Not a word ...

[Gerry Clinchy]

I stumbled across this while looking for something else. From USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...lysis/1898301/

It has a pretty good outline of the Panetta and Dempsey testimony. There testimony would seem to indicate, that the first support that got to the site was 23 hours after the attack began. Panetta said they "made adjustments" since then. I sure hope so!

This was the first time I heard that the "battle" was two 20-minute skirmishes 6 hours apart. The former SEALS died in the 2nd skirmish ... so if these geniuses could have gotten somebody there within 4 hours, those people might be alive today. Good thing these fellas were not in charge of D-Day.

[Gerry Clinchy]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/rand-paul...ry-unraveling/,
As time goes on Hillary's testimony continues to unravel. This WND article cites other reporting by CBS and NY Times, among others, that lays out that the gun shipping to Syrian rebels was very much like a plan laid out by Hillary, herself. Odd that she would testify that she had no knowledge of such activity? Rand Paul was the one who actually posed the question to her, and he is also quoted in this article (This article was posted to the WND website less than 24 hrs ago).

It would seem that the US is far more involved in helping these Syrian rebels than is generally believed ... in addition to the many millions in humanitarian aid that has been given to them.

If GW Bush was doing this stuff the media would be mopping the floor with him. Certainly, Bush made his share of bloopers, but the media was all over him for it. The media has let Hillary, Panetta and all of those who knew the facts, retreat to the shadows on this hot mess of Benghazi.

[menmon]

It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.

[Socks]

It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.

Well let's suppose you're right. My counter arguement would be that is irrevalvent(sp?) to what happened and why.

[Eric Johnson]

I've just started reading this.

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker...ess-report.pdf

[road kill]

It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.

If you are correct, then why not just tell the story?
Why LIE about a video?????

[Gerry Clinchy]

It was tragic, but it got the air time only because it was used as a political weapon, and to give MCCain, Gramn and Paul something to rant about.

As with Clinton, the "sin" is not dealing in the arms for the rebels (that is probably controversial, but not outright illegal). The perjury is the crux of the issue. The whole point of having 3 branches of govt is for checks and balances, so that the executive branch (which controls the military) is monitored in their actions.

If the material was a matter of national security, then the legislative branch, in their function of oversight, could have been requested to be given confidential briefings in the interest of national security. National security, I don't think, gives the right to lie to each other. In this case, I believe it was a matter of political expedience for an administration facing election, being unwilling to reveal that its policies had created this particular tragedy; and that the failure to give assistance to the ambassador appears to have been yet another means to cover up the failure of such policies/strategies.

Surely, the electorate should not be privvy to all military operations. The electorate did not know the time and date of D-Day in advance. That's reasonable. Under the rule of law, perjury is not condoned. Politicians lie in campaigns a lot .. but they are not under oath. Hopefully, when we find out that they have lied, we refuse to re-elect them. (Of course, that doesn't happen as often as it should!)

These public servants screwed up. They are human, and that happens. They lied about it to protect their own behinds. It's easy to see, with more information, how badly the truth would have impacted the election.

[road kill]

As with Clinton, the "sin" is not dealing in the arms for the rebels (that is probably controversial, but not outright illegal). The perjury is the crux of the issue. The whole point of having 3 branches of govt is for checks and balances, so that the executive branch (which controls the military) is monitored in their actions.

If the material was a matter of national security, then the legislative branch, in their function of oversight, could have been requested to be given confidential briefings in the interest of national security. National security, I don't think, gives the right to lie to each other. In this case, I believe it was a matter of political expedience for an administration facing election, being unwilling to reveal that its policies had created this particular tragedy; and that the failure to give assistance to the ambassador appears to have been yet another means to cover up the failure of such policies/strategies.

Surely, the electorate should not be privvy to all military operations. The electorate did not know the time and date of D-Day in advance. That's reasonable. Under the rule of law, perjury is not condoned. Politicians lie in campaigns a lot .. but they are not under oath. Hopefully, when we find out that they have lied, we refuse to re-elect them. (Of course, that doesn't happen as often as it should!)

These public servants screwed up. They are human, and that happens. They lied about it to protect their own behinds. It's easy to see, with more information, how badly the truth would have impacted the election.

So, one side wanting the TRUTH is "political" and the other side LIEING and HIDING the FACTS is OK???

[Gerry Clinchy]

So, one side wanting the TRUTH is "political" and the other side LIEING and HIDING the FACTS is OK???

Not to me, Stan; but, to some people it seems to be.

[Gerry Clinchy]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ts_report.html

Answer to Hillary Clinton as to why it matters: You and the president lied.

The article describes the "evolution" of the talking points put out after the incident.