Crooked Hillary

[qazplm]

you are a sad little man. It's noted in the report that 2 were there because of travel detail.
On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters requesting a minimum of 13 "Temporary Duty" (TDY) U.S. security personnel for Libya, which he said could be made up of DS agents, DoD Site Security Team (SST) personnel, or some combination of the two. These TDY security personnel were needed to meet the requested security posture in Tripoli and Benghazi. The State Department never fulfilled this request and, according to Eric Nordstrom, State Department headquarters never responded to the request with a cable.

Wait, I thought we were only supposed to consider Accountability Review Board and not cites like the NYT or CNN?

It's funny, you pulled that from the CNN link I gave you, where I stated that one person claimed he asked for more (12 not 13) but there's no evidence he did other than his claims. Meanwhile that ARB you like so much says Stevens made multiple requests for five people. So the actual AMB asks for five, some other guy, not the AMB says he wanted more. Great. Who do we go with? The AMB or the security guy who wants triple the number?

But let me ask you this question. Even though there's no evidence for the 12 or 13 claim...let's assume that was asked for.

Should the State Department, given limited funding, and limited assets, but many small and medium sized outposts in dangerous locations just give however many security personnel as are requested?

Was it even possible to give Benghazi 12 or 13 people given the fact that those assets and funds are not unlimited?

Given that there were DOZENS of attackers with mortars and automatic weapons, would 12 or 13 people vice 5 really made a difference?

I get it. You are DEEPLY INVESTED in the idea that Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for those deaths. That she purposefully lied about them to help Obama's re-election. So you have no interest in anything more than a surface look or questions about what happened.

OTOH, I recognize that sh*t happens. Sh*t happened in the Marine barracks under Reagan. Sh*t happened on 9/11 under Bush. We have limited resources and we have a bureaucracy and we have all sorts of folks out there under all sorts of dangers and we have to figure out, 100% of the time, where the next attack will come from and how to stop it.

And we will fail again in the future. Multiple times. Under Dem and Rep Presidents and Secretary's of State, and in most of those cases, it won't be because any of those people were trying to do anything other than their best.

But sure, I'm the sad little man.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Wait, I thought we were only supposed to consider Accountability Review Board and not cites like the NYT or CNN?

It's funny, you pulled that from the CNN link I gave you, where I stated that one person claimed he asked for more (12 not 13) but there's no evidence he did other than his claims. Meanwhile that ARB you like so much says Stevens made multiple requests for five people. So the actual AMB asks for five, some other guy, not the AMB says he wanted more. Great. Who do we go with? The AMB or the security guy who wants triple the number?

But let me ask you this question. Even though there's no evidence for the 12 or 13 claim...let's assume that was asked for.

Should the State Department, given limited funding, and limited assets, but many small and medium sized outposts in dangerous locations just give however many security personnel as are requested?

Was it even possible to give Benghazi 12 or 13 people given the fact that those assets and funds are not unlimited?

Given that there were DOZENS of attackers with mortars and automatic weapons, would 12 or 13 people vice 5 really made a difference?

I get it. You are DEEPLY INVESTED in the idea that Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for those deaths. That she purposefully lied about them to help Obama's re-election. So you have no interest in anything more than a surface look or questions about what happened.

OTOH, I recognize that sh*t happens. Sh*t happened in the Marine barracks under Reagan. Sh*t happened on 9/11 under Bush. We have limited resources and we have a bureaucracy and we have all sorts of folks out there under all sorts of dangers and we have to figure out, 100% of the time, where the next attack will come from and how to stop it.

And we will fail again in the future. Multiple times. Under Dem and Rep Presidents and Secretary's of State, and in most of those cases, it won't be because any of those people were trying to do anything other than their best.

But sure, I'm the sad little man.

I pulled the quote directly from my 2 links. They are both government reports. I'm not deeply invested in anything except for lying pigs should get out. He requested, almost on a monthly basis, more security. Other security officers, in their testimony, requested more security. The CIA gave their people at the annex nearby more security. Now you want to say sh*t happens, I agree. But the gdmf sec of state has a responsibility to the American people to either tell the truth or say nothing if it's prudent to say nothing. Making shit up is not an option.

 

[qazplm]

I pulled the quote directly from my 2 links. They are both government reports. I'm not deeply invested in anything except for lying pigs should get out. He requested, almost on a monthly basis, more security. Other security officers, in their testimony, requested more security. The CIA gave their people at the annex nearby more security. Now you want to say sh*t happens, I agree. But the gdmf sec of state has a responsibility to the American people to either tell the truth or say nothing if it's prudent to say nothing. Making shit up is not an option.

right so it's all because of the video? all of this anger is because they initially said it was because of a video and then a few days later said no it was a terrorist group. Because...GRRRR Hillary, GRRRRR Obama!

Got it.

 

[CWS]

I don't know who will win. Many Christian voters had a tough time voting for Romney due to his religion, which is considered to be a cult in many people's eyes.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

right so it's all because of the video? all of this anger is because they initially said it was because of a video and then a few days later said no it was a terrorist group. Because...GRRRR Hillary, GRRRRR Obama!

Got it.

She bullshits about important government work like Benghazi or her email server and then sloooowly backtracks into the truth as she gets busted out. Then when people say she's a liar you jump to defend her honor! then after 2 pages of posts you admit she lies. you're a trip.

 

[qazplm]

She bullshits about important government work like Benghazi or her email server and then sloooowly backtracks into the truth as she gets busted out. Then when people say she's a liar you jump to defend her honor! then after 2 pages of posts you admit she lies. you're a trip.

CDS. You hated her before Benghazi, and you hate her now. It's unhealthy the level of rage.

 

[Bruce1]

Wait, I thought we were only supposed to consider Accountability Review Board and not cites like the NYT or CNN?

It's funny, you pulled that from the CNN link I gave you, where I stated that one person claimed he asked for more (12 not 13) but there's no evidence he did other than his claims. Meanwhile that ARB you like so much says Stevens made multiple requests for five people. So the actual AMB asks for five, some other guy, not the AMB says he wanted more. Great. Who do we go with? The AMB or the security guy who wants triple the number?

But let me ask you this question. Even though there's no evidence for the 12 or 13 claim...let's assume that was asked for.

Should the State Department, given limited funding, and limited assets, but many small and medium sized outposts in dangerous locations just give however many security personnel as are requested?

Was it even possible to give Benghazi 12 or 13 people given the fact that those assets and funds are not unlimited?

Given that there were DOZENS of attackers with mortars and automatic weapons, would 12 or 13 people vice 5 really made a difference?

I get it. You are DEEPLY INVESTED in the idea that Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for those deaths. That she purposefully lied about them to help Obama's re-election. So you have no interest in anything more than a surface look or questions about what happened.

OTOH, I recognize that sh*t happens. Sh*t happened in the Marine barracks under Reagan. Sh*t happened on 9/11 under Bush. We have limited resources and we have a bureaucracy and we have all sorts of folks out there under all sorts of dangers and we have to figure out, 100% of the time, where the next attack will come from and how to stop it.

And we will fail again in the future. Multiple times. Under Dem and Rep Presidents and Secretary's of State, and in most of those cases, it won't be because any of those people were trying to do anything other than their best.

But sure, I'm the sad little man.

Qaz, the other examples you mention didn't have our government issuing knowingly false claims about the cause of the tragedies. This places the Benghazi tragedy in a very different light...at least to most people. These kind of intentional efforts to mislead the public is precisely why HRC has a significant trust issue to deal with.

 

[qazplm]

Qaz, the other examples you mention didn't have our government issuing knowingly false claims about the cause of the tragedies. This places the Benghazi tragedy in a very different light...at least to most people. These kind of intentional efforts to mislead the public is precisely why HRC has a significant trust issue to deal with.

The only people who believe she actively lied are folks who are already prone to hate her.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

The only people who believe she actively lied are folks who are already prone to hate her.

Hillary Clinton lied under oath. She is a total traitor to the United States 100 percent. Do you really believe that woman didn't lie? First off just think about that to yourself. Listen to yourself for a second. Her husband got on TV and told the entire world repeatedly he did not have sexual relations with "that woman". Then it turned out they were having more than that and then half the high priced prostitutes in DC claimed he was smacking them around and biting their skin off like a Mike Tyson boxing match and sued him. Clinton actually settled with those court cases. He settled. Do you realize that? You settle when you know you are beat. You ought to read those cases what was alleged. Some women wrote books about it. So think about that with Hillary.

The truth is that Bill Clinton and Hillary are British agents that were sheep dipped into his country through CIA(a front for British Intelligence under old system). They had an arranged marriage. This is why there is just so much drama in their relationship. It is a front and behind the scenes it is disaster. These are hardcore enemy combatants on American soil here to savage this country. They do not represent you or this country. They are savage traitors of the highest possible magnitude. Many of US politicians have arranged marriages and this is why so many high priced prostitutes live there as spies for many countries around the world. A lot of the time they get drunk and start talken about their plans like Dick Cheney did when he flapped his lips about the World Trade Centers before it happened. He was bragging to her with smug arrogant froth. DC Madam didn't make it very long once that broke out, because the prostitute told Madam about the whole thang. Hillary Clinton on a government salary has over a billion in a blind trust overseas and has over several billion in her slush fund bribery account she calls a foundation. Her offenses are beyond serious. It is earth shattering. This is not a war between Clinton and Republicans. This entire government is filled with pure and absolute traitors. They are are in the same club and Americans ain't invited. Lets just clear that up.

Democrats know who their cuck master is. They know who they need to simper to and kneel before. Here look at Clinton cuck to the queen. Look at em cuck. Look at Hillary smug smiled behind. She had a real nice chat with the queen because some nice donations are on the way into her slushy funds. Oh she got her payday comen.

 

[Bruce1]

The only people who believe she actively lied are folks who are already prone to hate her.

I can't believe this response, can't believe it. Have you ever looked at the timeline of the comments made by her and the State Dept over that weekend? How's life in the bubble?

 

[qazplm]

I can't believe this response, can't believe it. Have you ever looked at the timeline of the comments made by her and the State Dept over that weekend? How's life in the bubble?

Of course you can't because Hillary can't just be wrong, she has to be evil.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Of course you can't because Hillary can't just be wrong, she has to be evil.

She can't be both? LOL

 

[qazplm]

She can't be both? LOL

she could be, the vast majority of politicians are not evil though, and she's not evil. Heck, Trump isn't evil. He's massively reckless and not particularly...intellectually curious...but he's not evil.
Heck, GWB wasn't evil. Now, he had some evil mofos working for him...but he wasn't.

 

[Bruce1]

Of course you can't because Hillary can't just be wrong, she has to be evil.

Or totally incompetent.

 

[qazplm]

Or totally incompetent.

really? You don't even believe that.

 

[Bruce1]

really? You don't even believe that.

incompetent
(ɪnˈkɒmpɪtənt)
adj
1. not possessing the necessary ability, skill, etc to do or carry out a task; incapable
2. marked by lack of ability, skill, etc

I think that accurately sums it up......yup!

 

[qazplm]

incompetent
(ɪnˈkɒmpɪtənt)
adj
1. not possessing the necessary ability, skill, etc to do or carry out a task; incapable
2. marked by lack of ability, skill, etc

I think that accurately sums it up......yup!

then, as graciously as I can say it, you aren't very...observant. Most folks, including many on the right, recognize Hillary is not remotely "incompetent." Nor is Obama. But that's the mantra that gets trotted out for every Dem President. It's an attempt to fight back against the idea that liberals are the intellectuals (no, really they are really dumb and stupid and incompetent!).

 

[Bruce1]

then, as graciously as I can say it, you aren't very...observant. Most folks, including many on the right, recognize Hillary is not remotely "incompetent." Nor is Obama. But that's the mantra that gets trotted out for every Dem President. It's an attempt to fight back against the idea that liberals are the intellectuals (no, really they are really dumb and stupid and incompetent!).

Nice diversion/generalization Qaz. If you read the news reports from ABC, NBC, CBS, etc that covered the aftermath investigations of the Benghazi tragedy politicians on both side of the aisle said that the communications errors were the result of incompetence, not an intentional misleading of the American people. HRC was the head of the State Department so I think it is very evident that she was incompetent. In addition, she was a coward in that she wouldn't go on National TV that Sunday. She sent Rice instead.

Did you really mean that Liberals are THE intellectuals? Are you really saying that Conservatives are dumb and stupid? SMH

 

[qazplm]

Nice diversion/generalization Qaz. If you read the news reports from ABC, NBC, CBS, etc that covered the aftermath investigations of the Benghazi tragedy politicians on both side of the aisle said that the communications errors were the result of incompetence, not an intentional misleading of the American people. HRC was the head of the State Department so I think it is very evident that she was incompetent. In addition, she was a coward in that she wouldn't go on National TV that Sunday. She sent Rice instead.

Did you really mean that Liberals are THE intellectuals? Are you really saying that Conservatives are dumb and stupid? SMH

No, they said the communication errors were caused by confusion. You know, the type that happens in the immediate aftermath of something like Benghazi. But EVEN if I believed that particular issue was based on incompetence, one issue does not make someone "incompetent."

 

[Bruce1]

No, they said the communication errors were caused by confusion. You know, the type that happens in the immediate aftermath of something like Benghazi. But EVEN if I believed that particular issue was based on incompetence, one issue does not make someone "incompetent."

No Qaz. I suggest someone with your advanced intellect would do a little research before making untrue statements. There were multiple reports from multiple sources that claimed incompetence throughout the incident.

 

[qazplm]

No Qaz. I suggest someone with your advanced intellect would do a little research before making untrue statements. There were multiple reports from multiple sources that claimed incompetence throughout the incident.

lol yes I'm sure that newsmax, foxnews and other outlets claimed and continue to claim "incompetence."

 

[SDBoiler1]

then, as graciously as I can say it, you aren't very...observant. Most folks, including many on the right, recognize Hillary is not remotely "incompetent." Nor is Obama. But that's the mantra that gets trotted out for every Dem President. It's an attempt to fight back against the idea that liberals are the intellectuals (no, really they are really dumb and stupid and incompetent!).

I wouldn't say HRC is incompetent overall, but the way she handled Benghazi certainly was. It was a total clusterf^c&.

 

[qazplm]

I wouldn't say HRC is incompetent overall, but the way she handled Benghazi certainly was. It was a total clusterf^c&.

Well, that's progress at least.

 

[Bruce1]

lol yes I'm sure that newsmax, foxnews and other outlets claimed and continue to claim "incompetence."

Keep at it Qaz, if you read my original post I said CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC. Reading comprehension......the people making the statements were in the administration. Get it?