I don't particularly care about your point.
Tucker Case said:I just don't like the silly assumption that Muslim Nation = Middle East.
I didn't make that assumption, I've been to both areas in question plus Central Asia. It was a mistake.
Its seems as though this information didn't refute anything my link had and I note you didn't supply a link to the CBS Report, is the something in that report you don't want seen?
The only thing that she said, in your entire post, was a surprise to her was the cable for additional security. My comment was directly aimed at your assertion:They stated there was a reduction in security from March to the Dec attack. That was the finding of separate committees. Also we know the Commander of the 17th brigade in Libya Providing Security for that Region of Libyan and Benghazi warned Clinton's People 3 days in Advance that things were to dangerous to conduct foreign business in Benghazi. That they felt there was not enough Security.
The report established that the attack on the US mission on 11 September 2012 involved "arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars."
"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the report found.
State department budget shortfalls were one obstacle to reinforcing security at diplomatic outposts worldwide, the report said.
She was replying to the first question from a Republican. A moment four months in coming.
Senator Corker says, "to my knowledge, no one was held accountable." "These officials [on the ground in Benghazi] were screaming out for more security," he says.
He asks Clinton to mention one reform that would have fixed the lack of communication about the security situation in Benghazi.
"The specific security requests" on Benghazi were handled by security professionals, Clinton says, and she never reviewed them.
She was replying to the first question from a Republican. A moment four months in coming.
Clinton replies that the two have a "simple disagreement." She says the state department followed protocol in handling an unfolding security crisis.
Then she turns the conversation to budget issues. She says Congressional holds had been placed on money for the mission in Libya. "We have got to get our act together between the administration and Congress... we have to work together," she says.
Hillary Clinton is about to appear before a House committee to continue her testimony on the Benghazi attack and US anti-terror strategy in the region.
Michael T. McCaul of Texas is grilling Clinton about why she didn't know about cables from Libya asking for additional security for the Benghazi mission.
"Was this cable a surprise to you?" he says. "When you have a US ambassador personally warning [about security]?"
Clinton says there are 1.43m cables that come to the state department every year "and they're all addressed to me."
McCaul: "This cable went unnoticed by your office, and that's the bottom line.".....snip~
Hillary Clinton testifies before House committee on Benghazi
The UK's Guardian Play by play of Clinton's hearings and by Time and response.
-Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
The only thing that she said, in your entire post, was a surprise to her was the cable for additional security. My comment was directly aimed at your assertion:
You did nothing to show this. You only talked about her testimony that she didn't see the cable about additional security. At no point, that I can find, has she ever made the claim that she knew nothing of the reduction of security, as you argued.
Ok, just want to be sure we are on the same page here, you are arguing that she lied about claiming that she didn't know about the request from the embassy for additional security, correct?Look at the Post above this one.....note Personally Warned and Note: But ordered the Withdrawal of Security to Proceed as Planned. Which was in the Post I gave you prior to that one you have now.
Ok, just want to be sure we are on the same page here, you are arguing that she lied about claiming that she didn't know about the request from the embassy for additional security, correct?
Before you stated that she lied about not knowing that there was a plan to reduce security, unless I mistook what you said.
She Was personally Warned by Stevens.....and she ordered to proceed with reducing the security.
I'm sorry, but where did you get that information?
There was a cable that came as a request for additional security, and it was denied. You are claiming that she personally denied it because it has her name on it, but ever cable, 1.42 million have her signature whether she saw them or not, and the overwhelming majority she didn't see. So unless you have some kind of proof that she personally denied the request, I don't see what you're getting at.
A mistake based on what, exactly, if not that assumption?
It's amusing to watch people go back and forth about who said what when where. All missing the big picture. The reason they are dead is because we bombed Libya, period. End of discussion.
Thinking of wars in the Middle East while talking about Libya. I made a similar mistake when I said "pre-pubescent adolescents" even when that term doesn't make any sense because they are mutually exclusive.
From this Post to you where Clinton was told about being personally warned by Stevens.....
Michael T. McCaul of Texas is grilling Clinton about why she didn't know about cables from Libya asking for additional security for the Benghazi mission.
"Was this cable a surprise to you?" he says. "When you have a US ambassador personally warning [about security]?"
Clinton says there are 1.43m cables that come to the state department every year "and they're all addressed to me."
McCaul: "This cable went unnoticed by your office, and that's the bottom line.".....snip~
Then from what I posted in Post 78.....
After the U.S.-backed Libyan revolution ended the Gadhafi regime, the U.S. government did not deploy sufficient U.S. security elements to protect U.S. interests and personnel that remained on the ground. Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel. Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.....snip~
It's amusing to watch people go back and forth about who said what when where. All missing the big picture. The reason they are dead is because we bombed Libya, period. End of discussion.
I do not understand what it is that detractors think they'll find in all this Benghazi stuff. Do they really expect to find evidence of the president cackling like Mr. Burns, declaring that he's refusing to send more people to the consulate in the hopes that everyone will die? Do they expect to find Clinton doing the same? Are they really so far removed from the rest of the human race that they think that a Democratic administration is composed of cartoon villains who sit around all day laughing about kicking puppies?
Save his presidency from what? From there not being room in a budget to prioritize one embassy over others? From terrorists committing terrorism and us not having a stranglehold on every square inch of the world to stop every psycho from doing every psycho thing?
Despite that.....theres a Story that needs to be told about 2 Navy Seals that took on over 100 attackers while killing over 60 of them and while helping others to escape until they were killed.
So for one thing. I think knowing all they did needs to be brought out.....other than Obama and Clinton muttering a few half azzed words over their Coffin.
now i see the "logic" of this exerciseI think there's a cover-up on Benghazi because they were engaged in some kind of deal over there, and don't want to reveal it. Probably something similar to Iran-Contra. Why else would they have a CIA office in that dump?
I'm not really sure how else to say this. It is common practice for all response to contain her signature. Just because the Republicans wrote a report saying she signed it, that doesn't mean it actually happened. You seem to be ignoring this. If you have proof that she did actually sign this then I'd be interested in seeing it. You have to prove it was a cable that she personally responded to and signed off on, because all of them are sent out with her signature, whether she saw them or not.
We had hearings on this already, Hilliary already testified before the senate and house.
Do you think she is going to answer differently to the same question?
I think there's a cover-up on Benghazi because they were engaged in some kind of deal over there, and don't want to reveal it. Probably something similar to Iran-Contra. Why else would they have a CIA office in that dump?
Well, I certainly don't see how you read that out of a Formal Request and that you can state that Ambassador Cretz was lying! Did you think all Formal Request came across as all others? Did you think it just layed there in a stack of papers. Considering Cretz was removed and Stevens was the replacement.
Also its. Not just a report that Republicans Wrote. Did you forget the Independent Investigation started by Hillary. Why do all the reports say the same thing about what Ambassador Cretz stated?
Did ya notice how Hillary didn't answer the question about Stevens Personal Warning. He was talking about a Specific Cable. Was he not? I am sure once they release them to the public. Then we will have them to put out.
So you actually think.....that Hillary never acknowledged either Ambassador due to all the mail on her desk.....Correct? Is that what you are trying to tell us. That she only sent them a paper with her signature on them. Plus one stating to proceed with reducing security. That it was some stamped signature for a Formal Request?
I'm sorry, but my response was to what you posted. The guy sent in a formal request, and a response was sent bearing Hillary Clintons signature, just as the other 1.43 million got. I'm not saying that anybody is lying.
A formal request is just a request. It's an official request. As all others would be. When you're dealing with 1.43 million cables a year, there's a process. By formal, that doesn't mean that the guy called Hillary Clinton and asked her for more security. He sent in some kind of form asking for additional security. That was responded to by a response bearing Hillary Clintons signature, though we have no proof it's really hers, since apparently all responses bear her signature, even though she doesn't see most of them.
So to keep arguing that because we have a cable response with her signature we know she's lying, is a faulty argument. They have given a good reason as to why it's completely possible, and in my opinion, likely, that she never saw the request, just as she'd never personally deal with the other million or so requests they get every year.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?