"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48
Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
(Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
(Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
(Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)
Since I havent followed this issue could you please give me the party affiliation of the Congress members who started and are leading this non partisan process?
How about the party affiliation of the four dead Americans and the Commander in Chief... Who decided to sleep through through the night while the Embassy was under siege?
"I've had it all. I've done it all. I've seen it all." Rick James
- See more at: http://www.rickjames.com/newsdetail.....aweiiDJo.dpuf
That's all they ever do, well, except for cast blame on everyone with different views than their own. I'm referring to "liberals" for you liberals that can't grasp the comment.
At this point, what does it matter?
10 pages of echo over 6+ months. Jon Stewart had a great segment on this last night. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...enghazi-theory Well worth watching.
Here is another article that may be of interest http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...016?int=4f18d8
11 hearings before 5 committees. 20 staff briefings. 25,000 pages of documents and yet you all still think there is a grand coverup. Amazing. Yesterday was the big event, three "whistleblowers" to testify to a republican committee and yet today, there is still no evidence of a conspiracy. In fact, yesterday's testimony provided little new information and certainly reveals nothing inconsistent with previous testimony, particularly Panetta's. You folks seems to be at the same place you startedJust curious, where was your concern for all the attacks on diplomats during the Bush years? I found no mention of them in a search here. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...weakest-of-all......Hicks' testimony would indicate that Hillary knew what was going on.
There is certainly an indication here that a response team, ready to leave, was told to stand down. Maybe you could call it "heresay" from Hicks, so they could call Gibson to testify first-hand that those were the orders he received.
These people acted with bravery ... too bad DC did not. I think those in DC who failed to act knew when the dust settled that they had screwed up big time when faced with a crisis. They HAD to lie about it ... the MSM helped them do it ... if they hadn't, then there would have been no second term for Obama. Were it not for the help from the Libyans and the action of the people in Tripoli, there could have been even more Americans dead.
Buzz, was not the cover-up, itself, a matter of politics? A crisis handled poorly just two months before an election? At least, nobody has died as a result of these hearings.Shameless cheering on of pure partisan smear politics.
And if it is accurate that Nordstrom (I think he was the fellow with the goatee), believed in Obama (voted for him), then there must be a compelling reason for him to come forward with his testimony which would detract from the administration. It would not appear that his motives are political. For each of these people, their careers in foreign service could be at an end.
Henry, I cannot agree that there is no evidence of conspiracy. I read the links you provided (didn't watch the video since the speakers on my laptop really suck). Hicks testimony referred to the editing of the reports to remove references to radical Islamists. One cannot refute Rice's statements on the talk shows v. the testimony of Hicks et al; and there is a way to verify Hicks' testimony. In my interpretation of the word "conspiracy", there were multiple people who edited the reports to come up with the eventual statements that Rice made which were untrue. Did they not "conspire"? Hillary made an ad to run in Pakistan about the terrible video. To what degree does the conspiracy constitute a dereliction of duty, and/or perjury? I'm not a lawyer.
I think the largest issue on Benghazi is not simply that an attack occurred on an embassy facility ... it is about the incompetence that led to the embassy's lack of protection in a very dangerous environment; the lack of preparedness to respond to the crisis; and then the covering up (and even doing that pretty incompetently).
The highest profile super-power in the world (the U.S.) could not scramble the rescue needed; could not find a tanker for the planes that would have needed a tanker? If that is truly the case, then we are surely over-paying for a military capability that seems not to exist when the chips are down.
Perhaps Reagan survived Iran-Contra because he went before the country and admitted that it had occurred, although he said he didn't know about it when it was occurring. (true or not, I don't know) This is different than the Benghazi event. Hillary's "What difference ... does it make?" showed her disdain for any accountability for her actions.
The one link mentions several attacks on varied embassies, but I think the point has been made that no ambassador has been killed for many years. The question would also be whether anyone tried to deny that attacks took place; or whether there was their obfuscation as to why the attacks took place. There are embassies in dangerous places. It is not surprising that there have been attacks in those places. What stands out in Benghazi is the lack of preparedness in security leading up to 9/11/12, and what appears to be disarray and paralysis in protecting the personnel once the attack was underway.
I have made no reference to "weakness" being the cause of the attack, except for the weakness of the security lacking to offer protection to the facility.
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.