It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
House Intelligence Committee: NO ADMINISTRATION WRONGDOING IN BENGHAZI

This was only the latest one. From the Republican-dominated HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, fer god's freakin' sake.

What are we up to now, THIRTEEN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS??? MILLIONS of TAXPAYER DOLLARS?

I really don't know how any Republican who believes in a God that hates lying can ever say anything again about "fiscal irresponsibility."




posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL Good point that one, Gryph!

Nice avatar! Howdy again!



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

lol what?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Assuming you're talking about Benghazi, I'll try and answer your questions based on the numerous investigations that have been conducted and concluded.


originally posted by: bbracken677I think the questions would be:

Why a skeleton defense?



According to the State Department's Accountability Review Board:

A key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility...This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability.



Why, when support was asked for, was it not granted?



According to the House Armed Services Committee findings:

The U.S. military’s response to the Benghazi attack was severely degraded because of the location and readiness posture of U.S. forces, and because of lack of clarity about how the terrorist action was unfolding. However, given the uncertainty about the prospective length and scope of the attack, military commanders did not take all possible steps to prepare for a more extended operation.
There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.



Why was the attack itself referred to as the spontaneous result of a youtube video, when all parties knew that was bovine excrement? (Hint: Presidential election was right around the corner)



The recently declassified (but not yet released) House Intelligence Committee Report apparently showed

..that the initial talking points provided by the intelligence community were flawed because of conflicting assessments not an intention to deceive.


This is all from using Google...what else can they possibly not know?

An FBI investigation, a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, five House Committees, a State Department Accountability Review Board and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigation. $3.3 million allocated for the investigation with no limit on raising that number.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: links234


..that the initial talking points provided by the intelligence community were flawed because of conflicting assessments not an intention to deceive.



Clever trick wasn't it.



The White House was trembling

They choked and gagged all the way to the media shows.




posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

LOL nice.

The support I was referring to was for additional security prior to the attack, which was denied by the State Department.

Far be it for me to be a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracist.... But I just find the whole thing rather disingenuous. Specially when an election was in the balance... the truth never really came out until after the election. Prior to the election most discussion was regarding the "youtube" cause, and yet the CIA had been receiving indications that an attack was imminent, as did the embassy itself. Which is why they asked for additional security.

Oh, and let us not forget the seeming desperation in the initial hours afterwards to paint the attack as a simple riot generated by a youtube video. I would like to stress the word desperation.

Would it be a stretch for us to believe that the administration would possibly lie to us......specially when an election hung in the balance.

Yeah, I believe it is all just a massive coincidence and no attempt at deception or cover-up could have possibly taken place. That never happens.....


edit on 17-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: xuenchen

It's really not a thorn in the democrats side because this is not going to deter one democrat voter to vote republican...it's that simple...



VERY GOOD POINT, on how no amount of corruption on the part of democrats will bother a democrat voter one bit.

The democrat voter by default, are just as foul and corrupt, morally bankrupt human beings, to the point that they do not care even one tiny bit how vile one of their supported candidates are, they will vote for them anyway.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

There are a couple of classic examples of this in recent history. Far be it for me to point out who had been caught with a hand in the cookie jar, and yet got reelected anyway.

Seems that, sometimes, what a person says (PC) is more important than what they do (corruption).



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

When I find out, and any time in the past, where anyone I ever supported was caught being mixed up in corruption, or anything like that, I never supported/voted for them again. And this includes members of both parties.

They screw up and I am done with them.



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

There are a couple of classic examples of this in recent history. Far be it for me to point out who had been caught with a hand in the cookie jar, and yet got reelected anyway.

Seems that, sometimes, what a person says (PC) is more important than what they do (corruption).


Like Mark Sanford (R SC)

Can you give examples of Democrats being caught in a scandal only to be re elected?



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Same here.

We are way too PC these days. Theodore Roosevelt was a very outspoken character. In today's politics he would never even be nominated.

Instead the nomination goes to the slick person who can manage to avoid saying anything controversial. In other words, we nominate and elect people who can exhibit a lack of spine.

Meanwhile, the Teddy Roosevelts never get past first base. Very sad......

He was very big at busting up corruption and the good ole boy networks. He was a true progressive with a spine and common sense. I would vote for him in a NY second.

edit on 17-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

VERY GOOD POINT, on how no amount of corruption on the part of democrats will bother a democrat voter one bit.

The democrat voter by default, are just as foul and corrupt, morally bankrupt human beings, to the point that they do not care even one tiny bit how vile one of their supported candidates are, they will vote for them anyway.


Being as I'm pretty left-leaning and vote in every election, I think I can sort of respond to this.

One example of corruption doesn't sway my belief system to the point that I'll just start voting a different way. I thought Anthony Weiner was the bees knees. He was great and put on a helluva show when he was on the house floor. He betrayed all that he fought for though. I look at Bill Clinton through rose-colored glasses, but I remember that he and his wife are ruthless politicians. The only reason I would vote for Hillary is to vote against the GOP nominee. Simply because the GOP is nowhere near to what my ideals are.

To say that only democratic voters are the stupid ones that ignore the corruption is incorrect, the GOP does it too. I know, it's hard to accept that anyone with the same political beliefs we hold could be that ignorant but it happens all the time.

There was a study done not too long ago about scandalized politicians and their re-elections, the turn around time is two years. That's all it takes for the voting public to 'forget' about the candidates past.

Most Politicians Survive Scandals



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

There are a couple of classic examples of this in recent history. Far be it for me to point out who had been caught with a hand in the cookie jar, and yet got reelected anyway.

Seems that, sometimes, what a person says (PC) is more important than what they do (corruption).


Like Mark Sanford (R SC)

Can you give examples of Democrats being caught in a scandal only to be re elected?


Obama was caught in 13 different acts of treason as defined in plain English in our constitution, but since our country leadership is now all eunuchs, and afraid of him politically, nothing was done. His top prosecutor Eric Holder thinks he is there to be a defense lawyer for his boss's political party, and the media aren't going to speak the truth and lose their FCC licenses, so they too are silent.

You can't be caught in a scandal unless there are people around to try and catch you.

Today, if someone you support has done a crime, you see their supporters laugh, giggle, and ignore the entire debacle, and the media helps it along. Everyone pretends it never happened. Or if it did happen, just act like it didn't and it will just go away because everyone will put on that kind of a show. To the point where the person doing the accusing will be put on display as some sort of delusional racist fool for even saying such a thing. They are just making it up because "their" guy lost the election.

Justice would be served if many of our current and former leaders from BOTH parties were publicly put on a human sized rotisserie shish-kabob skewer, and slowly roasted over an open bon fire.
commieblaster.com...
edit on 18-9-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

I know and agree that both parties are the same, and the rules apply to both.

I only responded to that poster the way I did to show the one sided view he was showing would look just as silly if I responded using that same one way mirror.

Yes both parties have supporters that do the exact same thing by continuing support, even after they have been exposed.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Charlie Rangel is the first to come to mind. 11 guilty counts of ethics violations for starters. I am absolutely positive I can come up with more, if you insist. I find it ridiculous that you would even ask that....

Charles Rangel



A House panel on Tuesday found Representative Charles B. Rangel guilty of 11 counts of ethical violations, ruling that his failure to pay some taxes, improper solicitation of charitable donations and failure to accurately report his personal income had brought dishonor on the House.




edit on 18-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I am updating this 2014 discussion with new and relevant information.

The recent story about Hillary's e-mails may pile more negativity on her in reference to Benghazi, and Judicial Watch is all over it:

www.judicialwatch.org... benghazi-armed-attack/
JUDICIAL WATCH: DOCUMENTS PROVE TOP HILLARY ADVISORS KNEW IMMEDIATELY THAT ASSAULT ON BENGHAZI WAS AN "ARMED ATTACK"

www.judicialwatch.org...
JUDICIAL WATCH: SUES FOR HILLARY AND HUMA'S EGYPT E-MAILS

www.judicialwatch.org...
JUDICIAL WATCH: TEAM OBAMA FORCED TO RELEASE PENTAGON DOCS ON BENGHAZI ATTACK




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join