23 Jan

Rand Paul to Hillary: Let’s face it, you should have been fired over Benghazi

Allahpundit @ Hot Air:

Via Gateway Pundit, I figured he might be the boldest Republican questioner but I had no idea how bold. The key line: “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility because no one else is.” He’s taking dead aim at the insulting charade of buck-stops-here bravado among American politicians who are happy to “show leadership” by admitting to their failures on the condition that they’ll suffer no consequences for them. Accountability’s a smart theme for a populist would-be presidential candidate to take up. And telling a Clinton to her face on TV that she should have been fired for negligence, which is true, is a smart, splashy way to do it. It’s a dual critique, superficially a reprimand to Obama’s secretary of state but more broadly an indictment of how Washington tends to do business. I’ve always assumed there’s no way he’ll leapfrog Rubio and Ryan as a frontrunner among grassroots conservatives in 2016 but it’s getting harder to believe that every day.

And now that he’s demanded accountability from the most popular Democrat pol in America, he must pay:

https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/statuses/294121464066605060

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

80 Responses to Rand Paul to Hillary: Let’s face it, you should have been fired over Benghazi

  1. Aleric says: 1

    I just finished listening to him on WHAS where he was talking about how disappointed he was in a do nothing Secretary like Hillary is. He stated that she has made so many lapses in judgement that she should not be in the postion she holds or any other after that. Bottom line she needs to be FIRED. He is calling for Culpability in her part for what she DIDNT do. He also stated that the Military needs to be in charge of guarding any embassy that is located in a war zone or a country that has armed conflict occuring not politicians thousands of miles away.

    Its sad that Rand Paul, who I didnt vote for since I didnt consider him a Republican, is actually more conservative than all of the establishment Republicans now in office and he is very Libertarian.

    ReplyReply
  2. MOS 8541 says: 2

    The slut is an extension of the current garbage administration. She should have been fired and all retirement benefits removed. Think about this, she will get all retirement benefits for this job no matter how she screwed up.
    This is the extension of the garbage sitting in the wipe house. Kerry the fake” purple heart ” is no better-whore dog at best.
    Has anyone stopped and profiled the garbage and violation of the Constitution this past and current administration has incurred?
    Remember clinton-”king whore dog”. Recall NAFTA? NAFTA opened the major drug trafficking between Mexico and the US. Dr. Paul Kan has written a very good book on cartel wars, need to read it.
    Garbage and the 47 million on welfare want to keep it that way

    ReplyReply
  3. that was pretty well put and rightfully too.

    ReplyReply
  4. retire05 says: 4

    The dog and pony show that was the Senatorial hearings on Benghazi today, made me want to hurl my lunch. Has there ever been a greater example of what is wrong with Washington, D.C.?

    “Thank you for being here today, Secretary Clinton. We all appreciate what an excellent job you have done. Nevermind that four Americans were slaughtered on your watch, good job on your part, Secretary Clinton. And let me add, there is no doubt that Benghazi was the fault of Bush and the Congressional Republicans who refused to give you a blank check on what you could spend on security for our Ambassador in the biggest hotspot in the Middle East.”

    There, that about sums it up.

    And hey, it doesn’t matter why Chris Stevens and three others were slaughtered. We’re past that now. What is important is that we bring them to justice, giving them some circus trial, where Eric Holder can grandstand, and lose, because after all, Al Qaeda in Africa is not interested in us and won’t be upset if we capture their operatives in Libya. (said with tongue in cheek)

    Nevermind that we spent $80 million on an embassy in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan that will never be opened, or staffed, because it is just too dangerous for our State Department staffers. How much security would $80 million have bought for Ambassador Stevens and the others?

    Hillary’s testimony today brought back memories of her willing suspension of disbelief. That is what her testimony required today. Plausible deniability. The tactic (perfected by her husband) of deliberate, deceitful disinformation.

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 5

    I had thought Rand Paul was smart enough to understand there’s a difference between accepting responsibility and taking personal blame. Apparently not.

    ReplyReply
  6. GREG
    I really lke the way RAND PAUL CAME PUBLIC TO EXPRESS WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK OF THE BENGHASI COVER UP.

    ReplyReply
  7. retire05
    I would have prefer only the smart questions from republican conservatives,
    instead of that show of praise every second taking head, you could see them coming
    repeating the same as they did to her in private to counterbalance the investigation,
    and was cut in half because of their useless questions,
    they wasted our time by half there was only one third
    of questions which was interesting, by calculating every one
    talking.

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 8

    @Greg:

    I had thought Rand Paul was smart enough to understand there’s a difference between accepting responsibility and taking personal blame. Apparently not.

    When one assumes responsibility for an action, or their actions, that is assuming personal blame.

    I thought you would be smart enough to understand that. Apparently not.

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 9

    Assuming responsibility is NOT the same thing as being personally to blame.

    Actually, Rand Paul most likely does get this. That doesn’t keep him from ignoring the distinction to score points with people who don’t.

    He likely understands the actual meaning of the word decimated, too.

    ReplyReply
  10. Mr. Irons says: 10

    When one takes up responsibility, as in her own personal choice of action and words, she is going to be dealt blame for what has happened. Your attempt to re-write the syntax of English to fit your personal opinions on matters is highly amusing.

    ReplyReply
  11. MOS 8541 says: 11

    Correct, the dog and pony show, the fake tears, the caskets coming home–all politically staged photo shoots for PR. No wonder people are leaving america. Vomit!

    ReplyReply
  12. Aleric
    hi,
    WHAT I think is that RAND PAUL kept himself in the back to not
    interfere with his FATHER ELECTION which he was right was priority,
    so he had to leave the public stage ,
    but I notice now he is not shy to come public and take a stand,
    and we like what he said, about any issue he confront, he stand tall
    and I think he will continue the same way, because there is too much
    wrong coming out of the DEMOCRATS, IT HAS TO BE OUT IN THE PEOPLE’S EARS
    SO THEY DON’T GET AWAY AGAIN WITH DEATH OF AMERICANS
    OR DESTRUCTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT, OR THE 14 AMENDMENT THEY ARE LOOKING AT,

    ReplyReply
  13. Randy says: 13

    What people do not seem to understand is that because of this administration, Americans are vulnerable all over the world. Look at the recent Americans killed at the gas installation. We have American military and civilian advisors working for the US government all over the world. None of them can expect this administration to intervene in a crisis. None of them can expect adequate security, yet they perform their duties. That would not even happen under Clinton. Only a Carter/Obama type administration would allow Americans to be performing government work with out adequate security. Now we see that they are being slaughtered by weapons provided by our own government under the guise of supporting supporting freedom fighters who are actually terrorists. How soon will the weapons we provided to terrorists in Syria show up in Jordan and Saudi Arabia? Who should be held accountable for this severe lack of judgement? Who should be shouldering the blame for their ignorance? It seems to me that the person who holds the reins of the government agency who failed should be the one to blame and to suffer the consequences.

    ReplyReply
  14. MOS 8541 says: 14

    Agree, there is no more America

    ReplyReply
  15. liberal1(objectivity) says: 15

    @MOS 8541: A very intelligent response.

    ReplyReply
  16. she said we didn’t see it coming,
    what a lie, OBAMA MADE IT COME , he told the leaders to leave to resign their post their leadership,
    no matter how rigid it was , we see now they where right to handle those mob with a hand of iron,
    she said , we did not see it coming,
    here we did from the beginning forsee it coming, the CONSERVATIVES SAW IT SO CLEAR
    THERE WAS NO DOUBT AT ALL.
    WHAT does it tell us, who was in charge in theses last 4 years? it answer the question that HILLARY POSE; WE DIDN’T SEE IT COMING,
    NOW it’s with us to fight them, to destroy them, what a legacy to leave to AMERICANS?
    how many died for teaching AFGHANISTAN’S PEOPLE TO FIGHT? HOW MANY DIED FOR EVADING
    ONE EIDS WHILE JUMPING ON THE OTHER WITH THE OTHER LEG,
    THEY DIDN’T SEE IT COMING, WHAT WHERE WHO THE LEADERSHIP DID TO STOP IT?
    ALL IT WAS NEEDED WAS A TOTAL EXTERMINATION, IT WAS DONE BEFORE AND IT’S LEGACY PROVED IT WAS THE RIGHT MOVE, THIS ONE WAS TO KILL OUR OWN SO TO PROTECT THE OTHER
    WHICH WHERE THE ENEMIES,
    SHE SAID AFTER GOING ALL OVER THE WORLD, WE DIDN’T SEE IT COMING IN BENGHASI,
    BUT DIDN’T STEVENS TOLD THEM BEFORE WAY BEFORE ASKING FOR SUPPORT,
    BUT THE NEW LIBYA LEADER HAD NOT WANT THE AMERICANS TO GIVE SECURITY,
    AND HIS PEOPLE FLEE WHEN ALQUADA SHOW UP,
    STEVEN KNEW IT, THE CANADIAN AMBASSADOR RETURN HOME, HE HAD SEEN IT COMING,
    THE RED CROSS SEEN IT, THE BRITISH HAVE SEEN IT,
    BUT NOT THE PRESIDENT WHO DID LISTEN TO HIS FRIEND HE HELP PUT THERE,
    YES OKAY ANYTHING YOU WANT, WE’LL SAY IT’S FOR DEMOCRACY BUILDING,
    NO MARINES THERE,
    IT’S JUST ME, BUT I would have said stifu, this is my people it’s my duty to protect them,
    it’s that or nothing,take it or leave it,
    but he did not say anything, when ask for help by STEVEN, HE TOLD THE SEAL TO STAY DOWN,
    NO HELP IT’S AN ORDER, BUT HE WAS SPEAKING TO THE SEALS HERO, THEY WENT TO HELP
    AND DIED VALIANTLY FIGHTING TILL THE END, NO LIBYANS ‘S HELP,
    NO TALK TO THE LIBYAN LEADER NO PUNISHMENT, NO , HILLARY AND OBAMA SWEAR PUNISHMENT TO THE ONE WHO MADE A MOVIE IN AMERICA EXPOSING THE BESTIAL ACTIONS OF THE NEW EGYPT LEADER, THEY ASK FOR FORGIVNES AND SWEAR THEY ARE NOT GUILTY,
    SHE DIDN’T SEE IT COMING, OBAMA MADE IT ALL HAPPEN IN ONLY 4 YEARS,

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 17

    @Mr. Irons, #10:

    Your attempt to re-write the syntax of English to fit your personal opinions on matters is highly amusing.

    There’s no deceptive wording involved. Taking responsibility IS NOT the same thing as being personally to blame.

    People like Rand Paul are the reason the republican party has become worse than useless. His entire preoccupation with Benghazi revolves around how to use it to political advantage. He’s not content that Hillary Clinton has publicly taken full responsibility as head of the State Department. He wants her to acknowledge that she was personally to blame–that some specific action or inaction on her part was the main causative factor.

    She won’t do so, because it’s simply not true. She probably doesn’t give a damn that Rand Paul “would have relieved her of her post.” I certainly don’t, though the comment ticked me off. In my humble opinion, one dedicated and highly accomplished public servant like Hillary Clinton is worth more to the nation than any number of marginal cranks like Rand Paul.

    Maybe Paul is thinking about 2016. Lots of luck with that. I think the GOP will either have moved back toward the political center by then, or will have ceased to have any national relevance. Personally, I’m hoping for the former.

    ReplyReply
  18. retire05 says: 18

    @Greg:

    What a load of manure you are trying to spread.

    one dedicated and highly accomplished public servant like Hillary Clinton is worth more to the nation than any number of marginal cranks like Rand Paul.

    You certainly jest. No one can think that Hillary has been a success. At what? Facilitating an “Arab spring” that is going to come back and bite us right square in the ass? Helping arm the Syrians and the Egyptians that will most certainly turn those weapons on us one day?

    If Hillary truely accepts responsibility for the deaths of four Americans, then she should be on trial. Not testifing to the Senate, but in front of a jury. Being an accessory to a crime IS a crime. She did not do her job. No, no, no. Funding Volts in foreign embassies and providing a scant $387,000.00 for security in Benghazi, which, by the way, was outsourced to a couple of Welshmen, is hardly a blip on the SoS budget. Allowing the hiring of February 17th Martry’s Brigade as security for Chris Stevens, all five of them, will hardly go down in the record book as a brilliant idea.

    She is a failure. Her only claim to fame is to be married to a rapist/former president. Otherwise, she would just be another Saul Alinsky groupie who was wearing pink underwear to protest in front of the Capitol.

    Of course, it is no surprise you would consider any inquiry into Benghazi as “preoccupation.” Anything that might reflect on the Chicago Jesus you will scream about to the mountain tops. So tell us, Greggie, if it finally comes out that Obama was gun running to Libya, just like he did with the Mexican drug cartels, will you support that action?

    How can anyone reach a level of brain-deadness as you have is beyond imagination.

    ReplyReply
  19. GREG in any business or government positions of importance,
    which life or death is involved, the one responsible for failure
    must loose his head as he gain glory and fame if he does a good job,
    the two are opposit and together as it was the case for her,
    she would have help her image by leaving her position on her own decision,
    and like she said there are 4 deaths involved, but she made the error to lower the importance of those deaths for what she said making sure it does not happen anymore, but the death where the reason why there was this inquiry,
    THEY WHERE NOT SUPPOSE TO HAPPEN. not her future projection which another will take in her place,she did not respond to 7 calls for help she said it never came to her, if it never came to her, the logic is
    it must have come to OBAMA, EITHER WAY THEY BOTH FAIL THEIR RESPONSIBILITY,
    WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO THE SEAL TO STAY DOWN,IT WAS NOT ASK? THAT IS CRITICAL TO KNOW,
    DON’T YOU FORGET THE BRUTAL MURDER, AND THE 3 OTHER DEATH OF THE BRAVES HEROS, THEY WONT BE FORGOTTEN,
    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE

    ReplyReply
  20. Nan G says: 20

    @retire05: Funding Volts in foreign embassies….

    Allocation of funds is more important than amount of funding.
    Records show $47,500 was spent in March on a Chevy Volt for the American Embassy in Oslo. That’s more than the usual $39,000 that 2013 Volts are going for — and certainly doesn’t include the $7,500 tax credit individuals can reap for electric car purchases.
    ….
    In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

    The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

    Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

    If a consumer needs an electrical converter, the 240V dedicated charging stations cost, at most, around $2,000 (and guess what? consumers get tax credits for these, too). What did the embassy spend the extra $100K on?

    Those Chevy Volt-related purchases are symbols of misguided Obama administration priorities.
    Those priorities cost lives.
    I’m sure these two embassies aren’t the only places the government has spent money on environmental idealism instead of practical security measures.
    Sounds like a new Sec State in JFKerry will do much the same.
    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/24/3198988/kerry-climate-change-a-life-threatening.html

    ReplyReply
  21. Nan G
    that’s why they cover up BENGHASI,
    I don’t know how but you always find their failures,
    thank you

    ReplyReply
  22. Mr. Irons says: 22

    @Greg: \

    Oh did I hurt your little feelings of what is and is not comes packaged when one takes, “Responsibility” for something? What trite banter do you have outside of opinion that can change the reality of this situation? None. Keep on sittin on spinning on that stick. You’re rather amusing there posing as a dunce on this issue.

    You’ve proven time and again to be an idiot bound to opinion, not the reality of a situation and on top of it a fairly bad liar and fake in terms of “experience” in matters you truly know little of.

    ReplyReply
  23. Greg says: 23

    @Nan G, #20:

    Allocation of funds is more important than amount of funding.
    Records show $47,500 was spent in March on a Chevy Volt for the American Embassy in Oslo. That’s more than the usual $39,000 that 2013 Volts are going for — and certainly doesn’t include the $7,500 tax credit individuals can reap for electric car purchases.

    Gasoline in Oslo presently costs over $10 per gallon. An electric Chevy Volt is more economical to run.

    The price is higher because Norway tacks a 25 percent Value Added Tax into the purchase price of imported automobiles.

    ReplyReply
  24. MOS 8541 says: 24

    It is about time the current pres is relieved of all responsibilities and duties under the Declaration and the Constitution-Impeachment is now.

    ReplyReply
  25. Greg says: 25

    @Mr. Irons, #22:

    Oh did I hurt your little feelings of what is and is not comes packaged when one takes, “Responsibility” for something?

    When something goes wrong in an organization, a certain type of self-seeking person will automatically look for someone to blame. Generally they’ll try to pin blame on an opponent or rival, as a means of furthering their own ambitions. A number of republicans seem to fall into that category. The false stories, misinformation, and outright lies they floated about Benghazi in the run-up to the 2012 election were a shameful example of that sort of behavior. All of the bullshit is on record. You might want to go back and review it, and ask yourself how many of the stories turned out to be true.

    Another sort of person, more concerned with organization goals and improving the function of the organization itself, will focus on trying to figure out specifically what caused things to go wrong, and on how the problem can be fixed. The bullshit and static generated by the first category–people like Rand Paul–doesn’t aid in that useful process. It only clouds the waters.

    Like I said: The GOP is presently worse than useless. The party needs a double dose of some strong purgative. It could regain its health and strength, if only the extremists were expelled and centrists who speak common sense without poisonous rancor were allowed to take the stage again. Unfortunately I don’t see much reason to hope for that. I imagine the people who are wrecking the GOP are already looking for a subject for their next political witch hunt. They only seem to know how to exploit negativity.

    ReplyReply
  26. MOS 8541
    HI,
    I read there was many demands of impeachment, signed by the people

    ReplyReply
  27. retire05 says: 27

    @Greg:

    The false stories, misinformation, and outright lies they floated about Benghazi in the run-up to the 2012 election were a shameful example of that sort of behavior. All of the bullshit is on record. You might want to go back and review it, and ask yourself how many of the stories turned out to be true.

    Maybe you would like to list those “false stories, misinformation, and outright lies” that you claim Republicans floated about Benghazi. Or are you just going to do your typical sh!t slinging thinking no one can see the stains on your hands?

    Benghazi, and the slaughter of four Americans, was a failure of national leaders that goes all the way to the top. When “green” energy directives become more important, dollar wise, than the security of our foreign service personnel, we have a major problem with leadership.

    There is no way you can spin (well, I guess you can try, and fail) to blame Benghazi on Republicans.

    Poor Greggie, trying his best to defend the indefensible.

    ReplyReply
  28. Greg says: 28

    Maybe you would like to list those “false stories, misinformation, and outright lies” that you claim Republicans floated about Benghazi. Or are you just going to do your typical sh!t slinging thinking no one can see the stains on your hands?

    You might want to consider scheduling an appointment to have your memory and other cognitive functions professionally evaluated. The Benghazi lies were coming thick and fast before the election. No sooner was one discounted than a new one was rolled out. Surely you remember at least a few of them?

    A stand-down order, probably from the White House, kept a fast-response team from coming to the aid of the besieged consulate.

    The whole thing was watched from the White House via a drone. Requests for reinforcements from Benghazi were repeatedly denied, probably at Obama’s order.

    Obama wanted the public to believe the attack was carried spontaneously by a mob. For that reason he didn’t mention the possibility of a terrorist attack until over 2 weeks later.

    A gunship was in the area, most likely in Italy or somewhere, and could have arrived in Benghazi in time to provide fire support.

    Annex personnel were painting targets on the ground with a laser target designator, in anticipation of the gunship that never arrived.

    There was no connection between the anti-Islamic video released on YouTube and the violent protests that swept across much of the Muslim world.

    The Egyptian embassy’s efforts to defuse the situation by issuing a letter disavowing that same video was an act of capitulation. Obama’s support of the embassy’s decision to do that is evidence that he’s a closet Muslim, soft on terror, or some such bullshit.

    Normally there would have been Marines on site to guard embassy personnel. Hey, there are Marines at the embassy in Paris, right?

    All those lies, all to no avail. Obama won handily—in spite of the FOX News propaganda machine, in spite of the loons on right-wing radio, and in spite of an orchestrated effort across republican-dominated states to methodically suppress the vote.

    Deal with it. Or don’t. I really don’t care either way.

    ReplyReply
  29. retire05 says: 29

    @Greg:

    A stand-down order, probably from the White House, kept a fast-response team from coming to the aid of the besieged consulate

    Rapid response teams are positioned all across the globe. So why wasn’t one sent in? We have Special Forces that train for just this type of situation EVERY DAMN DAY. Where were they?

    The whole thing was watched from the White House via a drone. Requests for reinforcements from Benghazi were repeatedly denied, probably at Obama’s order.

    Charlene Lamb, who works directly under Hillary Clinton, testified that they watched the attack in “real time”. How do you think they (SoS hiarchy) were able to do that? Do you think that the U.S. has video cameras all across Benghazi?

    Obama wanted the public to believe the attack was carried spontaneously by a mob. For that reason he didn’t mention the possibility of a terrorist attack until over 2 weeks later.

    Obama help perpetrate the false meme that the attack in Benghazi was due to an obscure video. It was a lie. Hillary Clinton, standing by Obama’s side while the body of Chris Stevens was received at Andrews AFB, again, perpetrated the lie about the video. Hillary, and Obama, made a commercial that was aired in the Middle East, denouncing the video and saying that the government had nothing to do with it, relating that video to the attack in Benghazi.

    Damn man, do you not even believe what you can see with your eyes?

    Annex personnel were painting targets on the ground with a laser target designator, in anticipation of the gunship that never arrived.

    It was reported by even the lamestream press, that there were targets being painted and that one of the soon-to-be-dead Americans asked where the hell support was.

    The Egyptian embassy’s efforts to defuse the situation by issuing a letter disavowing that same video was an act of capitulation. Obama’s support of the embassy’s decision to do that is evidence that he’s a closet Muslim, soft on terror, or some such bullshit.

    I couldn’t care less what the Egyptian embassy said. I saw the video of the CNN reporter who interviewed al Zawahiri’s brother who was very clear about the reason for the protest in Cairo. It was not over a video, it was to demand the release of the Blind Sheikh.

    Normally there would have been Marines on site to guard embassy personnel. Hey, there are Marines at the embassy in Paris, right?

    We have Marines stationed at a number of embassies. Bogata comes to mind. I think the U.S. Embassy in Vienna also has a Marine security staff. So why not Benghazi?

    Greggie, you really need to seek mental health treatment. You are so far gone that you don’t believe anything adverse about the Chicago Jesus, even if reported in the lame stream press.

    I noticed you also didn’t give any sources for all those comments you claim were made. Perhaps they were just made up in your little pea brain.

    So tell me, why did Obama and Clinton outsource Benghazi security to a couple of Welsh guys who hired members of the February 17 Martyr’s Brigade terrorist organization?

    Why did the State Department spent less that $400,000.00 on Libyan security when we spent millions on “green” initiatives at other embassies?

    Umm, Greggie? Do you have any answers for those questions, or are you just trying to get the sh!t off your hands so you can throw it?

    ReplyReply
  30. GREG
    the propaganda come from the other MEDIAS,
    FOX NEWS IS NOT PLAYING THAT GAME, they are CONSERVATIVES,
    THEY OUTSMART ANY MEDIAS BECAUSE THEY TELL THE TRUTH,
    NO BULSHIT, YOU GET THE TRUTH WITH PROOF AND ANALYST,
    DON’T BELIEVE WHAT THE OTHER TELL YOU, THEY ARE SOLD,
    THEY DON’T HAVE THE FAIR BALANCE AND UNAFRAID OF FOX NEWS.

    ReplyReply
  31. Greg says: 31

    Umm, Greggie? Do you have any answers for those questions, or are you just trying to get the sh!t off your hands so you can throw it?

    You’ve asked no sensible questions. Each of your questions revolves around some bit of information that was inaccurate to begin with. Those bits of inaccurate information were woven together to create a deceptive scenario that appealed to and served the political ends of the far right. (Though not very well, apparently. A majority of Americans rejected it at the polls.)

    ReplyReply
  32. retire05 says: 32

    @Greg:

    You’ve asked no sensible questions

    Actually, I have, and you have no authority to determine whether any of the questions I posed you are are sensible or insensible. Your opinion doesn’t create fact.

    The fact is that we have rapid response teams stationed all across the globe for just such a contingent as Benghazi. Why were none of them deployed. The attack lasted for hours. HOURS, Greggie.

    But you don’t answer questions that would conflict with your narrative of defending the indefensible. You are a coward, who simply comes here to be the cheering squad for the Chicago Jesus. Frankly, I feel sorry for you. You are one of these low-information voters who thinks that Socialism is sooooo great, although you have never had to live under it.

    I am still waiting for you to tell me who made the statements you claim were made in your post #28. How about some links? How about providing the direct quote and a link to it? Or is that beyond your capacity with your less than double diget I.Q.?

    Explain to me why Obama would support sending women into combat, in the name of “equality” but doesn’t say one word about the sexist requirements in the NBA or the NFL?

    ReplyReply
  33. Greg says: 33

    @retire05, #32:

    The fact is that we have rapid response teams stationed all across the globe for just such a contingent as Benghazi. Why were none of them deployed. The attack lasted for hours. HOURS, Greggie.

    Are you laboring under a delusion that rapid response means instantaneous? It doesn’t. It can’t. A rapid response involves hours. Where were the special forces teams flown in from? The United States, and Croatia. Here’s the Pentagon’s official event timeline. Such real events unfold in the real world, with all of its complications, confusions, and delays—not in some carefully scripted Hollywood movie. Decision makers who must respond to such events in real time don’t have the luxury of knowing all of the facts when they need them. Monday morning quarterbacks who expound on what should have been done are always viewing the world in a rear view mirror.

    The most rapid response I recall was from Mitt Romney’s mouth. He was yapping about the Obama Administration’s responses before he even knew what he was talking about. His mouth could actually have influenced events, given the fact that violent protests—against a video that in the right-wing media’s fantasy land supposedly had no effect on anything—were at that point rapidly spreading across the Muslim world. Shall we discuss just how irresponsible that politically motivated response was?

    ReplyReply
  34. retire05 says: 34

    @Greg:

    Are you laboring under a delusion that rapid response means instantaneous?

    Did I say instantaneous? What did I say, or is English not your first language? I understand that you are used to dealing with liberals, who are not very smart, but I am neither a liberal or as dumb as you would label me. Stop being an asshole.

    Now, if you are thinking that the CNN timeline supports any claim that the Obama administration reacted to the Benghazi attack with professionalism and concern, it does just the opposite. And if you were a logical thinking person, you would have seen the problems with that time line.

    Here are the problems, using CNN’s timeline:

    9:42 p.m. (Benghazi time) the attack starts

    9:59 p.m. a U.S. drone flys over the attack zone (now, that drone was capable of transferring information which could have been transferred directly to the White House, and it was just 17 minutes after the attact started. And yes, the Communications Room in the White House has the ability to link into any drone that we fly.)

    10:32 p.m. The administration claims that this is the time that the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, was notified. Perhaps you find Panetta not being notified for over an hour after the attack started acceptable, but I don’t. And you shouldn’t either.

    11:00 p.m. Panetta, and General Dempsey, meet with Obama at the White House. an hour and a half after the attack had started and was a meeting time already pre-planned PRIOR to the attack. This too, Greggie, is unacceptable. American soil, and American citizens, were under attack by terrorists and Panetta and Dempsey wait until a pre-arranged time to meet with the President? Do you think our military waited for two and a half hours after the start of Pearl Harbor to meet with FDR? If you do, you are more clueless than I could have ever imagined.

    11:30 p.m. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith are slaughtered. While Obama is dithering about what to do and Panetta and Dempsey are kissing ass, those two Americans are killed by terrorists.

    Now here is where it gets murky:

    Midnight to 2:00 a.m.: Let me quote you:

    Where were the special forces teams flown in from? The United States, and Croatia

    Was it midnight, or was it 2:00 a.m.? Two hours in a firefight is an eternity. Just as anyone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ask Curt. Why the vagueness about that particular time frame?

    And why did you not mention the one place designed to protect our embassies; Rota, Spain, which was listed in your CNN link? You know, Greggie, these guys:

    http://www.marines.americanspecialops.com/fleet-antiterrorism-security-team

    These Rapid Response Teams are designed to be in the air in less than 20 minutes. The distance from Rota, Spain and Benghazi is less than five hours. And why a C-17 that is designed to hold a troop strength of 158 men plus a crew of 3? So if you were a thinking person, which you are not, you would question the decision to sent a huge plane that was not required for the Marine’s Rapid Response Teams assigned to respond to embassy/consulate emergencies. Why not sent fighters that can put a bomb through the eye of a needle and disperse the terrorists? Why a troop movement aircraft? Think, Greggie, think. You might even learn to enjoy it.

    Even using a C-17, the flight time between Rota, Spain and Benghazi is less than five hours. But those teams didn’t go to Benghazi, did they? They went to Tripoli, where they were denied entry to Benghazi due to Obama’s great relationship with the Libyans.

    5:15 a.m. The second wave of attacks is launched and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are slaughtered by terrorists.

    So there you have it. Seven hours and 33 minutes after the attack started, and six hours and 15 minutes after Panetta was notified, Woods and Doherty are dead with no one coming to their rescue.

    Now, perhaps you find all this lack of action acceptable. You would. Because you would support Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. even if you learned that he axe murdered his own mothers. But I don’t. And where was Hillary in all this? Not once in the CNN report was her name even mentioned. NOT ONCE.

    So…………………where are your links to the comments you claim were made in post #28?

    You see, Greggie, most people here just ignore you as the pissant you are. But I won’t, because I am sick of liberals making excuses for this administration and lying about Obama’s actions which are inexcusable. I will get in your face, just as Obama told his groupies to get into the face of those who oppose him. I will take you down with facts, not unicorn fairy tales. And when you think you are winning because of a CNN link, I will use it against you.

    You are my enemy. And an enemy to this nation.

    ReplyReply
  35. GREG
    one more to answer your arrogant sentence about MITT ROMNEY, YOU SAID YAPPING,
    YOU SAID HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS SAYING,
    HE DAM KNEW WHAT TO SAY, HE DEMAND CLEAR ANSWERS FOR THE PEOPLE
    WHO WHERE LEFT IN THE UNKNOWN, THE PARENTS MORNING THEIR SONS
    THE FRIENDS MORNING THEIR FRIENDS,
    HE CAME IN ONLY AFTER HAVING POLITLY GIVE ENOUGH TIME TO OBAMA TO EXPLAIN,
    BUT IT DID NOT HAPPEN, SO HE FELT HIS DUTY TO COME AND DEMAND EXPLANATIONS
    HE WAS REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE,
    AND IF HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED, HE WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME COURTESY
    FOR AMERICANS, BECAUSE HE HAD CLASS AND FELT THE THE CONCERN OF AMERICANS,
    IN A STRESFUL SITUATION THAT THEY WHERE ATTACK ON THEIR OWN GROUND
    IN A SECOND 9/11/12 TRAGEDY,
    NO ONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE CAME TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE,
    ONLY AFTER MITT ROMNEY DEMAND IT.AND CNN WENT AFTER MITT ROMNEY TO ACCUSE HIM,
    BUT HE WAS RIGHT IN DOING IT,

    ReplyReply
  36. retire05 says: 36

    @Greg:

    The most rapid response I recall was from Mitt Romney’s mouth. He was yapping about the Obama Administration’s responses before he even knew what he was talking about.

    Actually, by September 11th, Romney was receiving much of the security briefings that Obama was getting. There is a reason for that, Greggie. It is so that a new administration will be fully informed from day one. Obama got the same type of briefings in September, 2008 before he was elected.

    His mouth could actually have influenced events, given the fact that violent protests—against a video that in the right-wing media’s fantasy land supposedly had no effect on anything—were at that point rapidly spreading across the Muslim world. Shall we discuss just how irresponsible that politically motivated response was?

    Is there any event, any disaster, any failure on the part of Obama that you cannot find a reason to blame it on someone else? The events in Libya had NOTHING to do with some obscure video that millions of Middle Easterners knew nothing about. The video of the CNN reporter interviewing Al Zawahiri’s brother in Cairo made it VERY CLEAR that the Cairo protest was NOT about some stupid video, but was in fact, a demand to relieve the Blink Sheikh, who is imprisoned here in the U.S and who was responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

    But I guess you know more than the brother of Al Zawahiri, who actually organized the Cairo protests.

    Greggie, not everyone is as stupid as you are. Not everyone is buying into the “hopey-changie” mantra of the Chicago Jesus. Some of us understand that he, like you, is an enemy of this nation. Now, I don’t know what your goal is in promoting falsehoods, but I suggest that before you subscribe to the whole “Socialism is good” rhetoric, you go to some country that actually has it, and live under it for awhile.

    Bees, thanks for reminding me of this bunch of crap from Greggie. What a disgusting, vile piece of human trash Greggie is.

    ReplyReply
  37. retire05
    there is also the actions of the mob took in burning THE OBAMA IMAGE,
    AND THE FLAG OF AMERICA,
    AND ALSO SOON BEFORE THE RIOTS, OBAMA SEND A DRONE which kill a senior ALQAEDA
    [and I think his family also] but this last line i’m not sure totally,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  38. Greg says: 38

    You’ve got too much hate. Even a little bit is toxic. There’s far too much of it around. I really don’t know where it all comes from, but it’s the main thing that’s wrong with the world. One hate-filled mob is pretty much the same as any other.

    ReplyReply
  39. GREG
    IT DOESN’T COME FROM HERE,
    IT COME FROM THE HATERS WHO SEEK REVENGE,
    HERE WE ONLY GIVE OPINION TO EXPOSE THEM.

    ReplyReply
  40. retire05 says: 40

    @Greg:

    You’ve got too much hate. Even a little bit is toxic. There’s far too much of it around. I really don’t know where it all comes from, but it’s the main thing that’s wrong with the world. One hate-filled mob is pretty much the same as any other.

    Take your Kumbayah crap and shove it. Do I hate you? No. Do I hate what you stand for? Damn straight, I do.

    It is people like you who elected a man who has absolutely no respect for the Constitution that made this nation the greatest in the history of mankind. It is people like you, who promote your Marxists beliefs, that the lazy and non-productive deserve to enjoy the labor of others. It is people like you, who marched on Washington, D.C. when we entered Southeast Asia, and Iraq, and yet say nothing when the President of the United States murders (YES, MURDERS) American citizens because they are on foreign soil and because he thinks he is above the Constitution. You would have been shouting to the mountain tops had George W. Bush done something like that, yet you say nothing when the man who represents your Socialist views does.

    Yes, Greggie, I hate everything you stand for. And I will not be silenced because you don’t like it. I hope you don’t like it. I hope you get so hacked off you finally shut the hell up and quit being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the destruction of this country.

    Ponder these words, Greggie, as they are applicable to you:

    “The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

    You have arrived at that battlefield. No longer will I remain silent against the blatant lies told by the you and your leftist ilk. You, as in those words above, twist the facts trying to prove you are right. You are not right, you are only a wrongheaded enemy of this nation. Like the OWS crowd, you think that you can create some utopia that will never exist and has never existed. Marx, Engles, Lenin, Castro, Che’, Stalin and all the other dictators that have ever existed since the days of Julius Caesar thought they had the answer to human inperfection. All they gave us were graves.

    ReplyReply
  41. retire05
    you see how your message is taken?
    he said it’s hate, but it’s not hate at all,
    it’s driven by love of AMERICA YOUR LAND,
    JUST LIKE THOSE WHO ARE IN FOREIGN LAND
    FIGHTING THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM WHO ARE THE ONE WHO HATE,
    THEY ARE THE ONE WHO KILL OUR OWN, THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED,
    NOT GIVEN GIFTS TO CALM THEM, BECAUSE THE WAY OBAMA GIVE THEM
    IT MAKE THEM GROW BIGGER, WE HAVE SEEN IT IN THESE LAST 4 YEARS OF OBAMA,
    THEY ARE KNOCKING AT OUR DOOR NOW, HE MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET RID OF,
    HE WELCOME THEM IN AMERICA, HOW MANY NOW ? ONE MILLION?
    AND MULTIPLY IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO AMERICA?
    IF THERE ARE NO ONE TO SHOUT OUT LOUD, IT IS NEEDED AS NEVER WAS BEFORE,
    THEY COME TO CHANGE THIS UNITED STATES WHICH WE LOVE,
    WE MUST SHOUT TO DIRECT THE PEOPLE’S ATTENTION TO THE OTHER CLIFF
    HE TRY TO HIDE FROM US, THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE DEEPER WHERE NO ONE WILL CLIME BACK
    THAT’S WHY THEY PROVIDE ALL KINDS OF OBSTACLE TO HIDE THEIR AGENDA,
    IT IS GETTING FAR NOW WHEN AMERICANS GET MURDER AND THE MURDERER GET AWAY WITH IT
    PLUS GET AN APOLOGY A FEW PLANES AND BILLIONS OF MONEY AMERICA DOES NOT POSSESS
    FOR HER OWN PEOPLE,
    IT MUST BE SHOUTED OUT LOUD ,SO THE PEOPLE KNOW, THAT SOMETHING VERY WRONG IS IN PROGRESS TO BE ACHIEVE IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS.
    she did not see it coming, she won’t see the next one either coming

    ReplyReply
  42. Brian Winkler says: 42

    Madame Clinton is counting on the American public to show its usual lack of attention. Senate testimony by Eric Nordstrom and Lt.Col. Andrew Woods plainly stated that security was not reinforced after requests from the field and previous attacks on the mission and other diplomatic enclaves in Benghazi. Mr.Nordstrom was told by his upstream in DC that State was normalizing operations and reducing its security resources. Appearances to be kept up not the actual degree of threat drove that decision.I shed no tears for any Liberal whose sophistry leads them to be bitten when they feed the crocodile. Obama is playing both sides of the street and it is destabilizing the least stable area on the globe.Obviously any attempt at hiding whatever was ongoing in the Benghazi mission and its “warehouse” did not escape notice by AQ, the small security footprint proving useless and fatal.Clinton won’t answer the hard questions and will sand bag the American people just as her boss has.As recent events in both Mali and Algeria prove AQ is alive and well and thriving in Central Africa.Eventually the WH will have to realize its grandiose pronouncements do not eliminate a patient and committed enemy or the threat they represent.

    ReplyReply
  43. Brian Winkler
    hi,
    I think that the SHARIA WILL BE INSTALLED IN AMERICA,
    WAY BEFORE THE SUPPOSE WISH OF OBAMA TO INSTALL DEMOCRACY IN THOSE MUSLIMS COUNTRIES,
    THIS IS AN UN- NATURAL DREAM OF OBAMA AND HILLARY,
    THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LAWS WHICH DICTATE THEIR PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE,
    UNBROKEN BY THE BOOK WHO ASSIMILATE THE BOTH,
    RELIGION AND POLITIC, MEAN KILL YOUR ENEMIES, HATE THE JEWS,
    PROMOTE MOBS RULES AND SET WARS TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE EARTH AND ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE,
    THERE WILL BE NEVER A ROOM FOR DEMOCRACY WITH THEM,
    BUT THEY PLAY THE GAME TO COME IN OUR COUNTRY TO TEACH
    THEIR RELIGION OF THEY CALL PEACE,
    ALL HIS ACTIONS SHOW THAT OBAMA IS WITH THEM NOT WITH US

    ReplyReply
  44. Greg says: 44

    As I recall, 9/11 caught our leaders by surprise over half-a-year into a republican presidency, and around 10 years into a continuous stretch of republican control of both the House and the Senate. That would be the same majority that suggested Clinton’s missile attack on al Qaeda training camps was a stunt to divert attention from more pressing national business of Monica Lewinski.

    No one denies that Benghazi security was not reinforced following requests from the field. The critical question is at what point in the State Department chain of command those requests were denied and rose no further. Republicans don’t like the answer they got, because it’s not the politically useful answer they wanted.

    I just saw a brief Sunday afternoon talking-head discussion of Hillary Clinton’s testimony on FOX News. The tag line displayed at the bottom of the screen throughout was “Media applauds Hillary Clinton’s performance.”

    It wasn’t a “performance.” It was a lengthy and detailed testimony given before Congress. And by the way, FOX is as much part of the mainstream media as any other national news network.

    ReplyReply
  45. retire05 says: 45

    @Greg:

    No one denies that Benghazi security was not reinforced following requests from the field. The critical question is at what point in the State Department chain of command those requests were denied and rose no further.

    Charlene Lamb, no State Department lacky hacking out memos on a computer, testified that she, in fact, was in charge of security at all 257 State Department outposts, including the embassy in Tripoli and the compound in Benghazi. She also testifed that it was she who denied the request for additional security in Benghazi, a denial she sent to her superiors for approval.

    Now, why does she still have a job, Greggie? Why didn’t Hillary make a big deal out of throwing Lamb under the bus, so that Hillary could claim plausible deniability when it came to Benghazi?

    Also, Lamb testifed that she was in contact with Benghazi, and was aware of the unfolding events in “near real time.” Since she would have notified the Security of State that U.S. soil was under attack, where was Hillary in all of this? We know what Panetta claims to have been doing. What was Hillary doing?

    Not that you will answer any of these questions. You don’t answer questions. You try to make excuses for an inept, imcompetent administration that is nothing more than a major cluster f*ck.

    ReplyReply
  46. Greg says: 46

    Now, why does she still have a job, Greggie? Why didn’t Hillary make a big deal out of throwing Lamb under the bus, so that Hillary could claim plausible deniability when it came to Benghazi?

    Both Charlene Lamb and Eric Boswell resigned from their State Department positions over a month ago, All Knowing One.

    ReplyReply
  47. RETRE05
    UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY CHARLENE LAMB DECIDE TO NOT ANSWER THE MANY CALL FOR HELP,
    SHE WATCH THEM DIE ON TOP OF THAT, WHO GAVE HER THE TOTAL AUTHORITY?
    WHO IS SHE TO DENY HELP EVEN TO THE SEALS AS THEY WHERE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIFE?
    SHE HAS PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA RESPONSIBLE TO HAVE HER DENY THE HELP,
    IT’S THEIR PERSONAL DUTY TO HELP AMERICANS IN PERIL,
    THEY FAILED AND MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNTABLE FOR LOST LIVES,
    HE ASSURE THE AMERICANS THAT ALQAEDA WHERE DESTROYED HE WAGE HIS ELECTION ON IT
    TELLING A LIE WITH CONSEQUENCES SHOULD HAVE THE ELECTION NULLIFY AT ONCE FOR LYING
    BECAUSE PEOPLE VOTED ON HIS LIES, THEY DID NOT KNOW, THEY TRUSTED HIM TO BE TRUE,
    THAT IS A BIG HUGE PROBLEM NOW , HE MUST RESIGN, OR BE TAKEN OUT BY
    THE CONSTITUTION HE SAID TO BE IS IN HIS WAY, IT SURE IS NOW,

    ReplyReply
  48. Greg says: 48

    From one of your favorite sources, MEDIAMATTER. Fox News Edits Clinton Testimony To Claim She Never Addressed Benghazi Monitoring:

    Fox News cropped footage from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony to claim she didn’t address questions about the extent of monitoring by the state department during the September 11, 2012, attacks. In fact, unedited video of the hearing shows that Clinton not only addressed the issue, it backs up her statement that there was no real time video monitoring of the attack.

    Listen to the first 20 seconds of the FOX News report: “One of Hillary Clinton’s subordinates, Charlene Lamb, who was charged with security at the consulate, said they listened to the attack unfold with open lines to the agents on the ground. Yesterday Mrs. Clinton made no mention of that fact.”

    The second video is part of Secretary Clinton’s testimony on the previous day–ironically, from FOX’s own live coverage of the hearing. Beginning at minute 1:45 Rep. Dana Rohrabacker makes the allegation that there was live, real time monitoring at the State Department as events in Benghazi unfolded. Clinton directly responds to that allegation. There was no live, real time monitoring.

    FOX engaging in deliberate distortion, and outright lying. There were no live video feeds from Benghazi, as they have continued to imply; Clinton DID address the matter of real time monitoring, very clearly and specifically. There was none. She explained how the misunderstanding arose. The surveillance videos weren’t seen until much later.

    ReplyReply
  49. GREG
    you want to blame any one but the one on the seat,
    FOX IS A MEDIA ALSO BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS
    THEY ARE FAIR BALANCE AND UNAFRAID,
    THAT TELL YOU THEY TAKE THEIR SOURCES FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AILE,
    AND ANALYSE THROUGH THE ISSUE IN DEBT, THAT GOES FOR ALL ISSUES THEY TACKLE WITH A TEAM WHO MAKE THE ENVY OF OTHER MEDIAS.
    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCES?
    THAT IS THE DIFFERENCES

    ReplyReply
  50. Greg says: 50

    The two videos clearly demonstrate that FOX is not being truthful.

    On one news segment, they say Clinton didn’t mention the topic of live monitoring during her testimony. A video of her testimony clearly shows her doing so.

    What am I supposed to believe? What FOX is saying, or my own eyes and ears?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site