(02-03-2016 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:30 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not the one who brought up the families. Did you actually think I was talking about them? I guess I'm going to have to spell it out for you. I was talking about who in the general public cares about Benghazi. Your so silly.lol

Anyone with a heart that noticed that American died. Admittedly, that's a lower and lower figure in today's "me first" society.

Of course when it happened people were concerned and upset. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow politics still feels however that there are still unanswered questions.

New rule. If you're constantly accusing others of trolling, then you're just trolling.

So when did you start writing rules? If you are in fact writing rules now, I suggest you buy a dictionary to use the appropriate terms in your "rules".

(02-03-2016 01:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still find it quite interesting that the majority of the vinegar and blame for Benghazi goes toward the Secretary of State instead of the terrorists that actually killed them.

#partisanpolitics

What stupid "observation" and another lame attempt to deflect. Of course we ALL recognize the a-holes that actually attacked our Embassy/consulate/annex are to "blame". The qustion is, on who's watch did this take place? Who wwas ultimately in charge? Where were they? What actions did they or could they have taken?

Was there forewarning? Were those warnings heeded? If not, why not? By who's order? Stonewall, lie and deflect, the dimocrat play sheet.

But in the end, this isn't about that. This is about classified materials, at the TOP of the entire food chain, being laid out in broad daylight for all and any to see.

She is disqualified from being President. She's immensely qualified for an orange jumpsuit.

(02-03-2016 01:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:30 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Anyone with a heart that noticed that American died. Admittedly, that's a lower and lower figure in today's "me first" society.

Of course when it happened people were concerned and upset. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow politics still feels however that there are still unanswered questions.

New rule. If you're constantly accusing others of trolling, then you're just trolling.

So when did you start writing rules? If you are in fact writing rules now, I suggest you buy a dictionary to use the appropriate terms in your "rules".

Another one with no sense of humor. Come on man lighten up. We're just talking here.

(02-03-2016 01:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 11:30 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Anyone with a heart that noticed that American died. Admittedly, that's a lower and lower figure in today's "me first" society.

Of course when it happened people were concerned and upset. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow politics still feels however that there are still unanswered questions.

New rule. If you're constantly accusing others of trolling, then you're just trolling.

So when did you start writing rules? If you are in fact writing rules now, I suggest you buy a dictionary to use the appropriate terms in your "rules".

Oh hell....going to see fit sporting one of these now

(02-03-2016 01:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course when it happened people were concerned and upset. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow politics still feels however that there are still unanswered questions.

New rule. If you're constantly accusing others of trolling, then you're just trolling.

So when did you start writing rules? If you are in fact writing rules now, I suggest you buy a dictionary to use the appropriate terms in your "rules".

Oh hell....going to see fit sporting one of these now

You like me, you really like me.

back to the original topic, before Fit derailed it, Hillary is guilty

I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

"Seems like first degree murder to me!"



The hypocrisy is off the charts!!!!

(02-03-2016 02:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

"Seems like first degree murder to me!"



The hypocrisy is off the charts!!!!

That's out of context.

That comment was based on one I witness account.

Besides, what part of "seems like" don't you understand?

That's an opinion . A far cry from saying she's guilty.

(02-03-2016 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

"Seems like first degree murder to me!"



The hypocrisy is off the charts!!!!

That's out of context.

That comment was based on one I witness account.

Besides, what part of "seems like" don't you understand?

That's an opinion . A far cry from saying she's guilty.

Maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know more details right?

And just like you have an opinion, so do I... bra!

(02-03-2016 02:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

"Seems like first degree murder to me!"



The hypocrisy is off the charts!!!!

That's out of context.

That comment was based on one I witness account.

Besides, what part of "seems like" don't you understand?

That's an opinion . A far cry from saying she's guilty.

Maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know more details right?

And just like you have an opinion, so do I... bra!

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, in Hillary's case, she is innocent until proven guilty. That my friend isn't an opinion, that is a fact.

(02-03-2016 02:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I didn't derail it. I made a legit comment and someone accused me of trolling.

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. The Constitution applies to everyone. Even those Americans that we hate.

"Seems like first degree murder to me!"



The hypocrisy is off the charts!!!!

That's out of context.

That comment was based on one I witness account.

Besides, what part of "seems like" don't you understand?

That's an opinion . A far cry from saying she's guilty.

Maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know more details right?

And just like you have an opinion, so do I... bra!

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, in Hillary's case, she is innocent until proven guilty. That my friend isn't an opinion, that is a fact.

Then you should have said the same thing about Darren Wilson, so just have to call out your hypocrisy

(02-03-2016 02:22 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

"Seems like first degree murder to me!"



The hypocrisy is off the charts!!!!

That's out of context.

That comment was based on one I witness account.

Besides, what part of "seems like" don't you understand?

That's an opinion . A far cry from saying she's guilty.

Maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know more details right?

And just like you have an opinion, so do I... bra!

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, in Hillary's case, she is innocent until proven guilty. That my friend isn't an opinion, that is a fact.

Then you should have said the same thing about Darren Wilson, so just have to call out your hypocrisy

I did. I said over and over again that he should have his day in court. No hypocrisy bra.

(02-03-2016 02:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:22 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That's out of context.

That comment was based on one I witness account.

Besides, what part of "seems like" don't you understand?

That's an opinion . A far cry from saying she's guilty.

Maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know more details right?

And just like you have an opinion, so do I... bra!

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, in Hillary's case, she is innocent until proven guilty. That my friend isn't an opinion, that is a fact.

Then you should have said the same thing about Darren Wilson, so just have to call out your hypocrisy

I did. I said over and over again that he should have his day in court. No hypocrisy bra.

Still not the same thing

(02-03-2016 02:25 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:22 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 02:13 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know more details right?

And just like you have an opinion, so do I... bra!

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, in Hillary's case, she is innocent until proven guilty. That my friend isn't an opinion, that is a fact.

Then you should have said the same thing about Darren Wilson, so just have to call out your hypocrisy

I did. I said over and over again that he should have his day in court. No hypocrisy bra.

Still not the same thing

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

(02-03-2016 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still find it quite interesting that the majority of the vinegar and blame for Benghazi goes toward the Secretary of State instead of the terrorists that actually killed them.

#partisanpolitics

We already hate them. The Secretary of State was supposed to keep her employees safe. She was AWOL, kind of like Rubio in the Senate.

C'mon man. You're asking for the impossible. And ignoring history.

Where was your outrage here?

Quote:Our ruling

Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

From your link:
Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.

"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.

One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."

Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."

"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."

Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.

"We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.

Republicans have been so busy trying to make this about Hillary that they've ignored some basic and very important issues. Somebody made the decision to have the ambassador bascially run a naked bootleg in very dangerous country on a potentially very explosive date, with no supporting resources reasonably available (although we certainly possess those resources many times over in a global sense). I don't know who made that decision, but whoever did needs to fry. The problem is that unless they can prove that person is Hillary, republicans don't seem to care. And here's where that's doubly stupid. I'd tend to bet a lot of money that whoever made that decision, whether it's Hillary or not, is going to lead investigators to a trail that goes back to Hillary, so republicans would get what they want just by doing what they ought to be doing, instead of obsessing with Hillary

(02-03-2016 01:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still find it quite interesting that the majority of the vinegar and blame for Benghazi goes toward the Secretary of State instead of the terrorists that actually killed them.

#partisanpolitics

What stupid "observation" and another lame attempt to deflect. Of course we ALL recognize the a-holes that actually attacked our Embassy/consulate/annex are to "blame". The qustion is, on who's watch did this take place? Who wwas ultimately in charge? Where were they? What actions did they or could they have taken?

Was there forewarning? Were those warnings heeded? If not, why not? By who's order? Stonewall, lie and deflect, the dimocrat play sheet.

But in the end, this isn't about that. This is about classified materials, at the TOP of the entire food chain, being laid out in broad daylight for all and any to see.

She is disqualified from being President. She's immensely qualified for an orange jumpsuit.

You do realize that all your questions have already been answered, don't you?
1. It took place under Hillary/Obama.
2. Nobody is really "in charge" per se. Stevens had a small security force with him and went to Benghazi on his own. Although it's pretty clear that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi a more viable compound, so he understood it was important to go there. Security outside our foreign installations are actually the responsibility of the host country. Military members at these sites are there for securing the information inside it.
3. Both Hillary and Obama were in DC and were made aware of the attack ASAP. No, they didn't watch it in real time.
4. There were no actions to be taken that were viable. They had a team of CIA personnel at a nearby station. And 2 of these forces were ultimately killed in the attack when they got involved in the rescue. They wanted to rush to compound right away, but there was not sufficient intel to know that they would not just walk into a slaughter, so they waited...like a half hour IIRC. And by the way, it's RARELY noted that this team rescued several Americans from the compound and got them to safety. We only focus on the 2 that were killed for obvious political reasons.
5. There was no forewarning. Intel has shown this attach came together in like 10 days prior to it being launched.

This has all been hashed out in the numerous congressional investigations and reports. Most all of them done by Republicans.

Sorry, that you just don't happen to like the answers.

But it's quite interesting that you cite this as a distraction or deflection from the e-mail "scandal" when the e-mail "scandal" was a direct result of the Benghazi investigation...lol

(02-03-2016 02:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans have been so busy trying to make this about Hillary that they've ignored some basic and very important issues. Somebody made the decision to have the ambassador bascially run a naked bootleg in very dangerous country on a potentially very explosive date, with no supporting resources reasonably available (although we certainly possess those resources many times over in a global sense). I don't know who made that decision, but whoever did needs to fry. The problem is that unless they can prove that person is Hillary, republicans don't seem to care. And here's where that's doubly stupid. I'd tend to bet a lot of money that whoever made that decision, whether it's Hillary or not, is going to lead investigators to a trail that goes back to Hillary, so republicans would get what they want just by doing what they ought to be doing, instead of obsessing with Hillary

From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.

Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

(02-03-2016 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From what I've read, Stevens understood that Hillary wanted to make Benghazi into a more prominent outpost. And Stevens knew this so he knew it was important to go there. But they seem to think that he went there on his own and not under direct order.
Regardless, how do you ever guarantee that the security you have is enough? We have assets in lots of dangerous places.

Who seems to think that he went there on his own? It would be extremely out of order for him to have decided unilaterally without running it up the chain of command.

You can't guarantee that you have enough security. But that doesn't justify taking stupid risks when you know that you are not even remotely close to having enough. For what purpose could such risk possibly have been justified?

But I think you are getting to my points. There is just way too much about this whole deal that simply makes no sense. I don't know whether Hillary is responsible or not. But somebody is. And that somebody needs to be identified and punished severely. Maybe Stevens did it unilaterally, in which case he has already been punished pretty severely.