There has been much argument about the security situation in Benghazi leading up to the 2012 attacks. On the one hand, there is no dispute that additional security had been requested in the months before the attack. The timeline is important.
DECEMBER 2011:
The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”
This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.
FEBRUARY 2012
On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”
Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.
At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”
Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”
JUNE 2012
One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.
AUGUST 2012
Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”
In August the situation in Benghazi was deteriorating rapidly:
The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.
“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
Stevens cables Washington that Al Qaeda has camps in the area:
On August 16, 2012–a little less than a month before the terrorist attacks on the U.S. State Department and CIA facilities in Benghazi, Libya–Amb. Chris Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. stating that a CIA officer on the ground in Benghazi had briefed a State Department officer in that city the day before “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi.”
The scene is set. In mid-August, Benghazi is in trouble. Security is lacking. The compound cannot be defended. More security is desperately needed. And suddenly….
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
Why on Earth would Stevens, after months of warning of the danger in Benghazi and asking for more security suddenly decline it?
Because someone told him to stand down. It almost certainly was Hillary. And on August 16, 2012.
Why? Ego and politics.
Obama had essentially overthrown Libya and he touted it as a foreign policy success in the 2012 election campaign.
President Barack Obama sought on Saturday to cast himself as a strong leader on foreign policy, highlighting a pullout from Iraq and the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as success stories.
In a message Obama is likely to push in his 2012 re-election campaign, he said his leadership had made it possible to turn the page on a decade of war and refocus on bolstering the economy and paying down the national debt.
Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that Gaddafi’s death and the announcement that all U.S. troops would be removed from Iraq this year were “powerful reminders of how we’ve renewed American leadership in the world.”
Beefing up security in Libya would be problematic- it would be seen as a failing Obama action, belying the claim of a success. And so most likely Hillary told Stevens not to ask for more security so as not to embarrass Obama.
One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.
“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject… told McClatchy.
General Carter Ham asked Stevens why he would refuse additional security:
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
He wouldn’t say why? After months of seeking more security? After concluding that the compound could not be defended he refused additional security?
It makes no sense to Gregory Hicks:
Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment on the exchange between Ham and Stevens. Hicks’ lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security.
“As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it,” she said.
The whole Obama regime story never made any sense. I’ve asked this before– how is it that “protests” over a video took place in Benghazi when virtually all the other protests took place in the capitols of nations? Why was there no “protest” in Tripoli? It makes no sense at all.
But it all does makes sense if Hillary ordered Stevens to cease and desist for political reasons. And it would explain why Stevens suddenly did a 180 and declined to explain why. It makes sense if you know Al Qaeda had camps in the are and they knew Stevens was at the compound that particular day. It also would explain why the Obama regime would be so insistent on the video nonsense. It also would explain why they put the videographer in jail. It would explain why two weeks after the attack Obama went to the UN to decry the video. All head fakes. Squirrels. All to push this off past the election and save their asses.
I don’t believe anyone has specifically asked Hillary if she told Stevens to stop asking for more security, but I’d sure as hell demand an answer from her. She’s responsible. Those men died for one reason only- Obama’s re-election. If I am on the committee investigating Benghazi I demand all communications between Benghazi and DC and Hillary and Obama on August 12, 2012. The truth is there.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
But Hillary cannot be asked about any of this. She has immunity, don’t you know. She is part of the Executive, and therefore need not answer to Congress about anything. Besides, she is the wife of the former President (lest we forget).
So ask away. She will plead Executive Privilege and nothing will come of it.
After all, what difference does it make? Several good Americans are dead.
And Hillary is responsible. But there is no blood on her hands, because there is no proof. And she cannot be compelled to convict herself.
In the world to come, however, she will have much to answer for.
It’s been my understanding that the security offered would have come without Libyan acceptance of the security personnel as diplomatic staff, meaning they would have been subject to Libyan law without protection of immunity. On that basis, Stevens had to decline the offer.
This doesn’t excuse the lack of action on the part of the Grinning Hag to keep the staff and facilities safe from harm, but it does offer an alternate explanation for some of the suppositions. She has plenty to answer for.
As to the reason for the word “Grinning” in her title, it’s the hideous campaign smile she’s worn for the last six months or so. It’s burned into my cornea.
Sadly,this is not the first nor will it be last time that warriors will be sacrificed on the altar of political/diplomatic expediency.
We live in a much smaller world than in the 20th century when we had 3 networks and the internet hadn’t been invented. The serious question should be “Why are the oligarchs circling the wagons to protect their own?”
Benghazi and “Fast and Furious” should have gone to a Special Prosecutor long ago.
So cute how teabaggers still need their Benghazi binky.
The Ambassador did not feel that there was a security problem if he did he would not have gone to that city The Turkish Ambasssdor also did not feel threatened and met with the American Ambassador just before the attack. The House report also clearly contradicts all those who said that Obama/Clinton ordered the military to stand down when they could have stopped these murders
@John:
The Ambassador did not feel that there was a security problem.
Oh really? So all those cables were a teen age prank?
Dr John, what you lay out is just too darned plausible.
You would think by now that there would be at least ONE answer to the MANY questions about Benghazi. Could obama have been lying when he said his administration would be the most open administration ever?
@John:
I guess you don’t know how things work and you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Good post. I doubt we will get any real answers until such time as we have a president from another party and a BRAVE one at that. If we get a Republican president who is anything like recent candidates, he’ll not even ask those tough questions nor launch a real investigation.
John
WHY THAN THE OTHER AMBASSADOR LEFT ALONG WITH THE REDCROSS,
THE USA WAS ALONE, LEFT OUT TO BE OPEN FOR ATTACK BECAUSE OBAMA WANTED TO WIN HIS ELECTION AT ANY PRICE,
@drjohn:
That’s pretty strong coming from you Dr. John, a guy that reads whatever he wants out an issue, cherry picks to advance his hate agenda, and then comprehends only what he wants.
You’ve never come up with a coherent argument as to what was different in the 13 Embassy and consulate attacks during the Bush years and that of Benghazi. Again, it’s only what you want to read and comprehend to appease your ODS and the hell with relevant facts.
@Ronald J. Ward:”….. what was different in the 13 Embassy and consulate attacks during the Bush years….?”
Shock and awe, Ron…….
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
Obviously, after 9-11-01 Al Qaeda was NOT contained.
Saddam was sending $25,000 for every family of such suicide bombers who killed either Israelis, infidels OR even their employees!
So, shock and awe stopped that.
And then your initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all
Obama wants to free all the Gitmo detainees (even those involved with such bombings.
What good does THAT do?
At least all those bombings were at EMBASSIES which are hardened targets.
The attack in Benghazi was at a little house pretending to be associated with our Ambassador but not hardened target.
I had stronger defenses on my condo in LB!
@Ronald J. Ward:
Oh but we did. You forgot.
You know how I always say liberals have zero long term memory.
@DrJohn: I recall some rather weak tea rebuttal that didn’t make a great deal of sense or give a coherent answer.
But then again Dr John, credibility isn’t exactly your long suit when it comes to coherency or arguments of credibility.
Want proof people hate ACA? Just ask The heritage Foundation. CNSNEWS???? I could continue with multiple examples but we’ve been there and done that.
The Benghazi ordeal is pretty much a done deal, Obama and Hillary have been exonerated, and all that’s left are ODS sand ponders like you exploiting the deaths of 4 Americans for political gain.
You really really should be deeply ashamed.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Thanks for stopping by!
@Nanny G:
?
Penetrating “hardened targets” under Bush was fine and dandy?
Have you actually read or heard anything of the Benghazi Senate hearings other than on FA or Hannity?
Ronald J. Ward
we keep it alive so no one forget when the next election promote
the good actions of your side, which are no where to be found,
and like harry read said all false on the democrats side he included,
and you of course,
John
since when ALQUAEDA GIVE A PHONECALL TO STEVEN AMBASSADOR,
THAT HE IS COMMING TO KILL HIM AND OTHER,
THE STAND DOWN WAS GIVEN TO THE THREE BRAVES WHO ASK TO COME FOR HELP,
AND THEY CAME ANYWAY AND ARE THE HEROS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOINING ALL THE OTHER HEROS, SOME WAITING TO GET THEIR OWN MONEY SINCE 5 YEARS,
SOME WILL NEVER GET IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN TRASH, SOME DIED BEFORE GETTING IT,
THAT BRING US BACK TO BENGHASI THOSE WHO DECIDE TO TALK EVEN THAT THEY WHERE TOLD TO BE SILENT, MORE HEROS, TELLING OF WHAT IS GOING ON, AND HOW
THEY AT THE WHITE HOUSE, TRY TO HIDE ALL OF IT,
SO TO HANG ON POWER, AND IT’S ESCALATING TO SLING
MORE MUD TO WHOEVER EXPOSE THEIR SECRET INTENT
TO DESTROY THE EXCEPTIONAL AMERICA WHICH OBAMA HATE TO CALL IT AS SHE IS TRULY AND WANT TO CUT THE MILITARY
TO MAKE HER VULNERABLE TO HATERS WHICH HE DOESN’T
HAVE THE GUTTS TO ELIMINATE, USING THE MOST POWERFULL MILITARY OF THE WORLD WHO CAN THEMSELVES MAKE
THEIR END COME IN A VICTORY, IF THEY WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN RESTRICTED
BY ONE WHO SYMPATIZE WITH THEM HATERS, WHILE SITTING ON THE TOP JOB, IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ARMY OF SECURITY MAKING HIM UNTOUCHABLE, WHILE THE WARRIORS ARE BEING EXPLODED IN AFGHANISTAN, BY THOSE ENEMY SO WELL TREATED, BY THE AMERICAN, HELL THEY ARRIVE FROM THE BORDERS TO LIVE WITH AMERICANS,
Allow me to break it down for you, Ron.
First thing Obama wanted to do (on Day One) was close Gitmo and transfer all detainees to American mainland prisons awaiting trials in American courts.
Had he done that….which he never could do….terrorists caught on the battlefield would have been tried in CIVILIAN courts!
Had that happened…..which it hasn’t…..the rules of evidence would have led to the freeing of each and every one of those terrorists.
Now, where would they have gone?
They might have stayed in the USA.
Or, they might have gone back to their homelands or neighboring lands.
Whichever, they would have been free terrorists who had already fought armed American military.
They would have been free to fight once again ….as a large percentage of freed GITMO detainees have done.
Nanny G
OR THEY WOULD HAVE GET A JOB IN THE OBAMA NAVIGATERS HELPING PEOPLE TO SIGN ON OBAMACARE,
THEY FOUND ONE WHO HAD COMMIT TERRORIST ATTACKS BEFORE,
HOW MANY MORE IN THIS THOUSANDS OF NAVIGATORS WHO ARE NOT CHECKED,
WHY DON’T THEY TAKE THE AMERICAN FELONS INSTEAD, AT LEAST THEY DON’T WANT TO HURT AMERICA, THEY LOVE THEIR COUNTRY, AND SHOULD HAVE THE PRIORITY IN COMPANIES JOBS,
@Nanny G:
@Nanny G:
Aside from your obvious ignorance of the judicial process and that you don’t make a great deal of sense, your argument brings into question your belief in due process. Your logic isn’t equal.
Ronald J. Ward
Nanny G is always right
and you are wrong, and full of manure,
@This one:
So cute how seemingly intelligent people can still be manipulated so easily by politicians in the age of the internet. To attack fellow citizens in the protection of government is a sign of a complete brainwashing.
Government is not your friend. It should be questioned at all times.
You’ve been duped by your own adoration of a man you don’t know.
Good luck with that.
jimmyjack
YES BUT IF THEY DO THEY ARE LOOSING A JOB ,
WHICH IS HARD TO FIND IN OUR DAY,
THE FEAR IS THE GOVERNMENT WEAPON NOW,
FREEDOM IS SO FAR OUT IN MANY PLACE,
EVEN THE STATES HAVE NO MORE CHOICE TO LIBERTY,
THE BEAST HAS TAKEN HOLD AND IS CIMENTING IT SELF SOLID, WHERE THE 10 COMMAND WHERE DEMOLISH
IT WILL TAKE BRAVES TO BATTLE WITH THE BEAST,
YOU HEAR ON TV JOURNALIST BEING SO CAREFULL TO GO AROUND THE BEAST NOT TO FACE HIM
@This one:
Your boyfriend is gonna be pissed if you don’t quit running down your favorite activity. Trying to make it sound degrading, or something.
@Ronald J. Ward:
So tell us Ronny J, do you believe in due process for foreign terrorists? Do you think they are entitled to US Constitution protection?
A DEATH OF NAVYSEAL JUST HEARD ON FOX,
THEY WILL TALK SOME MORE ABOUT IT,
GOD TAKE BACK YOUR WARRIOR AND
GIVE HIM A STAR TO GLORIFY HIM AND HIS COURAGE,
FOR FREEDOM TO YOURE PEOPLE,
HE WAS LIKE THE WARRIORS THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE OF THIS AMERICA,
WE ARE VERY SAD TO HEAR IT, AS HIS FAMILY IS MORNING WE PRAY FOR THEM,
CONGRESS HOLD A DISCUSSION TO EVALUATE THE DEATH OF A SEAL
THE SINGLE DEADLYEST DAY OF AFGHAN WAR
Redteam
there s IRANIAN WAR SHIPS AROUND,
AND NOW RUSSIAN SHIPS AROUND, AND THEY BOTH ARE FRIENDLY
IN COOPERATION,
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?
I ask you because you SERVE ON WARSHIP BEFORE,
and you might see signs of possible confrontation, coming.
BYE
@Redteam:
Well, RJW did say to Nan:
I’m sure he will grace us with his exceptional legal expertise and scholarship at any moment. You just know that he has years of teaching Constitutional law added to his resume, right?
retire05
HE MUST HAVE SKIP A LOT OF STUDY,
BECAUSE HE ACT LIKE A COMPLETE IGNORANT,
BUT HE LEARN TO ATTACK CONSERVATIVES, HE HAS HATE IN HIS HEART,
DON’T LET HIM CLOSE TO CHILDREN, HE IS DANGEROUS, BECAUSE OF HIS UNCONTROLED HATE,
@drjohn: #9
The republicans will NEVER investigate the matter, or any other things concerning the obama administration, because they would also have to investigate why they let obama do all of the things he has done that are ruining the USA.
Smorgasbord
you have a good point here, WHY THIS IS STILL ON,
BYE
There were closed door hearings concerning Benghazi in November 2013, at which 5 CIA employees who were present in Benghazi on the night of the attack testified. That seems to be the point in time when the GOP’s conspiracy theorists suddenly shut the hell up.
It is not a conspiracy theory that Stevens repeatedly asked for increased security, which was denied.
It is not a conspiracy theory that the Obama administration repeatedly lied in trying to blame a youtube video for causing an alleged protest which was actually a coordinated terrorist attack that included highly accurate mortar fire.
It is not a conspiracy theory that the despicable former SecState shrieked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” in her pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility from her dereliction of duty.
Pete
YES AND SHE WANT TO BECOME A LEADER OF AMERICA,
IT SURE MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE NOT TO HAVE A LEADER WHO IS TOO SCARE TO FACE REALITY AND HIDE BEHIND A POOR HUMAN TRYING TO TELL THE WORLD ,
HOW VICIOUSLY THEY TREAT A MINORITY, CUTTING THEIR HEAD, BURNING THEIR HOUSES STEALING THEIR BELONGNING ,WORSE THAN ANIMALS,
OBAMA AND HILARY HIDE BEHIND AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO SAVE THEIR NECK, AND SACRIFICE HIM INSTEAD OF TELLING THE TRUTH, AND ACCUSING THEM OF KILLING THE OTHER FOUR AT THE BENGHASI ATTACK,
THEY BACK DOWN ON THEIR DUTY, TO PROTECT AMERICANS
SO TO WIN THE ELECTION FOR DEMOCRATES,
AND SOME ARE BLIND ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM LEADER AGAIN
TO PROTECT THEIR DEMOCRAT JOBS, IT’S THE PROOF,
THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE,
THE PEOPLE DON’T FEEL SECURE ANYMORE,
THEY SAY, FOOL ME ONCE AND I WILL FORGIVE YOU,
BUT FOOL ME TWICE AND I WOULD BE THE FOOL TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER CHANCE,
“Obama and Hillary have been exonerated” By what, the fantastic tale, discredited by memo after memo after memo, that the attack was a spontaneous response to an obscure video?
You know, this one, John and Ronald, just because you deem something a lie doesn’t make it so. I guess you all get your strategic directives from Reid. The evidence is overwhelming that the administration lied about the video being the cause of the attack. The evidence is pretty much conclusive that Hillary was derelict in her duties taking action to prevent the attack. And, with what we know now, it is pretty obvious that when all the facts come out, Obama will be in this cover-up up to his golf shirt collar.
Ronald J. Ward said: “Want proof people hate ACA? Just ask The heritage Foundation. CNSNEWS???? I could continue with multiple examples but we’ve been there and done that.”@Ronald J. Ward:
The Heritage Foundation? CNSNews? This is your ‘proof?’ Why not Fox News, lol!
@ilovebeeswarzone:
The Russian ship in Cuba is there to embarrass Obama, and it has done just that. I don’t think there is any danger, just embarrassment.
@@Smorgasbord: :”The republicans will NEVER investigate the matter, or any other things concerning the obama administration, because they would also have to investigate why they let obama do all of the things he has done that are ruining the USA. ”
They’ll also have to question Bush about the dozen or so attacks on embassies during his Presidency. Or the lies he used to kill a million people.
@retire05:
probably about as much as Zippy
@Pete: “It is not a conspiracy theory that Stevens repeatedly asked for increased security, which was denied.”
Which was denied by the GOP. C’mon, you didn’t know this?
@Greg:
They shut up? I hadn’t noticed. So who did they conclude made the decision to have the Americans killed? Zippy or Zero?
Redteam
WE SAID THAT WHEN WE WHERE WATCHING THE JAPANEESE PLANES AT THE ARISEN,
COMING TOWARD THE BRAVES,
BYE
@Pete:
That statement had a context. I realize that context is a difficult concept for some people.
To simplify things, the statement was an expression of Clinton’s frustration with Senator Ron Johnson’s fixation on whether the Obama administration’s original assumption that the attack had evolved from a spontaneous demonstration was accurate or not. It really doesn’t matter. This assumption was made shortly after the events in Benghazi had taken place, and before all available information was in. Whether it was correct or not didn’t affect the events themselves.
She certainly could have responded in a more pointed fashion. For example, she might have asked Senator Johnson if he was deliberately attempting to politically exploit the deaths of 4 Americans in the context of an investigation, or if it was only a matter of his being incredibly stupid.
@Greg:
Cause and affect.
Study it.
Greg
she might have ask why SENATOR JOHNSON IS using the death to make a point,
from you is not surprising to hear, you are regressing in brain power, what do you chew,
it was the time to ask hard questions and SENATOR JOHNSON ASK THE HARD QUESTIONS
like the other, but they work hard for getting, what difference does it make at this point,
YOU CAN TRY BUT YOUR COVER DOESN’T FIT, THEY ARE HEROS, FOR AMERICANS TO BE PROUD OF REMEMBERING,
WE TALK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE IT IS SO OUTRAGEOUS, WE NEED TO KEEP IT ALIVE UNTIL WE LEARN
WHY THIS HAPPEN? WHY THERE? WHY THEM? WHY THEY WHERE LEFT ALONE?
IT IS INCONCEIVEBLE AND WE WILL NOT LEAVE AS LONG AS SOMEONE PAY FOR IT,
WE KEEP IT ALIVE, BECAUSE THEY WHERE LET DOWN
BY A FEW PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THEM,
THEY DIE ALONE, WE KEEP THEM IN THE MEMORY OF THE AMERICANS A LOT LONGER THAN THOSE WHO LET THEM TO
FIGHT AND DIE WAITING FOR AMERICA TO HELP,
BECAUSE NO MAN IS LEFT BEHIND,
@This one:#39 Or, ask those whose lives have been disrupted by it to benefit the liberal takeover of 1/6th of the economy.
@This one: #39 Every incident of that sort is investigated and hearings are held. Duh. Killed “millions”? Been to the Harry Reid School of Outrageous Lies With No Foundation?
@Greg: #46 Yes, it had context. Hillary didn’t want any questions about why she supported the unsupportable excuse of the video rather or why she was ignoring her duty to support the post or pull the people out of harms way or why the consulate was left defenseless for purely political reasons (and this, in light of how she and Obama admitted they opposed the surge on purely political grounds, is not at all hyperbole). That’s why, in her view, it simply didn’t matter. The damage was done, the people were dead, she wants to be President, let’s move on. There’s the summation of your favored candidate for President.
The answers to the questions DO matter. For, if they are going to rest on the lie that the attack was a spontaneous riot due to an obscure video and they knew it was a lie, WHY did they do that? The question and answer mattered SPECIFICALLY in the context of a front-running Presidential candidate. For, she had made the very argument before that she was the one that was prepared to answer that 3 am phone call when, in actual practice, it appears she was found woefully lacking. It DOES matter and, if what appears to be the actual case in fact is true, I do NOT want that person in the White House. It makes QUITE a difference.
@retire05: #47
Liberals only understand, “Tax and spend.”