Benghazi mom....blames BILLARY

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

newswatcher wrote:Her question as to why there was no attempt to assist the Embassy and the staff needs to be answered...

Sal wrote:

newswatcher wrote:Her question as to why there was no attempt to assist the Embassy and the staff needs to be answered...

First of all it was a consulate, not an embassy, you idiot.

A team of six American operatives was sent to assist the consulate.

Two members of that team were killed by mortar fire.

The additional team of four Americans was not cleared to go in because they were there on a fact-finding tour of U.S. embassies in the Middle East and were armed only with 9mm handguns.

If they had been sent in, you would have your panties in a wad over why Hillary sent them into a combat zone improperly armed.

newswatcher wrote:H

The additional team of four Americans was not cleared to go in because they were there on a fact-finding tour of U.S. embassies in the Middle East and were armed only with 9mm handguns..[/font]

Sal wrote:

newswatcher wrote:H

The additional team of four Americans was not cleared to go in because they were there on a fact-finding tour of U.S. embassies in the Middle East and were armed only with 9mm handguns..[/font]

Don't know much about combat do you or SF troops that can improvise? Keep quoting the party line but thanks for confirming the lie (one of them anyway) that the Obama administration stated which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down........

cool1 wrote:I just hope the truth gets out on this ---when they got Binladin I remember Hillery and Obama and all them watching it go down -made a movie that didnt take long but with this well?????????

newswatcher wrote:

The lengths that some will go to in rder to protect/cover-up the incompetence of this administration is amazing....the administration knew from the beginning that this was a terrorist attack and yet chose to have their representatives make the rounds and 'flat out lie' blaming a video and spontaneous protest....Susan Rice is not a stupid individual and yet she chose to be the mouthpiece of this misinformation...

Susan Rice used the CIA talking points that were given her. No less an authority than General David Petraeus has stated on the record that they did not call the attackers "terrorists" because they didn't want them to know they had been identified. He also said removing the references to "terrorists" was strictly an intelligence decision and was in no way political.

Is General Petraeus in on this coverup, Hambone?

it makes no sense other than to circle the wagons and go into protect mode....Pointing out the inadequate measures in place to protect Embassy's around the world is not an excuse for this inaction on the part of the administration...In this situation when the information was received of the attack....someone has to be responsible either for giving the ok to respond or not to do so...As the current vp has been quoted "Susan Rice speaks for the president"....Draw your own conclusions if she put out misinformation....

Sal wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Perhaps, the Repukes in Congress will think twice before slashing their budgets next time.

Because they're hypocritical, unpatriotic, partisan hacks like you and Flippy.[/font]

nochain wrote:

Coming from a quivering hyper-partisan "hack" such as yourself that's a pretty funny statement. Try again loser:

"A State Department official told The Washington Times that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/benghazi-attack-followed-deep-cuts-in-state-depart/#ixzz2SicLRciG

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Nice cherry picking, Flippy.

nochain wrote:

Poor Sally, just can't follow an entire story line to it's logical conclusion. Talk about cherry picking!

Were you abused as a child or is your personal animosity a product of failures in your life as an adult?

Your cognitive dissonance ought to be disturbing but I'm sure you are used to the conflicts in what is considered "your mind".

Keep trying you poor misguided individual.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The coverup was done so that Obama could get reelected.

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Coming from a quivering hyper-partisan "hack" such as yourself that's a pretty funny statement. Try again loser:

"A State Department official told The Washington Times that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/benghazi-attack-followed-deep-cuts-in-state-depart/#ixzz2SicLRciG

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Nice cherry picking, Flippy.

Here's what preceded the line you lifted from your link;

Investigators looking for lessons from the fatal terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might want to start on Capitol Hill, where Congress slashed spending on diplomatic security and U.S. embassy construction over the past two years.

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

Rep. Michael Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made clear Wednesday that congressional staff will be looking into the attack, in addition to a probe by the State Department’s inspector general and another State Department investigation required by federal law.

The cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10 percent of the entire appropriation for that account over those two years, said Scott Lilly, now a scholar at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“Anytime we cut that account back, we are putting people’s lives at risk, people who are serving the country” in dangerous places abroad, said Mr. Lilly.

The cuts mean that “a lot of places you’d intended to secure better, you don’t reach” this year, he added.

He said he did not know whether the cuts had impacted security at the Benghazi consulate that was stormed on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by heavily armed Islamic extremists, who burned down the building and killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/benghazi-attack-followed-deep-cuts-in-state-depart/#ixzz2SidiNBu0

Thanks for the back up.

Hey, here's a couple of questions for you, Flippy ...

... how many people were killed in attacks on our embassies and diplomatic consulates on Dubya's watch?

HINT: About 50

... how many partisan investigations were launched to use the blood of those patriots for political purposes?

SPOILER ALERT: zip, zero, nada

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Poor Sally, just can't follow an entire story line to it's logical conclusion. Talk about cherry picking!l.

That's sweet.

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering complicit in this coverup?

HINT: They would have to be.

What possible motive could these men have for participating in such a coverup?

SPOILER ALERT: There is none.

nochain wrote:

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Poor Sally, just can't follow an entire story line to it's logical conclusion. Talk about cherry picking!l.

That's sweet.

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering complicit in this coverup?

HINT: They would have to be.

What possible motive could these men have for participating in such a coverup?

SPOILER ALERT: There is none.

Why did they refuse an invitation to testify?

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Poor Sally, just can't follow an entire story line to it's logical conclusion. Talk about cherry picking!l.

That's sweet.

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering complicit in this coverup?

HINT: They would have to be.

What possible motive could these men have for participating in such a coverup?

SPOILER ALERT: There is none.

Why did they refuse an invitation to testify?

[font=Arial Black]


So, you're actually accusing ALL of these patriotic Americans of participating in a coverup?]

nochain wrote:

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Sal wrote:

nochain wrote:

Poor Sally, just can't follow an entire story line to it's logical conclusion. Talk about cherry picking!l.

That's sweet.

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering complicit in this coverup?

HINT: They would have to be.

What possible motive could these men have for participating in such a coverup?

SPOILER ALERT: There is none.

Why did they refuse an invitation to testify?

How is asking a question translate into an accusation? It doesn't poser. Yawn.

................................................

How long have you been fucking the kid next door...the one who thinks you love him...?