NYT Investigation of BENGHAZI

[Anonymous]

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]

Please source that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh, I guess the thread is going to get off topic, but PP brought up Iraq.

CIA Director George Tenet has already admitted (in his book) he gave what turned out to be an incorrect intelligence assessment to President Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton apologized? Maybe she did, but I was not aware that she had done so. I freely admit a bias against her, but I recall that she said she never saw the memos about security (which I have no problem with, as it might not be the kind of think a Sec State reads). That seems different that apologizing.

Where does the buck stop on this, I am wondering? The senate says this was preventable. Is Mrs Clinton responsible? Is the president responsible? Who gets the actual blame and is there any consequence for that blame?

Yep it's the republicans in congress cutting security funding and the ones in government working against the country's interests. Hopefully we will be able to purge the republicans from government. It is need in a bad way. Just look at the DOD and NSA, shameful. These "people" will do anything they can to harm the US.

The adults are talking here. Go outside and play.

[Anonymous]

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]



Please source that.

It's well known but fox is not interested in the truth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ugh, I guess the thread is going to get off topic, but PP brought up Iraq.

CIA Director George Tenet has already admitted (in his book) he gave what turned out to be an incorrect intelligence assessment to President Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton apologized? Maybe she did, but I was not aware that she had done so. I freely admit a bias against her, but I recall that she said she never saw the memos about security (which I have no problem with, as it might not be the kind of think a Sec State reads). That seems different that apologizing.

Where does the buck stop on this, I am wondering? The senate says this was preventable. Is Mrs Clinton responsible? Is the president responsible? Who gets the actual blame and is there any consequence for that blame?

Yep it's the republicans in congress cutting security funding and the ones in government working against the country's interests. Hopefully we will be able to purge the republicans from government. It is need in a bad way. Just look at the DOD and NSA, shameful. These "people" will do anything they can to harm the US.


The adults are talking here. Go outside and play.

Yep you are an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]



Please source that.

It's well known but fox is not interested in the truth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Not the poster you quoted, but that report does not say the "Military leaders refused to send in (help) because they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton".

Dude, it just doesn't say that.

Think about this for a moment...A military leader, lets call him a general, would not know how many people (if any) were dead during the early hours of this attack. The fog of war would surround this. Are you saying the general would wait until he had some confirmation that some people were dead and then decide that he could gain political points by not sending people to respond to the deaths? That does not make any sense at all. Besides, you do know that some generals and admirals are democrats. They actually vote both ways you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]

Please source that.

Source that? Outrageous and unfounded conspiracy theories are such a part of the wing nut logic, I'm surprised you didn't send the pp a cease and desist letter for patent violation.

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster who asked for the source. Of course, I know he cannot source it--it is a ridiculous statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



I'm the poster who asked for the source. Of course, I know he cannot source it--it is a ridiculous statement.

Fox is already running with it.

[Anonymous]

Conservatives military leaders refused to send teams in b/c they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton.
[Report Post]



Please source that.

It's well known but fox is not interested in the truth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf


Not the poster you quoted, but that report does not say the "Military leaders refused to send in (help) because they knew they could use the deaths against Clinton".

Dude, it just doesn't say that.

Think about this for a moment...A military leader, lets call him a general, would not know how many people (if any) were dead during the early hours of this attack. The fog of war would surround this. Are you saying the general would wait until he had some confirmation that some people were dead and then decide that he could gain political points by not sending people to respond to the deaths? That does not make any sense at all. Besides, you do know that some generals and admirals are democrats. They actually vote both ways you know.

There are a lots of unanswered questions reguarding the role of republicans in Benghazi and it makes more sense than what you people are saying Obama or Clinton roll was. There was the head of afcon general ham being relieved of command that night by the joint chiefs. Why? No one will say officially, but word is he refused a direct order. There also is another high ranking navy officer who was relieved. Throw in Petraeus was running the cia operations in Benghazi and romney's too quick of a response. Now you have something to investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



I'm the poster who asked for the source. Of course, I know he cannot source it--it is a ridiculous statement.

Really, you find that a ridiculous statement? Wow just wow! I guess you did not read the link?

[Anonymous]

Okay, I've read it several times. Please tell me where it says that the military wanted them to die?

[Anonymous]

There are a lots of unanswered questions reguarding the role of republicans in Benghazi and it makes more sense than what you people are saying Obama or Clinton roll was. There was the head of afcon general ham being relieved of command that night by the joint chiefs. Why? No one will say officially, but word is he refused a direct order. There also is another high ranking navy officer who was relieved. Throw in Petraeus was running the cia operations in Benghazi and romney's too quick of a response. Now you have something to investigate.

Don't think that Ham was relieved that night. Source? I do think he should have been.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

This says that the military was not aware of the annex. I find that almost incredible. Why? What were they doing at the annex?

[Anonymous]

Why did State/Stevens twice turn down Ham's offer for military support before the attack on Benghazi?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

This says that the military was not aware of the annex. I find that almost incredible. Why? What were they doing at the annex?

It's the frickin CIA, not a trade delegation. Why is this so unfathomable?