Hillary Clinton - "what difference does it make at this point"

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Afterthought
 


She said it was definitely a terrorist attack.


Thank you for answering what she stated, but who organized this terrorist attack?
Did she name a specific group or individual responsible for organizing the attack?


Al Qaeda. OR a sub group of Al Qaeda




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Im not sure where the mis-understanding is taking place. There was a request to have 5 personnel at one time for security. Which is exactly what they had at the time of the attack



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Oh good lord.... an ill deployed ambassadorial group WAS in fact NOT effectively supported in hostile territory,usually dead is what happens.
Or do you seek to debate "hostile"now professor?
Any way show me YOUR info.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Imo, she doesn't care about anyone except herself and her family.

While she runs around the world lecturing others about human rights, etc....at one of her own speeches, Ray McGovern (71 years old at the time) merely stood and turned his back on her. He was forcibly removed, beaten and bruised (there are many links to this incident if one googles it)...all the while she never stopped talking (while he was being removed) and actually even smirked....

Here's one link:

...Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression...


HYPOCRISY TO THE MAX!!!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Why was their request for additional security ignored or placed on the back burner?
edit on 23-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)


Let's treat this question as asked honestly and objectively. I assume you mean prior requests for additional security? Not the false narrative that support was denied during the attack?

OK then. There is a good deal of misinformation surrounding this claim. Additional "security" was not denied, but rather the request was for a DC-3 airplane for Spec Ops to get around on while in Libya.

A DC-3 Airplane would not have helped the embassy under attack in Bhengazi.

The attack began at 9:45 and an hour and 15 minutes later, by 11pm all surviving Americans were extracted. In the interim a CIA/Spec Ops team in Benghazi responded and a Spec Ops extraction team was deployed from Tripoli and arrived at 1:30am, 3 hours 45 minutes after it began....apparently thier in-country contact or "ride" wasn't at the airport when they touched down and they had to arrange other transportation.

abcnews.go.com...

www.cnn.com...

Hope that helps answer the question.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   


It was not a "War Zone" like you stated amongst other innaccuricies. It was simply a dangerous place, like most of the world is to US Ambassadors. ....
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Wait so a country that just finished up a civil war and trying to implement a new gov't is not a security risk? A unproven gov't and a plethora of hostile elements that took part in said civil war does not warrant extra scrutiny for our ambassador's? That is the most ridiculous post I have seen. Post war measures should call for a heavier security presence, but they placed basically a skeleton crew at the embassy? This was mismanagement from the start and it does fall squarely on Sec. Clintons shoulders.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
It matters because someone in the administration chose to attribute immediate causation to a protest that didnt exist about some obscure internet video rather than state that they didn't know the cause or actors and were looking into it at the time.

Why is this an issue? Simply because this lie was used to reinforce the meme being pushed at the time that "OBL is dead and GM is alive" any statements or actions to the contrary would have cost the messiah at the polls. So the lie was inserted and the issue stalled and shelved for until after the election.

It is the fact that someone, likely not Hillary - BTW, on the POTUS's staff chose to deflect any possibility of linking the attack to ALQ (who at the time was claimed to be "on the run" and leaderless) in direct opposition to Dear Leaders' incessant meme that they are dead and gone.

ETA: You can't tell me that in this day of electronic transmission/receipt of email activity they can't find exactly who changed the statement to implicate a protest over that video as the cause.
The problem it appears is that the person who did the changing is one of those who are "above the law" and unable to be thrown under the bus. Because if they could have they'd have done so at the drop of a hat to protect the Dear Leader. That says to me it was someone very senior...perhaps even Dear Leader himself...





edit on 23/1/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Imo, she doesn't care about anyone except herself and her family.

While she runs around the world lecturing others about human rights, etc....at one of her own speeches, Ray McGovern (71 years old at the time) merely stood and turned his back on her. He was forcibly removed, beaten and bruised (there are many links to this incident if one googles it)...all the while she never stopped talking (while he was being removed) and actually even smirked....

Here's one link:

...Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression...




HYPOCRISY TO THE MAX!!!
Um all I saw was a man resisting being removed from a place he had no right being at. Amazing how you dont include footage of the beating and bruising.
edit on 23-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13



It was not a "War Zone" like you stated amongst other innaccuricies. It was simply a dangerous place, like most of the world is to US Ambassadors. ....
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Wait so a country that just finished up a civil war and trying to implement a new gov't is not a security risk?


Cease the BS...I didn't say it was not a "security risk"...I disputed that it was a "war zone"...if you don't know the difference...I can't help you...if you are dishonestly pretending those two things are one in the same...I am not interested in dishonest discussion.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by smurfy
 


I don't know for sure, but it seems as though the answer she provides simply refers us back to the original question.
The question:

Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans?

The answer:

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again,

She's totally avoiding the question. Discovering whether it happened because of a protest or a bunch of thugs is very important to figuring out the nature as to why it's happening at all. So, Hillary, why are you avoiding discussing pertinent details that will answer this, so we can move on?
We are never going to learn the truth. She's been well trained in the art of evading sensitive questions so that she won't have to plead the 5th., which would make her guilt obvious and attract more attention. Once you remove her snide remark, it appears that she does not want the answer to this question to be known. The snide remark is an obvious release of nervous energy.
Is Hillary trying to stall because the UN can't decide if it wants to demonize protestors or gangbangers next? Who's the next boogieman going to be?

Frankly I thought the question was more rhetorical and sterile than anything else. Does Al Qaeda not ring a bell, and who are they? That makes three possible parties, or maybe just one.
If that senator was not aware of Al Qaeda, (ahem) when he posed the question, then he is a knob, but I don't think so.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Lousy actress.
Thinly veiled liar.
Callous wench.

Her for president?

Never.

That woman is a scumbag.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.
Source


But a senior State Department official said after the hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that keeping the team would not have changed the bloody outcome in Benghazi because it was not based there but in Tripoli
Source


It is clear that on August 2nd the consulate asked for an additional 11 security personnel to be added to the rotation of 24.
Source

It could be that everyone has said something else up till today



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obsrvr
Lousy actress.
Thinly veiled liar.
Callous wench.

Her for president?

Never.

That woman is a scumbag.


Youre a professional actor? Or just an easy accusation to throw out?

You know the truth? Proof? Or just an easy accusation to throw out?

Name calling. Mature

Her for president? Luckily it wont be up to you



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by okiecowboy
 


I think the confusion is between the Tripoli security and Bhengazi? The request was apparently made for Tripoli? In that context it is worth noting that it took the extraction team from Tripoli until 1:30AM to arrive, where as the CIA/Spec Ops house in Bhengazi had all survivors extracted by 11:30PM...the attack began at 9:45pm, so I'd agree that additional security in Tripoli would not have changed the outcome.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Wait what?

How can it be Al queda after all the current admin has repeatedly said al queda "has been destroyed".

cnsnews.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Anyone can do something in the name of a cause. For instance you could become a terrorist and attack an over seas base and claim victory in the name of Al qaeda.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by neo96
 


Anyone can do something in the name of a cause. For instance you could become a terrorist and attack an over seas base and claim victory in the name of Al qaeda.


By that logic that would mean the current administration are "terrorists".



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
edit on 23-1-2013 by neo96 because: a drone strike hit this post



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Obsrvr
Lousy actress.
Thinly veiled liar.
Callous wench.

Her for president?

Never.

That woman is a scumbag.


Your'e getting into the humanities there, that doesn't apply in this thread, the OP has already expanded on that.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Not sure how that works unless Obama has claimed he is part of a terrorist group






top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join