Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents...‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama

Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:


Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
Administers the Department of State;
Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

www.state.gov...

The Secretary of Defense, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is by federal law (10 U.S.C. § 113) the head of the Department of Defense, "the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to Department of Defense", and has "authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense". Because the Constitution vests all military authority in Congress and the President, the statutory authority of the Secretary of Defense is derived from their constitutional authorities. Since it is impractical for either Congress or the President to participate in every piece of Department of Defense affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary's subordinate officials generally exercise military authority.

en.wikipedia.org...


Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's how I feel about the Benghazi thing. The problem is that these things are going to happen, but people inevitably have to lay the blame somewhere. This reminds me of a friend who always gets mega angry when bad things happen and always lives in fear of making mistakes. But the problem I have with this is that adversity itself isn't bad. It's how you react to it that matters. Mistakes and regrets are going to happen, you can't stop them. But learning a thing or two and being level headed after the dust cloud clears are important traits to have in this world.

IMHO, our fear of terrorism and our attitude that every terrorist event can be prevented is what's leading to our police state. It's getting worse and worse precisely because of the kind of people who don''t just want to learn from bad turns of fate, but they want to live in a world where there're no bad turns at all. And that's what frightens me.

We have to find a balance between security and freedom and realize that murder and crime and terrorism are always going to exist in some form or another. Of course, where is the balance? I don't think anybody really knows. Ultimately, you have a few kinds of people. One group deals with the punches as they come and learns to be resilient, and the other tries to avoid the punches altogether through prevention and authority. I think those who can take the punches are better off and better able to adapt than those who cannot and/or rely on avoiding them.

Bottom line, I think more dogs die every year from injuries than people do from terrorism. I mean if you added up the deaths from terrorism in a year and compared it to other things, I think what it'd show is that terrorism, while it does receive a large amount of media attention and funding towards preventing it, is one of the smaller boxers in the arena and definitely doesn't carry the biggest punch. It's the fear of terrorism that has the much larger influence on the world. This fear can be disabling. I think I'd compare it to a boxer that's been known to cheat or break a few rules even though he's got a weak punch.

As for Obama, there're many other issues that make him a bad president than this one example. He's haughty and an academic-type, for one. And for another, he doesn't understand what makes a strong middle class in this country, nor does he understand what will produce jobs.

edit on 25-10-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

I agreed with just about the whole statement except for the final paragraph but I still gave you a star for it.

"One's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one's chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder." Cato Institute's Handbook for Congress.

There is a price to be paid for living in a (semi) free society.

As for the President... it is more of the Congress's responsibility to promote the general welfare of all and the Presidents position to execute what Congress sets forth so my finger lies pointed squarely at Congress, particularily the House since they are supposed to be closest to "The People". There still remains part of that finger at President Obama though for he is responsible for international trade agreements.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
4 people tragically died. suck it up and get over it.

Washington DC knew .. in real time .. as our diplomatic staff were being murdered. They had the personel and the time to get help to them. But instead, left our diplomatic staff to be murdered. Then DC covered it up. If we all 'sucked it up and got over it' .. then this kind of thing could happen again. The murders .. the care-free attitude ... the coverup. The truth has to come out in order to save lives in the future.

reply to post by loam
[more

Clintons should have been more proactive in helping him get defeated in the first place. Her political career is now tied to Obama.....she is likewise finished.

reply to post by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
....those that wish to politicize a national tragedy...

It baffles me you don't lay the blame on the president and his administration.

He no longer can assert 'fog of war' ignorance on the matter.

He (or they) LIED to the public for political gain for WEEKS!!!

...and predictably, the Obama supporter camp will strain every back muscle to pretend nothing wrong happened with how the President and his administration handled the matter.



We are a true Banana Republic.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

So the fact that the President and administration blamed this on a 'spontaneous event' related to an inflammatory video, NONE of which turned out to be true...and for which the evidence demonstrates they knew they were lying...bothers you?

This electorate is hopeless.

Regardless of the reason for the deaths, no matter how carefully our President chose his words, those words can not bring the dead back to life.

Until those responsible for the murder of four brave Americans are brought to justice and have their day in court, then nobody...not you, not me, not our President; nobody knows the motivation behind the attack.

No, nothing our President said about the act of terror bother me. Not in the least bit.

And yes, this electorate is hopeless....those that wish to politicize a national tragedy...it's hopeless and disgusting.

edit on 25-10-2012 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

With all due respect, Obama politicized it by lying about the the reason for the attack and trying to lay the blame on "right wing extremist" who produced a stupid video.. Not only did Obama politicize it but he was supported by Hillary, Carney & Rice. and a host of MSM party loyalists.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
4 people tragically died. suck it up and get over it.

Washington DC knew .. in real time .. as our diplomatic staff were being murdered. They had the personel and the time to get help to them. But instead, left our diplomatic staff to be murdered. Then DC covered it up. If we all 'sucked it up and got over it' .. then this kind of thing could happen again. The murders .. the care-free attitude ... the coverup. The truth has to come out in order to save lives in the future.

If what you say is true then I'd have to agree.

Not overdoing counter-terrorism and not responding to it as it happens are different things.

Why would Obama or his administration stand down and not act, though?

If Hillary bends over and grabs her ankles on this one, her hopes for any successful future bid for the presidency are over in my opinion.
Her best bet would be to take the high road and risk the temporary disapproval of the Democratic party by taking a stand for truth and transparency. Yes it might mean that Obama loses the election but it would set her up for 2016. She could then claim that she has the ability and courage to rise above petty party loyalty.

I don't believe she will do it, but in my opinion it's her best move.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

So the fact that the President and administration blamed this on a 'spontaneous event' related to an inflammatory video, NONE of which turned out to be true...and for which the evidence demonstrates they knew they were lying...bothers you?

This electorate is hopeless.

dont forget they had drones in the sky, and cameras on the building, and were watching it all from the SKY and from the building in real time...........the firefight lasted 7 HOURS and they refused to send them aid.........

The administration was being updated CONSTANTLY on the situation.......

Coverup........

If that doesnt matter to you Leather N Lace, then I really dont care about your opinion, because youre too far gone to reason with........

reply to post by jonnywhite


thats exactly the question that everyone, including the big dogs in the hearings are asking.....

WHY?

They are covering something up, thats why

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
WHY?

They are covering something up, thats why

Their naked political ambition to gain the White House for a second term by whatever means.

For me it's really that simple.

I will be voting Gary Johnson.......Obama broke the heart and soul of America with his "Change".....From a stratigic point of view for the Clinton's I think Bill is absolutely right, Hilliary should listen to her husband on this one. She will never have a prayer to win in 2016, if she doesn't defend herself here, and doesn't dis-associate herself with Obama, and for that matter with the Democratic Party...they sold her out...the thing she can walk away with at this point is some integrity.

Even if Hilliary believes that being "loyal" and helping Obama get re-elected is her way to continue to have the Democratic Party's support in the future, she's still screwed.....when the SHTF in the next four years.....and God willing we even have a Presedential election in 2016......she needs to position herself to say she did the right thing, and told the TRUTH.....

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
WHY?

They are covering something up, thats why

Their naked political ambition to gain the White House for a second term.

For me it's really that simple.

Im talkinga bout why they didnt send them help............thats my question.....

The reason they tried to cover the story up and change the facts is because they were trying to get elected again.....

But its deeper then that, the hearings have shown that.......

IMHO? they didnt want those people to get out alive.......but, well have to wait for the rest of the facts to come out before we will know.....

whatever the case........Hillary needs to come clean on anything and everything she knows, because not only is it GOOD for her politically......

if she doesnt and more comes out, she could be looking at prosecution......

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

So the fact that the President and administration blamed this on a 'spontaneous event' related to an inflammatory video, NONE of which turned out to be true...and for which the evidence demonstrates they knew they were lying...bothers you?

This electorate is hopeless.

dont forget they had drones in the sky, and cameras on the building, and were watching it all from the SKY and from the building in real time...........the firefight lasted 7 HOURS and they refused to send them aid.........

The administration was being updated CONSTANTLY on the situation.......

Coverup........

If that doesnt matter to you Leather N Lace, then I really dont care about your opinion, because youre too far gone to reason with........

Those drones have been responsible for killing a lot of people. Why couldn't they have at least used the drone to lay down some fire? Anyone know if the drone that was providing the live feed was armed? I see no reason it wouldn't have been. They might have driven off the terrorists before they had a chance to kill all 4 Americans.

According to data compiled by the New America Foundation from reliable news reports, 337 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan have killed an estimated 1,908 to 3,225 people since 2004, of which 1,618 - 2,769 were reported to be militants.

counterterrorism.newamerica.net...

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Maybe. But this is where I think incompetency explains the facts best.

Maybe Obama and crew actually drink their own cool-aide and really thought the risk was low. Once the assault began, the logistics made it nearly impossible for them to then avoid the outcome.

Now they are hiding their incompetency and seeking to preserve the President's terror 'success' talk track.

Anything beyond that requires more evidence, imo. But regardless, the facts we do have now should theoretically be enough to run them out of the WH...

Sadly, even that will likely not be the case.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
WHY?

They are covering something up, thats why

Their naked political ambition to gain the White House for a second term by whatever means.

For me it's really that simple.

edit on 25-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste" - Rham Emanuel
I think the Obama administration was just following his advice. "Why not blame it on the video that was clearly produced by right wing religious nuts?:" Then Obama can come out proclaiming to be outraged by the video and that he understands the pain this caused the Muslim world, Then Obama can make a public stand for our principles of free speech while calling for world peace. In this scenario Obama indeed looks very presidential.
Meanwhile the MSM associated the producers of the video with right wing, gun toting extremists.

The reason is pretty apparent to me. It almost worked.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Maybe. But this is where I think incompetency explains the facts best.

Maybe Obama and crew actually drink their own cool-aide and really thought the risk was low. Once the assault began, the logistics made it nearly impossible for them to then avoid the outcome.

Now they are hiding their incompetency and seeking to preserve the President's terror 'success' talk track.

Anything beyond that requires more evidence, imo. But regardless, the facts we do have now should theoretically be enough to run them out of the WH...

Sadly, even that will likely not be the case.

all your talk, yet your are the oily fellow who is using this tragedy as a political football.

Ambulance chasing

reply to post by jonnywhite


It makes Obama look bad. His entire middle eastern policy is discredited by this, and it happened on the anniversary of 9/11. Obama deliberately lied with his administration's response to the terror attack on the American embassy in Libya in part to promote his claim that he destroyed Al-Qaeda, and in greater part to cover up his botched and directionless Middle East policy. Plain and simple those 4 Americans were sacrificed in order to get Obama re-elected, and the proof of this keeps mounting. To just blow it off is denial of the worst possible kind.

As Mitt Romney so eloquently said, his policy is unraveling before our eyes.

Originally posted by campanionator
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

So I guess that settles it once and for all that Bush was not responsible for 911, According to your logic he didn't commit the murders, so he is not responsible. I hope I never have to listen to liberal claim that Bush was responsible for the 3000 people who died. I hope you have enough integrity to stand by your own words too.
I don't believe that Obama or Hillary are responsible for the murder of the 4 Americans, but I do think they are responsible for the cover-up that followed.