Here's my take, which isn't that difefrent from your take...

Those former Navy SEALs fought for their lives, for several hours.

Now, I know we can't expect that every single person in a dangerous post, will have a division of Marines across the street waiting.

However, we know this particular fight lasted for hours. We know that some special forces folks have said that they could have been sent to Libya, and gotten there in time to help - that may or may not be true, but that's what some soldiers are saying.

If help is available...even if you don't send them rushing in, you at least get the pieces moving, so that if you decide to send help, they are standing by as closely as they can safely get to.

Jimmy Carter could not have possibly bungled this any more...

Also, I don't expect instant answers. But I don't expect a cover-up, nor do I expect to close the book until we have all the answers. Brett Baier (who is not a partisan hack) had a soldier on who says he was close enough to have been sent to the annex before it was over. Others are saying they were pressured to keep quiet. Those things need to be looked into.

It's been pointed out before and it's clear to this point that the administrations and The sec of states response was all about 4 more years and not about 4 human lives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

I love it, now you're asking people to defend hypothetical situations.

Perhaps Obama was too stoned to even think about it...did you consider that?

-spence

Seriously, are you OK?

In the situation we are discussing, Hilary's claim was not that she travels under routine threat of sniper fire. If she said that, no one would deny that.

That's not what she said. Am I going too fast for you? That's not what she said, so there was no reason for you to bring it up.

Here is what she said...

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to you, she didn't lie. Rather, "she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened."

You should work in PR for people like Hilary and Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden. As long as someone agrees with you on political issues, you are physicalluy incapable of calling them out for egregious and immoral behavior.

"You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative"

Not a pathological liar...rather, pathologically immoral. I recall scandals involving FBI files, Whitewater, this bold-faced lie, travelgate. Then there is her loving husband...So I'm not "trying to establish" this pattern of moral bankruptcy - I'm just pointing out the irrefutable facts...facts for whicj you will do anything to deny or mitigate. You are the one bending over backwards to adjust the facts to fit your political narrative (that narrative being that it's wrong to kill convicted murderers, but it's OK to slaughter unborn babies), not I.

"She also had to deal with the fallout"

What fallout? Not from the likes of you. She got promoted to SecState. Maybe not the best position for someone who is so disconnected from reality that she think sse has been shot at when she hasn't. What if she is sitting across from the president of Mexico, and she falsely accuses him of trying to shoot her?

This lie, by the way, was a slap in the face to the security personnel at the arrival site (2 of whom were friends of mine) who risked their lives to secure the area surrounding her arrival site. They risk their lives to keep her safe, and she shows her gratitude by saying that they are incompetent. Classy.

I just can't figure out how you can support her so blindly, and not feel like you need to take a shower. She's repugnant.

Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.

I said she lied, which she clearly did.

Spence siad she "mischaracterized" what happened.

And I am the one who is biased. Got it.

My wife likes blown glass, is that what you do? Do you have a website?

I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.
I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

Yes she did, but her lying isn't important to liberals. They will give her a
pass because maybe something traumatic happened in her past and she could
be rehabilitated. Like Spence says, credibility can be rebuilt.

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it

Well, in that case it was political. The Senate Dems couldn't get the Repubs to do anything unless they agrees to push off the Admin use of intel into a future phase. And then, the Repubs dragged their heels until the Dems took the Senate.

That's a presumption of guilt.

The Mullen investigation was pretty substantial and from everything I've read they had good cooperation by the Administration. They interviewed over 100 people and apparently made public attempts to solicit information. Why didn't these people come forth earlier? Because they were intimidated? Come on...

I'd also note (as I assume nobody here has taken a second to bother and read up about it) it lays plenty of blame on the State Department for not having better contingency plans on the table or responding to escalating threats.

This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.

-spence

And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).

And all this after killing Vince Foster.

-spence

YET 100% DISHONEST.......America is a wonderful place.....pretty sure Hill had her highest approval ratings when she was being seen or viewed as victim of Bill's transgressions.....odd world

GALLUP

The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.

Clinton's popularity may be partly due to the nature of the secretary of state position, which is somewhat above the fray of partisan politics and focused on defending U.S. interests globally.

Yes 100% for sure. I guess that makes the majority a bunch of idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

aren't we told that all of the time?

both probably enjoy a helpful tailwind thanks to the fact that they've been media darlings since hitting the national scene...through good and bad the MSM has propped them both up....should probably add that "contex" when comparing those #'s to others who didn't enjoy the mediagasm to the same degree.......

At Present, see Mark Sanford.

Yes but extrapolating the demographics established by ScottW that would mean his supporters are not idiots.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whatever, you me and eben are on one-side of this song, Jim, Scott and Justplugit are on the other...

Todd Snider "Conservative Christian..." Live on Soundcheck - YouTube

LOL, good one RRH, a bit extreme when it comes to me, but good try any way. :btu:

God bless Todd Snider. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the "brilliance" is in his ability to write and sing a song that sucks strewn with mindless stereotypes and still get applause.....
and an AMEN from Eben....:biglaugh:

kinda like poetry and art these days...you can get federal funding to assemble a pile of twigs and take a dump on it and exhibit it in an art museum and the critics will rave!.....:uhuh:


hey Eben....can liberals be hippies?...or hippies be liberals?....pot smoking, porn watching people in desperate need of a bath doesn't quite align with your definition....just wondering......

I didn't estabish any demographics or refer to anyone as idiots...except for you in the Ayers thread
:):)

so....what is your point?

"Under the risk of fire is different than under fire. "

Very, very different. No one could ever confuse being shot at, with having to have a security detail but never coming under fire. If the pressure of simply having to take precautions, causes her to have delusional episodes about being in a combat situation, obviously she is nowhere near fit to be president. But she's not delusional, she's just a liar. Which, in a rational world, would also make her unfit for the Oval Office. But not if your last name is 'Clinton' or 'Kennedy'. If you are a democrat with one of those names, no amount of repugnant, immoral, hedonistic, greedy, degenarate actions, will ever cause the sheep to turn their backs on you.

My wife is excited to browse. I genuinely wish I had some creative talent...

You said it, not me...

I'd say 'clueless' rather than 'idiotic'. That, plus 99% of the media is in the bag for your side, and your side is great at putting a positive spin on an economically suicidal, and morally bankrupt, ideology.

My father, who is my hero, has a PhD in electrical engineering. He is brilliant. He, like most Catholics of his generation, grew up voting for Democrats, back in the 1950's, before the democrats got radicalized in the 1960's. Today, my Dad believes that as a conservative, I am out to steal his social security benefits. I can show him the numbers that clearly show that we need to either double the federal income tax, or make serious cuts to SS and medicare. He's not quite convinced, because every TV station except one, says that conservatives dislike old people and poor people.

Jim. They are all liars! Ever single one. Republican and democrat.
The honest ones are the ones who lie less. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anyone can be anything in the country. Redneck cowboys can fall in love. Dirty hippies can listen to Metallica and watch NASCAR. Spence can wear his wife's underwear.... That's the beautiful thing about America. Of course there are consecrate Christian rightwing republicans who want to end all of that.
Sounds anti American to me. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear you. The vast majority of career politicians are flawed. Similarly, if I had a sister, I'd tell her nnot to believe everything a guy tells her in a singles bar.

But Nebe...come on...you have to admit, it takes a special kind of liar, to be able to say with a straight face that you came under sniper fire, when you know that never happened.

Or my current favorite, CT Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Blumenthal, democrat. Mr Blumenthal was caught lying about serving in the Vietnam War, he never went anywhere near Vietnam. Yet he won his election easily. I don't understand that, especially in this day and age, when we recognize the sacrifices those guys made. How do you nominate and then elect, such a weasel?

So anyone can be anything and be American, except Christian right wing republicans can't be anything because that would be anti American.

Perhaps history is being re-written, but I seem to recall reading about very "right wing" Christians being instrumental in founding this country that allows anyone to be anything . . . except right wing Christian republicans, of course.

Very "creative liberal" thinking.

Yes, the worst kind of liars in my mind, egocentric liars who try to build themselves up and fool others into thinking they are more than they are,insecure and not to be trusted.
Phonies.

I don't want to end any of these....particularly Spence in womens panties :biglaugh: I would fall into the right-wing Christian republican category....is there a vast conspiracy that I'm unaware of that is seeking to ban these things that you hold so dear ?

Spence- [/Quote] "that is an assumption of guilt."

No Spence ,it's just a red flag going up in an inquiring mind.

I was extrapolating from ScottW's post.

I assume you're exempting FOX News which is #1 on TV, Rush and Hannity who are #1 and #2 on talk radio, the WSJ which is the largest newspaper in the country (followed by USA Today which isn't exactly a liberal rag).

We don't even need to go into the conservative personalities like Will, Krauthamer, Brooks, Doutha, Parker etc... etc... etc... that contribute regularly to the largest newspapers you've accused of being liberal.

I'd say your 99% number is off by about a billion.

He's probably like my father who believes he's paid into something with the assumption he's going to get a return in the form of income stability when they retire. He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract.

I highly doubt your father with a PhD in EE has been brainwashed by the 99%.

-spence

You should take her shopping, he has plenty of warez that make great statement pieces in the house. Bring plenty of money :hihi:

Ha, such modesty. When it comes to the application of facts you're a regular Leonardo Da Vinici :bshake:

-spence

LMFAO!!! :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

more like interpolating....you made the idiot statement..actually, several now..I acknowledged that this is in fact what we are told essentially by the elitists and why their guidance administered through heaping helpings of government bureaucracy is deemed necessary to help us through our daily lives apparently.....idiots?...no....apathetic?...probab ly...:uhuh:

Nope, no new evidence of anything, nohting to see here...

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say | Fox News

This from the guy who will not concede that Hilary lied about getting shot at...

Here's is what my father, and you, don't get.

Yes, he paid into SS and Medicare.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM...

What they have paid into these programs, combined with interest income, is nowhere near enough to pay for the promised benefits. The ony way to pay for those benefits, is to borrow, meaning future generations will be burdened with that much more debt. Please tell me if I'm wrong anywhere?

Spence, when those programs were founded, there were more workers-per-retiree, retirees lived only a few years in retirement, medical costs were low, and interest rates were high. That made it feasible. Now, the math has turned upside down.

Do you deny that? Or are you just unable to grasp the mathematical reality? Those programs are underfunded by, according to some estimates, $100 trillion.

I conclude that if those programs are underfunded by $100 trillion, then the promised benefits are too rich. What other conclusion is there?

"He's made a deal with the country and believes the country has an obligation to make good on that contract."

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is to say that he was duped by Democrats who promised that if he voted for them, he would never let those mean Republicans take away his social security. That political tactic has been around for 70 years, because it works. It worked on my Dad. And sure as hell it worked on you.

Spence, I have asked you this many times, and I can't recall that you have ever answered. Let's try again. Since your side are the self-appointed guardians of all that is noble...how are you going to come up with the tens of trillions of dollars that are needed? Flower power? Electric cars? If you can propose a way to do that, which doesn't involve tax increases that even you would have to admit are crippling, I will support it. I truly will.

In summary, it doesn't matter what my Dad, or anyone else, feels they are entitled to. What matters is, we cannot begin to pay for the promised benefits.

This is why George Will says that liberals are actively hostile to arithmetic. You talk about how mean it is to propose cutting these popular programs (all Ponzi schemes are popular with those who cash out before it implodes), but you don't offer fixes to the problem.

Spence, exactly how much pay are you willing to confiscate from future generations, to pay for current benefits? Should our kids be levied 25 federal income tax points to pay for benefits for their grandparents' generation? That's not immoral, in your opinion?

It's a lot easier to criticize from the sidelines, than it is to offer solutions to the problem. For proof of that, see what happened when Paul Ryan proposed changes to Medicare. The reaction from your side speaks for itself.

Really? Just some ticked-off insiders on a political witch hunt?

Spence, tell that to Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Ruppersberger probably knows almost as much about this story as you do, and he sees the need for further investigation, in light of recent revelations. He welcomes the upcoming House Oversight hearings on what happened in Libya, saying "That's what an investigation is about,” Ruppersberger told CBS. “Let's get the facts.”

Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence | Fox News

I have no doubt that to you, these new revelations appear to be insignificant. Fortunately, for the sake of the families of the dead, that's not how it appears to some honest Democrats in the House.

I await your snappy comeback...