Who gives a shit about some retired 05? We should just take one guys opinion as the gold standard? This is non sequitur anyway. The issue is not whether the military acted responsibly, it's why did witch sec state lie about everything. The fact that she denied extra security when it was requested? The fact that she blamed the attack on a youtube video? The fact that she fomented violent regime changes? Maybe those men couldn't have been saved that night, I don't know, but what is perfectly clear is that she lied through her crooked yellow teeth about what really happened whenever she got the opportunity...just like with the email server.
Retired O5? Read the article again. Not a "retired O5" actually a retired 3 star and the top Army lawyer during the time period. He might just know a thing or two, and kind of hard to call him biased considering he was the Republican's attorney that they hired.
She can't even wipe out a 74 year old Socialist and you think she's going to run Trump off the field? LOL
Pretty sure she's leading by 3 million + votes, delegates, super delegates...seems like Sander's was wiped out awhile ago, that he can't accept it notwithstanding.
If it weren't for the Superdelegates, she'd be in for a real slugfest with Sanders. But as the Democratic Party often does, they rig the system to stop people they don't officially endorse. The superdelegates basically put their thumb on the scale for the candidate they want - to hell with their liberal sheeple.
It doesn't matter. My point stands. Your interjection has nothing to do with BoilerJS' point. He never questioned whether or not the military made the right decision, which is what your stupid article is about. You cannot stay on topic. You get shown up in every post. Then deflect and change the subject. Weak minded.
Hurt him with whom - Mitt Romney? Most people couldn't give a damn about his taxes. He's already released his financial statements and is currently being audited by the IRS. Most people I know try to take as many deductions as they are lawfully allowed. Don't know many people who pay more than they have to. What a weak argument.
She has something like 4+ times the lead in pledged delegates that Obama had at this point in 2008 give or take. She's up almost 250, and Obama finished up only something like 60 pledged delegates ahead.
lol
I did say that she will ultimately win the Democrat nomination. However, Sanders is making her sweat much harder than she, her campaign, or the Democrat Establishment ever expected. There's no denying this. If the Democrat Party is really the party of the people, why do they even have superdelegates? Shouldn't the primary/caucus voters decide by themselves, not the party bureaucrats?
Yes and no.
Again, no...he isn't. SOMEONE was going to rise up. No party enjoys a non-President running unopposed. The completely proportional setup that the Dems chose almost guarantees a nominee won't be selected til near the end of the process.
I agree with much of what you said until the last sentence. Clinton can't rely on millennial voters to turn out in the numbers they did for Obama. (AA's are baked in for HRC - no denying that.) It will come down to white women and independents to decide this election and they will have a decision to make on which candidates' vision of the future they like better.
She doesn't have to. Hispanics, you keep forgetting Hispanics. Key in battleground states, historically high disapproval ratings for Drumpf. It will not come down to independents. Obama lost independents to Romney. Still won by 4 pts and comfortably in the EC. He lost white women to Romney, 56-42.
This is what he wrote: "I have no use for Hillary. Anyone that lies about how our brave young men died will never get my vote. She fkd up, just admit the mistake and move on. Don't throw a scape goat to jail for creating a video that had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi."
BO had a super majority. What immigration reform bill did he put forward? LOL. Democrats have always wanted their slave labor. It's a big part of the party history.
You seem to forget that something like 6M Republicans didn't vote in 2012 for Romney (they didn't vote). Trump will get many of these and he'll also peel off quite a few moderate Dems.
ah the old silent majority argument again. I love it when folks bring out the secret millions who sat out the last election(s) but will come out now in vast numbers.
Yes, yes, go out, find all the Hispanics and explain to them why they should really be voting for Drumpf.
and this was talking about the youtube video or denied security requests?! nope! It was talking about the military's response to the attack.
There is truth to that.
lol "She fkd up, just admit the mistake and move on." Seems to me this line is about what happened. But yeah, I'm the wrong guy for addressing the actual substantive part of what happened not about the video. And the security requests weren't actually for Benghazi, but were for Tripoli.
I can take it to the bank, but they tend to like things that have value.
Think you're wrong about women. They are smarter than the Democrats and HRC give them credit for. He will do better with them than you or the Dems think, because they care more about the economy and security than the social issues and social engineering the Dems always seem to bring up.
so i post directly from the state dept accountability review board report and you post the nyt. good for you!
lol you made a claim, I refuted that claim. Whether or not the security was sufficient or not is a different claim from "repeated requests for more security." Obviously, the security was not sufficient but the requests for more security that went up official channels were actually directed towards Tripoli.
no dude. only in your dream world where you only read what you want to read. Are you really so brainwashed?
First from your own link, Stevens asked for and received an extension on the three security guards already there just months before the attacks (June) and he brought two additional ones with him on the eve of the attack. In fact, according to CNN, the various security requests going back a year were in fact for 3-5 security personnel, although one person said he requested 12 at one point, but there is little evidence for that but his word. Of course, given the scale/type of attack, you tell me how 12 would have fared much better. Still, he had five security agents with him at the time, and that's what he'd been asking for.
Then why doesn't your analysis agree with what the review board concluded? Oh because you're cherry picking.
The review board was looking back at the entirety of the Benghazi special mission. So on a whole certainly for most of the mission's existence, it was short staffed with security.
you can call it "happenstance" all you want to, on the night of the attacks, they had the exact number of folks they were asking for. It wasn't enough. So, even if they'd gotten EXACTLY what they asked for, from the start, for the entirety of the time there, guess what, EXACT same result would have happened.
you are a sad little man. It's noted in the report that 2 were there because of travel detail.
