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

[colmywaykurtz]

How does Hicks account for the time lapse between the time rescue teams were trying to get into the burning building to get Stevens and the time he was in the hospital where he later died? What happened in between?

And why would he say “I THINK (bold print mine) everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Doesn’t he know?

I think a closer look at Mr. Hicks is in order…

 

[doormouse73]

Exactly. It’s about emotions and blaming.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been accused of being a right-wing immoral meanie who doesn’t care about the poor. When I respond with actual facts, I get the “you and I will never agree, so let’s not discuss this anymore.”

what you have posted here is i swear the word for word responses i get every single day of people,

 

[LisaA]

Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame

Comment re Hillary…the commercial actually occurred but the call was 2am not 3:

Her whole “3 a.m.” shtick in the 2008 campaign was that she was ready for responsibilities that Obama wasn’t prepared for, yet when a crisis finally landed in her lap here, she couldn’t move fast enough to pass the buck to some random American whose big sin was free speech that was “unhelpful” to the administration’s goals.

 

[BroomWagon]

For the record, Sarah Palin was investigated in Alaska, nothing found.

Representative Michelle Bachmann too has been investigated per campaign finances.

So why not here? By the way, a lot of people get into trouble on legalities where it doesn’t “seem like a big thing”.

 

[mary_bobo]

How does Hicks account for the time lapse between the time rescue teams were trying to get into the burning building to get Stevens and the time he was in the hospital where he later died? What happened in between?

And why would he say “I THINK (bold print mine) everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Doesn’t he know?

I think a closer look at Mr. Hicks is in order…

By all means. You will find a stellar record on a man who voted for Hillary in the primary and for Obama when he ran the first time. I just can’t believe some will put down those three testifiers who put much on the line to testify.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m waiting for the race baiters to come out and say we wouldn’t have questioned Susan Rice had she not been black…I’m sure that’s the next pathetic attempt to shut down actual dialogue.

I thought they already did do that.

 

[livingwordunity]

For the record, Sarah Palin was investigated in Alaska, nothing found.

Representative Michelle Bachmann too has been investigated per campaign finances.

So why not here? By the way, a lot of people get into trouble on legalities where it doesn’t “seem like a big thing”.

The same is true for how Bush had to put up with the Florida recount yet Obama campaigners are caught red-handed cheating during the elections time and time again, and nothing is done about it. There is clearly a double standard.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How does Hicks account for the time lapse between the time rescue teams were trying to get into the burning building to get Stevens and the time he was in the hospital where he later died? What happened in between?

And why would he say “I THINK (bold print mine) everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Doesn’t he know?

I think a closer look at Mr. Hicks is in order…

Probably Hicks has not discussed it with EVERYBODY in the mission and won’t go beyond what he knows. I’m sure most anybody would say the same thing if he had pretty good, but not entirely complete knowledge.

All of this information is worth hearing, but those things I would be most interested in knowing are unlikely to ever come to the surface. Why, for example, did we support known terrorists in Benghazi against Khaddaffi in the first place? Then, knowing Behghazi was a hotbed of those folks and further knowing the capital of the country is Tripoli, did we send an ambassador there? And then, why not provide adequate security, particularly when it was asked for?

In the absence of anything resembling candor from this administration, I am inclined to think as follows:

1. The seeming policy of this administration is to facilitate national takeovers by Islamist organizations, perhaps in the belief they will somehow become more civilized once they are in power. A misguided policy to which the administration does not want to admit.
2. Knowing the terrorist groups in Benghazi are a government all their own, this administration tried to establish a separate relationship with them; a failure to which this administration does not want to admit.
3. Being sufficiently naive to think local forces would be “men of their word”, and being unwilling to admit the “green on blue” attacks in Afghanistan are expectable in Islamic countries or areas, the administration entrusted protection to them, and doesn’t want to admit it is a mistake in and of itself.
4. Not wanting to risk being critized for a possible “Carter Iranian rescue” kind of bloody failure, he wouldn’t authorize any kind of rescue effort, then made himself scarce during the critical hours, believing (rightly) the mainstream media would never hold him to account for being M.I.A. during the critical hours.
5. Blaming the video shifted responsibility for the disaster to the video maker from himself for policy failure after policy failure. He believed he could keep it all under wraps until it was no longer of public interest.
6. Having his surrogates blame Repubs for wanting more information in what he wants to be a “closed chapter” is a similar strategy to #5.

 

[BroomWagon]

Heard that the British removed their diplomatic corps from that area recognizing it as dangerous.

 

[BroomWagon]

Probably Hicks has not discussed it with EVERYBODY in the mission and won’t go beyond what he knows. I’m sure most anybody would say the same thing if he had pretty good, but not entirely complete knowledge.

All of this information is worth hearing, but those things I would be most interested in knowing are unlikely to ever come to the surface. Why, for example, did we support known terrorists in Benghazi against Khaddaffi in the first place? Then, knowing Behghazi was a hotbed of those folks and further knowing the capital of the country is Tripoli, did we send an ambassador there? And then, why not provide adequate security, particularly when it was asked for?

In the absence of anything resembling candor from this administration, I am inclined to think as follows:

1. The seeming policy of this administration is to facilitate national takeovers by Islamist organizations, perhaps in the belief they will somehow become more civilized once they are in power. A misguided policy to which the administration does not want to admit.
2. Knowing the terrorist groups in Benghazi are a government all their own, this administration tried to establish a separate relationship with them; a failure to which this administration does not want to admit.
3. Being sufficiently naive to think local forces would be “men of their word”, and being unwilling to admit the “green on blue” attacks in Afghanistan are expectable in Islamic countries or areas, the administration entrusted protection to them, and doesn’t want to admit it is a mistake in and of itself.
4. Not wanting to risk being critized for a possible “Carter Iranian rescue” kind of bloody failure, he wouldn’t authorize any kind of rescue effort, then made himself scarce during the critical hours, believing (rightly) the mainstream media would never hold him to account for being M.I.A. during the critical hours.
5. Blaming the video shifted responsibility for the disaster to the video maker from himself for policy failure after policy failure. He believed he could keep it all under wraps until it was no longer of public interest.
6. Having his surrogates blame Repubs for wanting more information in what he wants to be a “closed chapter” is a similar strategy to #5.

Agree here too, it is easy to at least conjecture that the Obama administration is too friendly to Islamic Extremists, to MB, Syria and not always hospitable to Israel.

 

[LisaA]

Probably Hicks has not discussed it with EVERYBODY in the mission and won’t go beyond what he knows. I’m sure most anybody would say the same thing if he had pretty good, but not entirely complete knowledge.

All of this information is worth hearing, but those things I would be most interested in knowing are unlikely to ever come to the surface. Why, for example, did we support known terrorists in Benghazi against Khaddaffi in the first place? Then, knowing Behghazi was a hotbed of those folks and further knowing the capital of the country is Tripoli, did we send an ambassador there? And then, why not provide adequate security, particularly when it was asked for?

In the absence of anything resembling candor from this administration, I am inclined to think as follows:

1. The seeming policy of this administration is to facilitate national takeovers by Islamist organizations, perhaps in the belief they will somehow become more civilized once they are in power. A misguided policy to which the administration does not want to admit.
2. Knowing the terrorist groups in Benghazi are a government all their own, this administration tried to establish a separate relationship with them; a failure to which this administration does not want to admit.
3. Being sufficiently naive to think local forces would be “men of their word”, and being unwilling to admit the “green on blue” attacks in Afghanistan are expectable in Islamic countries or areas, the administration entrusted protection to them, and doesn’t want to admit it is a mistake in and of itself.
4. Not wanting to risk being critized for a possible “Carter Iranian rescue” kind of bloody failure, he wouldn’t authorize any kind of rescue effort, then made himself scarce during the critical hours, believing (rightly) the mainstream media would never hold him to account for being M.I.A. during the critical hours.
5. Blaming the video shifted responsibility for the disaster to the video maker from himself for policy failure after policy failure. He believed he could keep it all under wraps until it was no longer of public interest.
6. Having his surrogates blame Repubs for wanting more information in what he wants to be a “closed chapter” is a similar strategy to #5.

EXCELLENT POINT about the analogy of the Carter “rescue” debacle. Obama had been compared to Carter in his disasterous economic policy. A failure resulting in the deaths of Americans would add to that comparison.

There is a consistent policy of apologizing to Muslims, assuming America is to blame for being a bully and that the street rabble represents some sort of noble cause instead of just another group seeking power.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Heard that the British removed their diplomatic corps from that area recognizing it as dangerous.

Yes a couple months prior to the 9/11 attack on the Consulate. Also the Red Cross left. It was a very violent place. Actually the Benghazi facility had been attacked previously but these attacks were not as well orchestrated.
Lisa

 

[RACJ]

How does Hicks account for the time lapse between the time rescue teams were trying to get into the burning building to get Stevens and the time he was in the hospital where he later died? What happened in between?

And why would he say “I THINK (bold print mine) everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Doesn’t he know?

I think a closer look at Mr. Hicks is in order…

He said “I THINK” b/c no one can speak for everyone. Some fool on the scene might have thought that the terrorists were celebrating. Just as here at CA, you would THINK that common sense would tell everyone that a President who dismisses the fact that his own ambassador’s life is at risk would be negligent or incompetent at best, but no, inexplicably some make excuses for him. B/c he is a left-wing Democrat, who fights for people like US, you know! Rob

 

[qui_est_ce]

And why would he say “I THINK (bold print mine) everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Doesn’t he know?

I think a closer look at Mr. Hicks is in order…

He said “I THINK” b/c no one can speak for everyone. Some fool on the scene might have thought that the terrorists were celebrating. Just as here at CA, you would THINK that common sense would tell everyone that a President who dismisses the fact that his own ambassador’s life is at risk would be negligent at best, but no, some inexplicably make excuses for him. B/c he is a left-wing Democrat, who fights for people like US, I am sure! Rob

I guess it depends on what your definition of THINK is.

 

[RACJ]

Heard that the British removed their diplomatic corps from that area recognizing it as dangerous.

The Brits had nothing to fear, since the “protesters” were merely demonstrating against the nation resposible for the video. Ahh, it feels so good to empty my mind of critical thought, and instead rely on the rantings of Elijah Cummings and ABC to form my opinion. :newidea: Rob

 

[LisaA]

The Brits had nothing to fear, since the “protesters” were merely demonstrating against the nation resposible for the video. Ahh, it feels so good to empty my mind of critical thought, and instead rely on the rantings of Elijah Cummings and ABC to form my opinion. :newidea: Rob

WONDERFUL!!! Thank you for the laugh.
Lisa

 

[twoshoes]

Doubtful. The truth does not resonate if people will not hear it.

So true.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

How does Hicks account for the time lapse between the time rescue teams were trying to get into the burning building to get Stevens and the time he was in the hospital where he later died? What happened in between?

And why would he say “I THINK (bold print mine) everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.” Doesn’t he know?

I think a closer look at Mr. Hicks is in order…

Much like the left investigated Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, and anyone with the audacity to cross them.

Somehow, keyboard warriors on here deem Hicks suspicious (and some have said he was downgraded for being poor on the job!), despite having zero insight into the State department, or his career. Please, stop.

 

[twoshoes]

I haven’t read all the post so I hope I’m not being redundant when I ask, Why is the man who made an anti- muslim video, who Obama says caused this planned terrorist attack still in jail for exercising his 1 st ammendment right? To some as small matter, to other political jailing.

 

[LisaA]

I haven’t read all the post so I hope I’m not being redundant when I ask, Why is the man who made an anti- muslim video, who Obama says caused this planned terrorist attack still in jail for exercising his 1 st ammendment right? To some as small matter, to other political jailing.

Here is some info…the first man in America jailed for blasphemy against Islam. I guess the “artist” that put a crucifix in urine was just using his first amendment rights!

nationalreview.com/corner/347873/benghazi-patsy

Lisa