to the fence post than the person you are attempting to rationally debate with. Wise advice, don't knock your head against a stonewall.-Tyr

Took care of it for you Try

[Abbey Marie]

my favorite guards?


now there were NO Marines there?


you do realize that the Sec of State is not directly overseeing every single person in the State Dept, right?

not particularly

more fun to make fun of your faux rage

you miss so much that quibbling over one more seems unnecessary.

The poop inevitably and perhaps correctly flows uphill, Con. Just ask President Bush about his role in overseeing hurricanes.

[jimnyc]

you do realize that the Sec of State is not directly overseeing every single person in the State Dept, right?

Should she be aware of, or accountable for, mission critical AND security related requests, repeated requests, that took place over a period of time? If she was aware, she should be relieved of her duties, if she wasn't aware, she should be relieved of her duties. She was incompetent in this no matter how you slice it.

[ConHog]

Should she be aware of, or accountable for, mission critical AND security related requests, repeated requests, that took place over a period of time? If she was aware, she should be relieved of her duties, if she wasn't aware, she should be relieved of her duties. She was incompetent in this no matter how you slice it.

I've already stated that I agree that she absolutely bears part of the responsibility. Personally I find it hard to believe she wasn't made aware of certain tactical facts.

Which is not the same thing as saying she obviously is not personally managing every person or situation in the State Department. In fact one thing about the government is how people tend to not share intelligence, even with their bosses, so who the hell knows for sure....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually considering that the Brits and I believe Canadians had pulled all their people out of the area for lack of security, this was not a 'day-to-day' locale. Since State had decided to keep people there, should have been their communiques had top priority for months.

Those defending Hillary on this are not very bright. Repeated requests were made for more security, she is in charge==she gets the blame. The liberals and their brain dead allies want to give her a pass because they see her running in 2016. Remember these are the same clueless dumbasses that reward failure as if its a magnificent victory.
Clueless jerkweeds..--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Should she be aware of, or accountable for, mission critical AND security related requests, repeated requests, that took place over a period of time? If she was aware, she should be relieved of her duties, if she wasn't aware, she should be relieved of her duties. She was incompetent in this no matter how you slice it.

Totally agree. When other countries, our allies, began pulling their people out of area there should have been a meeting explaining that 'Benghazi' was looking problematic. Anything pertaining to that location needed to be a priority and pushed to the front.

It didn't happen. That is ultimately the Sec of State's job.

[red states rule]

Wow, I have never heard some many lame ass defenses offered up to shield who liberals called "the smartest women in the world". It is amazing that she can con so many people into saying how smart and Presidential she is on one hand - and on the other whine how she could not possibly be held responsible since she never knew all the details. Same excuses offered up with all the Clinton "issues" during the 1990's

[red states rule]

The Clinton News Network is defending Hillary and has determined the murder of 4 US citizens is no longer a story worth talking about So forget about it

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119694" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

When all else fails- blame Bush
<iframe width="500" height="280" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119712" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/hillary2016whatdiff/1141546-1-eng-GB/Hillary2016WhatDiff.jpg

[aboutime]

Keep this in mind when you hear her name......49494950.

[red states rule]

It is easy to see the liberal media is doing its best to downplay the hearings. They, like Hillary and Obama, wish these people would just go away




The Associated Press could not very well ignore today's hearing at which whistleblowers are testifying as to the events surrounding the Benghazi attack and the Obama administration's failed response thereto. So AP did the next best thing from its liberal perspective: it downplayed the hearing's significance, casting it as a purely partisan event in its headline (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-benghazi-hearing-stokes-political-controversy-155138775.html)as a "GOP hearing."



That is not mere MSM spin: it is blatant journalistic malpractice. This is not some unofficial hearing held under Republican auspices. It is an entirely official hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Yes, there has in recent times been a faux House "hearing" held by a political party for partisan purposes. That would be the "hearing (http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-hold-their-own-hearing-on-contraception-including-women-video)" held by Democrats in February 2012, featuring Sandra Fluke. More after the jump.



http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/GOP%20hearing.JPGNote: from the time that I first noticed the headline and before this item was posted, AP changed it to to the slightly more neutral "Lawmakers trade political charges on Benghazi." Even that headline casts the hearing in a political light rather than reporting that real questions of competence and cover-up are at stake. But the original headline is still out there on the web, as you'll see in the screencap here.



Note Two: The "GOP hearing" hearing headline was not something stuck on an AP story by some other news outlet publishing the report. Although it has now disappeared, I found at this official AP news site (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/RAW?SITE=AP).


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/05/08/associated-press-headline-casts-official-house-hearing-benghazi-go#ixzz2SkIM6yFK

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20130510-WWBenghazi20130510022602.jpg

[Gaffer]

First, a comment on the media. There was a russian propaganda machine in the old soviet union called TASS the soviet news agency. It controlled ALL news in the soviet union. We have it's equivalent today in the MSM. Stories that do not meet the govt's criteria do not get reported.


Benghazi was a hub for gun running to syria. Stevens was the head guy involved with it. Kind of the Ollie North of the time. The muslim brotherhood was who he dealt with. Al quead attacked to get the guns stored there. There were hundreds of attackers involved. As for why no action took place, I believe it was pure incompetence. No one knew what to do and were afraid to act without authority, and those who had the authority were busy with their own personal shit to be bothered. Hey, it's on the other side of the world, what difference does it make.


Al quaeda and the brotherhood are mortal enemies. AQ wants to attack and destroy everything non muslim right now. The brotherhood wants to insinuate themselves into societies and then destroy them. Dear leader has chosen to side with the brotherhood.

Benghazi will not be reported as it should be, the new TASS will see to that. Nothing will be properly investigated or reported on. Fast and furious, Benghazi, Boston bombing, are just a few of the cover ups going on. Welcome to the USSA soon to be known as the United islamic states of America.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

First, a comment on the media. There was a russian propaganda machine in the old soviet union called TASS the soviet news agency. It controlled ALL news in the soviet union. We have it's equivalent today in the MSM. Stories that do not meet the govt's criteria do not get reported.


Benghazi was a hub for gun running to syria. Stevens was the head guy involved with it. Kind of the Ollie North of the time. The muslim brotherhood was who he dealt with. Al quead attacked to get the guns stored there. There were hundreds of attackers involved. As for why no action took place, I believe it was pure incompetence. No one knew what to do and were afraid to act without authority, and those who had the authority were busy with their own personal shit to be bothered. Hey, it's on the other side of the world, what difference does it make.


Al quaeda and the brotherhood are mortal enemies. AQ wants to attack and destroy everything non muslim right now. The brotherhood wants to insinuate themselves into societies and then destroy them. Dear leader has chosen to side with the brotherhood.

Benghazi will not be reported as it should be, the new TASS will see to that. Nothing will be properly investigated or reported on. Fast and furious, Benghazi, Boston bombing, are just a few of the cover ups going on. Welcome to the USSA soon to be known as the United islamic states of America.

OBAMA WAS ARMING TERRORIST GROUPS !!!!! That is the short and simple of it and why the cover up was necessary. Obama the CIC ordered the stand down too. Two very brave Americans trained to be great warriors disobeyed that treasonous order and did their patriotic Constitutional duty!! They paid with their lives , a message the obama regime wants sent to anybody that counters them!

-F-them, I defy their worthless, sorry traitorous asses and will myself never stop condemning this corrupt treasonous regime!!! -:flyflag:Tyr

[red states rule]

How stupid can a liberal get? With Bill Maher the sky is the limit

<iframe width="500" height="281" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121196" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[Kathianne]

I understand and empathize with all who figure that on the 5th year in, this administration 'just won't be touched.' While I think the IRS thing is going to be a big deal, the calls for the funeral of Benghazi are premature. Here's the round-up I found this evening, notice like the IRS post I put up earlier tonight, these are primarily MSM, even liberal outlets:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/weekend-wrap-up-of-benghazi-coverage-notable-quotes/


<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">vs_lines = 3;</script> Weekend Wrap-up of Benghazi Coverage – Notable Quotes (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/weekend-wrap-up-of-benghazi-coverage-notable-quotes/) http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/themes/legal/images/comments.png (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/weekend-wrap-up-of-benghazi-coverage-notable-quotes/#comments)
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/themes/legal/images/link.png (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/weekend-wrap-up-of-benghazi-coverage-notable-quotes/)
Posted by Mandy Nagy (http://legalinsurrection.com/author/mandy_nagy/) Sunday, May 12, 2013 at 6:00pm



The weekend’s media coverage on Benghazi brought in some notable quotes and points of interest:


Petraeus: talking points “essentially useless”
When the Benghazi talking points were being reviewed and revised by other agencies after the September 2012 attack, former CIA Director David Petraeus indicated that the revised talking points were “essentially useless.”

In emails obtained by ABC News, Petraeus is also quoted as saying, “I would just as soon not use them. But it’s their [the White House’s] call.” h/t HotAir

(http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/12/abc-petraeus-called-final-benghazi-talking-points-useless-the-day-before-rices-full-ginsburg/)

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PEzN9TuN4G8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>


NY Times’ Dowd: admin’s behavior before and during Benghazi “unworthy of the greatest power on earth”


In a Sunday Op-Ed in the NY Times entitled When Myths Collide in the Capital (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=2&#h[]), Maureen Dowd opines on Benghazi and it includes some harsh criticism for the White House:



The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.


She describes the competing narratives as Déjà Vu reminiscent of the Clinton years. h/t Breitbart

(http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/12/Dowd-Clinton-Deja-Vu)


THE capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”


NBC’s David Gregory: Carney’s explanation on revised Benghazi talking points “not accurate”


In an earlier post here at Legal Insurrection, we also noted that NBC’s David Gregory Called Carney’s Explanation on Revised Benghazi Talking Points “Not Accurate” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/nbcs-david-gregory-calls-carneys-explanation-on-revised-benghazi-talking-points-not-accurate/). Gregory asks Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who has led the state department’s review of Benghazi, “is the administration guilty of playing politics with terrorism?” Watch the video (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/nbcs-david-gregory-calls-carneys-explanation-on-revised-benghazi-talking-points-not-accurate/).


Rep. Mike Rogers: “I do think we’re going to see more whistle-blowers”



Congressional Republicans called Sunday for depositions of high-ranking officials and more testimony from whistle-blowers, indicating that additional whistle-blowers have contacted congressional committees since three others testified last week. From FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/12/top-house-republicans-talk-about-depositions-more-whistleblowers-in-benghazi/):



Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told “Fox News Sunday” that more potential and self-proclaimed “whistle-blowers” might come forward after three of them – career State Department foreign service employees – testified last week before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.


“We have had people come forward because of the (hearing) and say we would also like to talk,” the Michigan Republican told “Fox News Sunday.” “I do think we’re going to see more whistle-blowers. Certainly my committee has been contacted; I think other committees as well.”


Rogers’ remarks came as Thomas Pickering, the former U.S. ambassador who helped write a report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, defended his assessment but absolved Clinton.


Robert Gates: some Benghazi critics have “cartoonish” view of military capability



Meanwhile, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described some critics of Benghazi as having a “cartoonish” view of military capability (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/). He scoffed at critics’ suggestions that the presence of an aircraft overhead might have served as a deterrent or that a small number of special forces could have been sent in to assist during the 2012 attack.



“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”

[Kathianne]

Totally a non-MSM source, until today, I'd not been aware of it. Still, perhaps the seeds of why the MSM is suddenly paying attention, though not the author's point, but mine:

http://downgradediary.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-moral-disaster-of-benghazi.html


Sunday, May 12, 2013 The Moral Disaster of Benghazi, Obamacare, IRS
Even to conservatives it sounds dowdy to talked about the moral issues. But that is what is happening.

There is, finally, attention being paid to Benghazi, to Obamacare, to governmental power as manifested by the IRS. Even the Left has to admit there is something to it. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0)

...

Make no mistake about it, however: Morality is no outdated social habit. It remains the most important thing in the minds of homo sapiens.

That's a theme the American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brook struck in two talks I heard last year, and his book The Road to Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Freedom-Fight-Enterprise-ebook/dp/B007UPDGMM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368394373&sr=8-1&keywords=road+to+freedom). The key point: our moral judgement trumps everything else. Morality is the No. 1 element in our perceptions.

Again, look at the elections, as I recall it, polls showed most voters thought Romney was more competent, Obama more sympathetic. Look who won. Voters judge presidents on moral qualities -- whether they are brave, sympathetic, just, strong, perhaps most of all fair and honest.

Let's go back to Watergate. You know what really did Nixon in? His questionable tax returns (http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument). I remember that my father, a staunch Republican, looked sick when it became apparent Nixon was playing fast and loose with his tax returns.

Hey, he was Tricky Dick. Americans weren't surprised by dirty tricks. Heck, they would have been disappointed if Nixon hadn't done something sleazy.

But cutting corners on his taxes -- even if it was within the letter of the law -- shattered his supporters' moral understanding of him. Everyone knew he was angry and vindictive and ruthless. But he at least seemed to be someone who shared those old-fashioned, mid-American values of fair play and stolid adherence to the law. Once he broke those moral barriers, he was toast.

...

Clinton's moral contract was to keep America prosperous and out of trouble. His sexual life -- which every sentient adult knew or should have known was highly interesting -- was not part of the deal. He turned out to have the right virtues for the U.S. 1992-2000: sympathy for people, prudence regarding about the nation and people could do and wanted to do, palpable concern for people, even as global trade and technological advances made life tough for many.

Ditto Bush. In this case the contract got changed: He had to keep us safe from terrorists. It turned out he had the requisite virtues: strength and courage to keep us fighting terrorism. He too had sympathy for people, though the left sneered: A majority of voters sensed that he wanted to help people and cared about them, even in difficult times.

Voters have felt that about Obama. I work for an organization that commissions polling, and published verbatim accounts (http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/verbatim-impressions-of-obama/) from voters polled about Obama. His supporters felt he cared about them and was doing his darndest. Those moral virtues counted more than success.

But now? The president and his closest advisers -- at least as far as we can see as of today -- stood by while Americans died. They so far have displayed no plausible sympathy for the men. Nor have they displayed any convincing outrage. These are moral reactions; Obama and the Obama crew have failed to show that they have responded morally to this disaster.

Nor, apparently, did they show the virtues of courage in responding. Nor have they honored justice in the oldest yet still most convincing way: They have not punished those responsible for the deaths.

These are moral failings: The failure to recognize, condemn and fight evil, the failure to show courage and resolve in the face of evil, the failure to acknowledge and correct errors.

The same holds true for the IRS scandal. A supposedly free people make an extraordinary concession to the government when they file tax returns: In an inversion of the normal American rights, we are forced to testify against ourselves. This is morally acceptable if and only if the government sticks to the highest standards of fairness. When the government breaks that agreement, the people are justifiably outraged.

Yet, speaking of outrage, where is Obama? If he's said anything, I haven't heard it.

Presidents succeed when they maintain the moral contract the people demand of them. Hoover and Roosevelt both bungled the Depression. But Roosevelt made the people feel he cared and that he was outraged: Sympathy and outrage are key moral expressions. Herbert Hoover, bless him, was unable to do either. The people rejected him.

Voters accepted Reagan's failures, such as Iran-Contra, because they felt he was brave and warm-hearted. They rejected Carter's failures because they perceived him as cold and timid.

Obamacare looms as an additional threat. So far voters have accepted it because Obama and the Democrats at least seemed to care about them and were courageous enough to try something.

But if it begins to seem that the Obamacare bureaucrats don't really care about them, people will go crazy.

Again, this isn't about policy or even execution. It's about morality, the full range of morality, including fairness and compassion and courage and prudence.

That's why this week is so disastrous for the Left: their moral image, their only real possession, is being shredded.

[red states rule]

As they did for hubby Bill, the liberal media is acting as defense attorney for Hillary




Benghazi hearing's real target: Clinton in 2016

Rep. Darrell Issa must be ruing his bad luck. The hearing he carefully orchestrated to pick at the scab of Benghazi (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/politics/benghazi-hearing/index.html)was stepped on by the verdict in the Jodi Arias murder trial (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/justice/arizona-jodi-arias-trial/index.html)and by the story of three women held captive and brutalized for a decade in Cleveland. He was out-sensationalized and out-tawdried this week despite his own best efforts and those of his committee colleagues and staff members.


That is not to say that the tragic events that unfolded last year in Benghazi are not worthy of serious investigation. They just didn't get them from Issa's committee. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her passionate testimony in December, we need to know what went wrong to prevent future tragedies. That's why she began an investigation immediately after the attacks. But Issa and his co-inquisitors were more interested in the arithmetic of 2016 presidential politics than with the events of last September 11 in Libya.



The testimony of Gregory Hicks, the former Libya deputy chief of mission, was striking and at times moving, and offered useful additional perspectives. He said he had suffered negative repercussions because he challenged the State Department line on what happened in Benghazi. But even while some of what he said was new and resonant, the Republicans on the committee weren't listening. They focused less on learning what could have been done differently than on trying to establish that Clinton and her closest associates had tried to cover up the tragedy.

On this point, very little was revealed that was either material or new. Hicks said a Clinton aide had been angry at him over how he conducted himself with investigators after the incident. He disputed the way the attack and its origins were depicted by senior officials on television. He deplored the losses that took place. But to say that any of this points at a cover-up "has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize-class fiction attached to it," as former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the committee that first investigated the attacks suggested. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/51819200#51819200)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/opinion/rothkopf-benghazi-hearing/index.html?hpt=op_t1

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c10921120130513120100.jpg

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz051313dAPR20130513094523.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

This quote from Thomas Sowell pretty much sums up Benghazi...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/14/lies_about_libya_118394.html

Despite Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's loudly proclaimed question "What difference, at this point, does it make?" the difference is between an honest mistake and a calculated lie to deceive the American people, in order to win an election.

[actsnoblemartin]

hold on mrs clinton there's some verbal diarrhea on the floor.

[actsnoblemartin]

do i trust an administration that cant even call a pig a pig, i.e. wont even call it a war on islamic terrorism, let alone war on terrorism

turn around, and ill tell you

:buttkick:

[aboutime]

hold on mrs clinton there's some verbal diarrhea on the floor.


Martin. Are you aware of the reason Bill and Hillary only had One child?

How about drawing your own conclusion after seeing Hillary....before the Botox.....4991.

I heard another explanation a few days ago, when someone was asked the same question.
And the answer was....."Monica swallowed."

If that offended anyone. I didn't lie. Bill Did.....IS that okay?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Martin. Are you aware of the reason Bill and Hillary only had One child?

How about drawing your own conclusion after seeing Hillary....before the Botox.....4991.

I heard another explanation a few days ago, when someone was asked the same question.
And the answer was....."Monica swallowed."

If that offended anyone. I didn't lie. Bill Did.....IS that okay?

That depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

[aboutime]

That depends on what the definition of 'is' is.


Marcus. Glad you caught that. I left out the parens. We all know what that means. And Hillary will soon have her own "DENIAL" word to work with too!

[red states rule]

The 2016 race is on as far as the liberal media is concerned and their defense of Hillary is unwavering
<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121239" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[actsnoblemartin]

she is such a disgrace. I wouldnt allow her to be a dog catcher!

[red states rule]

Over at DNCT host Alex Twit offered up this lame excuse for Hillary's cold hearted comment
<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121240" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

she is such a disgrace. I wouldnt allow her to be a dog catcher!

Martin, your liberal pals out in CA see her as your next President. and the liberal media have already started working on her campaign

[Jeff]

Martin. Are you aware of the reason Bill and Hillary only had One child?

How about drawing your own conclusion after seeing Hillary....before the Botox.....4991.

I heard another explanation a few days ago, when someone was asked the same question.
And the answer was....."Monica swallowed."

If that offended anyone. I didn't lie. Bill Did.....IS that okay?

LOL this just made me feel all of Bill's extra marital affairs are ok :laugh:

[Jeff]

Martin, your liberal pals out in CA see her as your next President. and the liberal media have already started working on her campaign
The way I see it if you kill more than one person you can receive the death penalty she is now proven to be in some way responsible for 4 we know of, fry her

[aboutime]

she is such a disgrace. I wouldnt allow her to be a dog catcher!


Martin. Most of us agree, and we all know. What you said above was....a Massive Insult to Dog catchers everywhere! But RIGHT you are.

This is what Hillary looks like today...while hiding from the press.... 4996

[red states rule]

New bumper sticker


Hillary 2016 - What's Difference Does it Make?

[Jeff]

New bumper sticker


Hillary 2016 - What's Difference Does it Make?


Honestly if we get to 2016 without going belly up or having a revolutionary war the country will be in the shape I am sure of what difference does it make

[red states rule]

Honestly if we get to 2016 without going belly up or having a revolutionary war the country will be in the shape I am sure of what difference does it make

The economy is not improving. I know from the OT I am working in default

Next up from Hillary and her supporters will be the "vast right wing conspiracy" excuse

[Jeff]

New bumper sticker


Hillary 2016 - What's Difference Does it Make?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.

[red states rule]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.

Your credit is good Jeff - you can owe me