Chris Stevens Family responds to Benghazi Scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:its understandable that Chris Steven's family would feel this way, he was a close personal friend of Hillary and supported her politics. Unfortunately, there are other victims who were there to protect him whether they supported Hillary and her politics or not, and given the statements from their families, they were not Hillary supporters, or Obama. They lost their lives too and it does matter and it DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. A family totally sympathetic to Clinton and her campaign are just not credible, we will not forget that she and Obama swept this under the rug to protect a presidency. Fifty percent of this Country will not sweep it under the rug, and if it were your son on that roof that very long night, you would not forget either.

That's what I find troubling is Hillary supporters never put themselves in the shoes of the victims. It's not just she lied to their families but she and Obama didn't send any help for 7 long hours. I just can't imagine what horrible last few hours those four people endured. And Hillary minions have the gall to say that's what the four victims signed up for and Sean Smith's mother was playing politics??

Yes, you're just playing politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith ripped Hillary Clinton: "Hillary is a liar. It's not the time to move on"

Shouldn't we listen to the mother of the victim?

Mother-shmother, who cares. Liberty and justice for most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think anyone who loses a child wants someone to be held accountable. And yes, the government made mistakes. But these four people chose hazardous jobs in a hazardous part of the world. They know they face real risks.

Um... no one mentions "real risks" during FSO hiring process. Leaving the Embassy without adequate security, heck, establishing the Embassy against security advice is not a "mistake." Even it it was, the guilty parties should be held responsible, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

His sister said that Chris "chose" to go there knowing the dangers. Did Sean Smith have the same option? His texts to friends earlier that day indicated that he was very concerned.

As for the warriors who were killed, they were doing what they were trained to do and knew they were putting their lives at risk. Because of this heroism, they saved 20 lives (reportedly) at the mission. And, it is likely they saved even more at the annex.

It is possible that their lives could have been saved. Likely? Maybe not. But, help was never sent. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:its understandable that Chris Steven's family would feel this way, he was a close personal friend of Hillary and supported her politics. Unfortunately, there are other victims who were there to protect him whether they supported Hillary and her politics or not, and given the statements from their families, they were not Hillary supporters, or Obama. They lost their lives too and it does matter and it DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. A family totally sympathetic to Clinton and her campaign are just not credible, we will not forget that she and Obama swept this under the rug to protect a presidency. Fifty percent of this Country will not sweep it under the rug, and if it were your son on that roof that very long night, you would not forget either.

That's what I find troubling is Hillary supporters never put themselves in the shoes of the victims. It's not just she lied to their families but she and Obama didn't send any help for 7 long hours. I just can't imagine what horrible last few hours those four people endured. And Hillary minions have the gall to say that's what the four victims signed up for and Sean Smith's mother was playing politics??

YOU are the ones playing politics with Sean Smith's death. YOU are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting this woman's grief. And you have the gall to point fingers at people who disagree with your hateful paranoid, political masturbation?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His sister said that Chris "chose" to go there knowing the dangers. Did Sean Smith have the same option? His texts to friends earlier that day indicated that he was very concerned.

As for the warriors who were killed, they were doing what they were trained to do and knew they were putting their lives at risk. Because of this heroism, they saved 20 lives (reportedly) at the mission. And, it is likely they saved even more at the annex.

It is possible that their lives could have been saved. Likely? Maybe not. But, help was never sent. Period.

Oh, Benghazi troll, enjoy these last few days of fading relevancy...

[Anonymous]

Why is it that Hillary supporters suddenly decry government spending to the whopping tune of $7.0 million, when Solyndra received $535 million taxpayer dollars to only go belly up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that Hillary supporters suddenly decry government spending to the whopping tune of $7.0 million, when Solyndra received $535 million taxpayer dollars to only go belly up.

SQUIRREL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that Hillary supporters suddenly decry government spending to the whopping tune of $7.0 million, when Solyndra received $535 million taxpayer dollars to only go belly up.

Maybe if after Soylandra failed, the government spent that amount six more times for the same result, you would have a point. As it is, you're just making an ass out of yourself.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that the Dems are pointing fingers at the GOP--when they were the ones that sent Rice out to make a fool of herself on the Sunday shows. They were the ones who pushed the video story for political protection.

As for the "waste" of money. I don't find it wasted if it prevents these things from occurring again. That was a disturbing find that really did not have anything to do with Benghazi but certainly should have been exposed to the public. Sorry, if you think that is "political". It is a fact.

The fact that the President said to do everything possible and nothing was done is very disturbing. One of the reports was that Ham thought they had already been evacuated. I find that very disturbing. Is that because information was erroneous or was he just stupid?

The fact that Kenney (State) was arguing over the uniform for the Marines and may have delayed help is also disturbing.

It is also reported that Obama refused the daily intelligence briefing the next day. That is mind-boggling to me--and, we still don't know what he was doing the night before.......wouldn't you think he would have wanted to be informed? If he was kept up to date, who did it?

This does fall on the administration. It appears that they all failed. Before, during, and after. White House, State, and DOD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that the Dems are pointing fingers at the GOP--when they were the ones that sent Rice out to make a fool of herself on the Sunday shows. They were the ones who pushed the video story for political protection.

As for the "waste" of money. I don't find it wasted if it prevents these things from occurring again. That was a disturbing find that really did not have anything to do with Benghazi but certainly should have been exposed to the public. Sorry, if you think that is "political". It is a fact.

The fact that the President said to do everything possible and nothing was done is very disturbing. One of the reports was that Ham thought they had already been evacuated. I find that very disturbing. Is that because information was erroneous or was he just stupid?

The fact that Kenney (State) was arguing over the uniform for the Marines and may have delayed help is also disturbing.

It is also reported that Obama refused the daily intelligence briefing the next day. That is mind-boggling to me--and, we still don't know what he was doing the night before.......wouldn't you think he would have wanted to be informed? If he was kept up to date, who did it?

This does fall on the administration. It appears that they all failed. Before, during, and after. White House, State, and DOD.

Disturbing, disturbing, disturbing. Obviously there was failure, we can see that. We knew that on 9-12. Which of those things that you are disturbed by made a difference?

There have been changes made at State since then, that's the correct response to when things go wrong. Endless Monday-morning quarterbacking by partisan committees or by the general public isn't useful, in the sense that it doesn't reduce the chances of things going wrong in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that the Dems are pointing fingers at the GOP--when they were the ones that sent Rice out to make a fool of herself on the Sunday shows. They were the ones who pushed the video story for political protection.

As for the "waste" of money. I don't find it wasted if it prevents these things from occurring again. That was a disturbing find that really did not have anything to do with Benghazi but certainly should have been exposed to the public. Sorry, if you think that is "political". It is a fact.

The fact that the President said to do everything possible and nothing was done is very disturbing. One of the reports was that Ham thought they had already been evacuated. I find that very disturbing. Is that because information was erroneous or was he just stupid?

The fact that Kenney (State) was arguing over the uniform for the Marines and may have delayed help is also disturbing.

It is also reported that Obama refused the daily intelligence briefing the next day. That is mind-boggling to me--and, we still don't know what he was doing the night before.......wouldn't you think he would have wanted to be informed? If he was kept up to date, who did it?

This does fall on the administration. It appears that they all failed. Before, during, and after. White House, State, and DOD.

Disturbing, disturbing, disturbing. Obviously there was failure, we can see that. We knew that on 9-12. Which of those things that you are disturbed by made a difference?

There have been changes made at State since then, that's the correct response to when things go wrong. Endless Monday-morning quarterbacking by partisan committees or by the general public isn't useful, in the sense that it doesn't reduce the chances of things going wrong in the future.

Translation: When Congress is in the hands of Republicans, we object to Congressional Oversight....funny how we're discussing the conclusion of a report and committee, yet it's considered endless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that the Dems are pointing fingers at the GOP--when they were the ones that sent Rice out to make a fool of herself on the Sunday shows. They were the ones who pushed the video story for political protection.

As for the "waste" of money. I don't find it wasted if it prevents these things from occurring again. That was a disturbing find that really did not have anything to do with Benghazi but certainly should have been exposed to the public. Sorry, if you think that is "political". It is a fact.

The fact that the President said to do everything possible and nothing was done is very disturbing. One of the reports was that Ham thought they had already been evacuated. I find that very disturbing. Is that because information was erroneous or was he just stupid?

The fact that Kenney (State) was arguing over the uniform for the Marines and may have delayed help is also disturbing.

It is also reported that Obama refused the daily intelligence briefing the next day. That is mind-boggling to me--and, we still don't know what he was doing the night before.......wouldn't you think he would have wanted to be informed? If he was kept up to date, who did it?

This does fall on the administration. It appears that they all failed. Before, during, and after. White House, State, and DOD.

Disturbing, disturbing, disturbing. Obviously there was failure, we can see that. We knew that on 9-12. Which of those things that you are disturbed by made a difference?

There have been changes made at State since then, that's the correct response to when things go wrong. Endless Monday-morning quarterbacking by partisan committees or by the general public isn't useful, in the sense that it doesn't reduce the chances of things going wrong in the future.

Translation: When Congress is in the hands of Republicans, we object to Congressional Oversight....funny how we're discussing the conclusion of a report and committee, yet it's considered endless.

There was more than one congressional committee -- nobody was objecting to having one congressional committee. Or a couple congressional committees. But when you're on number 8, that starts to seem endless. Gowdy's committee was supposed to be the last one, so this is the end ... until they start another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that the Dems are pointing fingers at the GOP--when they were the ones that sent Rice out to make a fool of herself on the Sunday shows. They were the ones who pushed the video story for political protection.

As for the "waste" of money. I don't find it wasted if it prevents these things from occurring again. That was a disturbing find that really did not have anything to do with Benghazi but certainly should have been exposed to the public. Sorry, if you think that is "political". It is a fact.

The fact that the President said to do everything possible and nothing was done is very disturbing. One of the reports was that Ham thought they had already been evacuated. I find that very disturbing. Is that because information was erroneous or was he just stupid?

The fact that Kenney (State) was arguing over the uniform for the Marines and may have delayed help is also disturbing.

It is also reported that Obama refused the daily intelligence briefing the next day. That is mind-boggling to me--and, we still don't know what he was doing the night before.......wouldn't you think he would have wanted to be informed? If he was kept up to date, who did it?

This does fall on the administration. It appears that they all failed. Before, during, and after. White House, State, and DOD.

Disturbing, disturbing, disturbing. Obviously there was failure, we can see that. We knew that on 9-12. Which of those things that you are disturbed by made a difference?

There have been changes made at State since then, that's the correct response to when things go wrong. Endless Monday-morning quarterbacking by partisan committees or by the general public isn't useful, in the sense that it doesn't reduce the chances of things going wrong in the future.

Translation: When Congress is in the hands of Republicans, we object to Congressional Oversight....funny how we're discussing the conclusion of a report and committee, yet it's considered endless.

Oversight is fine. Unlimited do-overs is not.

[Anonymous]

My understanding is help could have been sent on time to save SOME of the victims (not all). In terms of preparation, I am pretty scandalized by how vulnerable an Ambassador was, then putting people who needed to protect him in vulnerable positions. Embassies all over the world have hardened up, but the security measures on this outpst in Libya were laughable. He should not have had permission to be there. Yes, lessons should be learned here and responsibility taken by whomever allowed for that.