And Hillary was the one who corrected it, and relatively soon.
But giving the wrong cause after the fact may not be criminal. Wrong. Despicable. Maybe. but not criminal. So, there's not much of anything that can be done.
Yet, but the lies are starting to fall apart.
[emphasis added by bubba to make my point below]So your defense of a President not caring enough to lift a finger to help a consulate under siege is to show a video of a president who wasn't afraid of the enemy?
We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.
The e-mails show that Hillary and administration knew almost immediately that this was a terrorist attack, but weeks before the election, they concocted a lie to blame it all on a protest over an obscure internet video.
The maker of that video was jailed over this lie. THAT is just what Clintons do.
And that is the leader in the clubhouse to be the next Democratic nominee for president.
Has he been charged?Refusing to comply with a Congressional Subpoena ? Is that Criminal ?
Has he been charged?
But looking back:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday refused to comply with subpoenas sent by House and Senate committees requesting documents about the firing of several U.S. attorneys last year.
White House defies congressional subpoenas - CNN.com
Then there was a republican saying this:
When pressed on how such a thing would be possible, Gingrich suggested the use of the subpoena.
But, Schieffer argued, "They don't have to honor the subpoenas."
Gingrich: Congress, president can ignore courts - CBS News
So, practically speaking, it must not be against the law.
They just Subpoened Kerry and now that wEw know what was in the E-mail it was obviously held back for a reason.
Perhaps, but the key is there isn't anything criminal to date. Right?
Sorry, but it was David Petraeus who "concocted" the video story.
....Representative Peter King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, emerged just after 9am to say the hearing before his committee was over. He said there were discrepancies between what Petraeus had previously told the committee about the Benghazi attack and what he said on Friday.
King said that earlier, Petraeus had said it was principally a reaction to an anti-Muslim video produced in the US; on Friday he said it was an attack by extremists.
Five days after the attack, the administration sent UN ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday news shows to describe it as a spontaneous protest. Rice relied on initial intelligence that proved incorrect, and she is now under attack by some Republican senators who vow to block her if she's nominated as secretary of state when Hillary Clinton steps down. ...
Petraeus testimony on Benghazi contradicts previous House statement | World news | theguardian.com
The source of the narrative isn't nearly as relevent as the WH's decision to perpetuate it as a legitimate explanation to the Benghazzi attack.
A United States Consulate and a American Ambassador were under assault by Terrorists and we get a snarky 15 year old on the Brett Bair show telling us Obama wasn't in the Situation room.
And then we get a lie about a video.
[emphasis added by bubba to make my point below]
congressman mckeon, GOP chair of the armed services committee:
now let's compare that fact with the previous republican president cited in the video insisting he was not concerned with osama bin laden
your team screwed the pooch, allowing dubya to start a foolish war while not pursuing osama bin laden, yet now wants to incriminate the current administration, an administration which has been found by the republican chair of the house armed forces committee to say "we have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond."
The Left always focuses on what's legal in wrong-doing, from officials that ought to behave well above minimum legal standards.
So, if the serahc for bin Laden was over then how did the NYT run a story on Operation Cannonball?
And how come you try to negate the mountain of evidence that the hunt for bin Laden continued with an out of context video clip?
It other words, why are you so obviously lying? You are using 2006 Liberal talking points as if they are still valid.
i am comparing the degree of interest exhibited by those on your side of the political spectrum
the shrub makes awful decisions
he attains conservative support
the black president's administration was found to have done nothing inappropriate and your side is still insisting that there is a scandal hidden in benghazi somewhere
yep, this is nothing but reich wing politics
Has he been charged?
But looking back:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday refused to comply with subpoenas sent by House and Senate committees requesting documents about the firing of several U.S. attorneys last year.
White House defies congressional subpoenas - CNN.com
Then there was a republican saying this:
When pressed on how such a thing would be possible, Gingrich suggested the use of the subpoena.
But, Schieffer argued, "They don't have to honor the subpoenas."
Gingrich: Congress, president can ignore courts - CBS News
So, practically speaking, it must not be against the law.
share those awful decisions with us, and compare and contrast them with the senseless wars in iraq and afghanistanLet me help you out... you seem a little confused:
the Obama makes awful decisions
don't think so. most liberals do not believe Obama has effectively used his office to advance progressive causeshe retains liberal support
other than iraqthe Republican president's administration was found to have done nothing inappropriate
please tell me that you defend the war in iraq as an appropriate loss of our nation's youth and treasureand your side is still insisting there is a scandal hidden in Iraq somewhere
and again, you would be wrongyep, this is nothing but commy wing politics.
Dude, That Was Two Years Ago - Business Insider[/url]
The brazen arrogance is familiar isn't it? It's what we've come to expect of an elitist, egotistical, maniacal administration.
share those awful decisions with us, and compare and contrast them with the senseless wars in iraq and afghanistan
the giving of tax breaks to the rich
the use of torture
don't think so. most liberals do not believe Obama has effectively used his office to advance progressive causes
other than iraq
afghanistan
torture
tax breaks for the rich
great recession
and a host of other wrongdoings
please tell me that you defend the war in iraq as an appropriate loss of our nation's youth and treasure
and again, you would be wrong
Ive noticed in only a few days that this Boo poster drags Bush all around the board with him. He was busy trying to turn another Benghazi thread into the topic of Bush and the Iraq war yesterday. Why not again today? :lamoStill after George Bush!!! How do leftists get themselves so deep in denial that all rationality and pride, in fact, are thrown away to protect their political masters? Is it a genetic flaw?
Ive noticed in only a few days that this Boo poster drags Bush all around the board with him. He was busy trying to turn another Benghazi thread into the topic of Bush and the Iraq war yesterday. Why not again today? :lamo
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?