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

[LisaA]

“Building Leadership” Code for Hillary? I never heard of the term “building leadership.”

Political doublespeak as usual. The recipients of the email probably knew exactly to whom she referred.

I wonder if HIllary would prefer to be known as incompetent, uncaring, or dishonest? There is no good answer to why the warnings were ignored, why the requests for security were denied and the requests for help were ignored.

Lacking a good answer, spin took over.

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It has now been revealed that it was Ambassador Stevens who refused an additional security presence. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee apparently believes that lawmakers already knew this. The partisan plot thickens. Highlights:

Rather than wait for the second cable, however, Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command, called Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team, the officials said. Stevens told Ham it did not, the government officials said. During a meeting several weeks later, Ham again asked Stevens if he wanted additional military security and again Stevens said no, the officials told McClatchy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It has now been revealed that it was Ambassador Stevens who refused an additional security presence. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee apparently believes that lawmakers already knew this. The partisan plot thickens. Highlights:

I guess it will unfold in the fullness of time, and see if this is just one more “blame the dead victim who can’t speak for himself” utterance.

But even if Stevens gave this response, is there nobody in the Armed Forces (including Gen. Ham) who has a better insight into security needs than a diplomat? That would be just breathtaking if true.

Sounds like "CYA’ to me, as it has already been established that Stevens asked for more security.

 

[meltzerboy]

It has now been revealed that it was Ambassador Stevens who refused an additional security presence. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee apparently believes that lawmakers already knew this. The partisan plot thickens. Highlights:

However, this information, which may indeed be true, sounds so suspect. Does this mean that Ambassador Stevens himself, who was one of the victims of the attack and of course cannot now be questioned, was in effect responsible, in part, for his own death? A little too convenient perhaps for absolving the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton of direct responsibility, methinks.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I guess it will unfold in the fullness of time, and see if this is just one more “blame the dead victim who can’t speak for himself” utterance. But even if Stevens gave this response, is there nobody in the Armed Forces (including Gen. Ham) who has a better insight into security needs than a diplomat? That would be just breathtaking if true. Sounds like "CYA’ to me, as it has already been established that Stevens asked for more security.

The security concerns expressed by Ambassador Stevens were very clearly in reference to external security, ie the obligation of the Libyan government as required by international law. It was being discussed with local and national Libyan leaders by Ambassador Stevens himself as these letters attest. It has been made clear that he did not want any additional American security forces and that it was Ambassador Stevens who declined the presence of additional American security forces in Benghazi.

However, this information, which may indeed be true, sounds so suspect. Does this mean that Ambassador Stevens himself, who was one of the victims of the attack and of course cannot now be questioned, was in effect responsible, in part, for his own death? A little too convenient perhaps for absolving the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton of direct responsibility, methinks.

I think this revelation coupled with the letters found in the complex paint the whole picture of the security question.

 

[LisaA]

It has now been revealed that it was Ambassador Stevens who refused an additional security presence. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee apparently believes that lawmakers already knew this. The partisan plot thickens. Highlights:

Perhaps but read the article. “One official said” and here is someone speaking anonymously:

***“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” one official said, speaking anonymously.

McClatchy said the offer of aid and Stevens’ refusal were not revealed in either the State Department’s Accountability Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during congressional hearings and reports issued into what happened Sept. 11, 2011, when the consulate was stormed and Stevens and three other diplomatic staffers were killed.***

It may be true and if so, amazing that after eight months is suddenly coming to light. However it does not change the reality that Rice did not tell the truth during her appearances on the Sunday news shows.

The other thing I noticed about the document dump, two days are missing. Everything seems to begin on 9/14. Surely there were some email exchanges during that time period. It would be interesting to see a timeline that follows the events without all of the gaps.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

The security concerns expressed by Ambassador Stevens were very clearly in reference to external security, ie the obligation of the Libyan government as required by international law. It was being discussed with local and national Libyan leaders by Ambassador Stevens himself as these letters attest. It has been made clear that he did not want any additional American security forces and that it was Ambassador Stevens who declined the presence of additional American security forces in Benghazi.

I think this revelation coupled with the letters found there in November paint the whole picture of the security question.

Did you read the article? The author did not come up with the same conclusion as you. The whole picture? Unsigned letters found at the scene “paint the whole picture?”

Several scenarios were suggested and the final note “what am I missing?” There was no conclusion…other than your great leap of faith that somehow you can resurrect Obama and Hillary’s image. Good luck!

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

However, this information, which may indeed be true, sounds so suspect. Does this mean that Ambassador Stevens himself, who was one of the victims of the attack and of course cannot now be questioned, was in effect responsible, in part, for his own death? A little too convenient perhaps for absolving the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton of direct responsibility, methinks.

But my goodness! Even if it’s true (which we’ll see in time) does this administration really make military security decisions based on what some diplomat says? If so, the incompetence (or insoucience as the case may be) is jaw-dropping.

Stevens was in a hotbed of radical Islamists whom this government armed. The Brits left. And we’re to believe Stevens didn’t think he needed protection?

And again, even if he didn’t, do they not have smarter generals, colonels, CIA, Delta Force types that know better?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Did you read the article? The author did not come up with the same conclusion as you. The whole picture? Unsigned letters found at the scene “paint the whole picture?”

The author of that article did not know that Ambassador Stevens refused additional American security forces. We do now and, with those letters, we also know why.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did you read the article? The author did not come up with the same conclusion as you. The whole picture? Unsigned letters found at the scene “paint the whole picture?”

Several scenarios were suggested and the final note “what am I missing?” There was no conclusion…other than your great leap of faith that somehow you can resurrect Obama and Hillary’s image. Good luck!

Lisa

You’re right. The article does not say what EN says it does.

 

[LisaA]

The author of that article did not know that Ambassador Stevens refused additional American security forces. We do now and, with those letters, we also know why.

Are you reading the article you posted? It was dated November 2012 not last week, referred to unsigned letters found in the debris of the consulate that the author said may or may not have been mailed or received. How does this paint “the whole picture?”

The McLatchy article quoting anonymous sources doesn’t refer to this article. That doesn’t auger well for its credibilty. If this information were considered significant don’t you think it might have surfaced in the last six months?

Again, why do you work so hard to prop up this corrupt and inept administration?

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Are you reading the article you posted? It was dated November 2012 not last week, referred to unsigned letters found in the debris of the consulate that the author said may or may not have been mailed or received. How does this paint “the whole picture?”

Perhaps you missed the point so I’ll repeat it. The letters in conjunction with this revelation regarding Stevens’ refusal of additional American security forces paint the whole picture of the security issue.

If this information were considered significant don’t you think it might have surfaced in the last six months?

It wasn’t made public, but some lawmakers are believed to known about this already.

Again, why do you work so hard to prop up this corrupt and inept administration?

Why are you allowing hatred of the President and Hillary Clinton to blind you from this evidence?

 

[LisaA]

Perhaps you missed the point so I’ll repeat it. The letters in conjunction with this revelation regarding Stevens’ refusal of additional American security forces paint the whole picture of the security issue.

It wasn’t made public, but some lawmakers are believed to known about this already.

How?

You have one article quoting anonymous sources saying that the reasons for Ambassador Stevens alleged claim he did not want additional security were not known. You have another article that refers to unsigned letters that the writer states may or may not have been mailed…or even legitimate. The letters, along with Ambassador Stevens’ diary and a bunch of other documents were found in the rubble of the burned out Consulate. The writer then proposes a number of scenarios as to why the letters had been written but comes to no conclusion.

Somehow this means “the whole picture has been painted” that YOU a poster on CAF know more than the ARB and the Congressional Hearing? OK…i guess if you call yourself Emperor Napoleon you have a strong sense of your own importance.

As to hatred of Obama and Hillary, no I don’t hate them in that I would like to see them harmed or killed but I do admit I wish they were not still in the process of trying to destroy our country.

Lisa

 

[iamrefreshed]

How?

You have one article quoting anonymous sources saying that the reasons for Ambassador Stevens alleged claim he did not want additional security were not known. You have another article that refers to unsigned letters that the writer states may or may not have been mailed…or even legitimate. The letters, along with Ambassador Stevens’ diary and a bunch of other documents were found in the rubble of the burned out Consulate. The writer then proposes a number of scenarios as to why the letters had been written but comes to no conclusion.

Somehow this means “the whole picture has been painted” that YOU a poster on CAF know more than the ARB and the Congressional Hearing? OK…i guess if you call yourself Emperor Napoleon you have a strong sense of your own importance.

As to hatred of Obama and Hillary, no I don’t hate them in that I would like to see them harmed or killed but I do admit I wish they were not still in the process of trying to destroy our country.

Lisa

Hatred is a word liberals use in place of disagreement.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How?

The dots connect themselves. I’ll give you a hint: Ambassador Stevens rejected offers for additional American security forces twice, but was pressuring the Libyans to provide additional security instead.

…or even legitimate.

Is everything a vast conspiracy?

As to hatred of Obama and Hillary, no I don’t hate them in that I would like to see them harmed or killed but I do admit I wish they were not still in the process of trying to destroy our country.

Well, at least you’re willing to admit that you won’t approach this objectively.

 

[rlg94086]

It has now been revealed that it was Ambassador Stevens who refused an additional security presence. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee apparently believes that lawmakers already knew this. The partisan plot thickens. Highlights:

Um…from your link:

McClatchy said** the offer of aid and Stevens’ refusal were not revealed in either the State Department’s Accountability Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during congressional hearings and reports** issued into what happened Sept. 11, 2011, when the consulate was stormed and Stevens and three other diplomatic staffers were killed.

Gregory Hicks, Stevens’ deputy, was not asked about the offer during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week, and** testimony has not been sought from the now-retired Ham.**

Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment, McClatchy said.

"As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it," Hick’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing said.

So…you have an anonymous source claiming that Stevens told Ham he didn’t want security, nothing corroborating it in the investigation, and no confirmation from Hicks or Ham.

That is some solid evidence you have there.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So…you have an anonymous source claiming that Stevens told Ham he didn’t want security, nothing corroborating it in the investigation, and no confirmation from Hicks or Ham. That is some solid evidence you have there.

The conservative Hicks narrative has been torn to shreds, partially, by his own testimony. Of course Hicks wouldn’t be aware of private conversations between Stevens and Ham, but he should also know that Stevens never sent that second cabal requesting additional American security forces. Indeed, he knew that Stevens wanted more security, but its those letters which tell us from whom and this recent revelation that it wasn’t the US.

 

[LisaA]

The dots connect themselves. I’ll give you a hint: Ambassador Stevens rejected offers for additional American security forces twice, but was pressuring the Libyans to provide additional security instead.

Is everything a vast conspiracy?

Well, at least you’re willing to admit that you won’t approach this objectively.

Again you have an anonymous source claiming Ambassador Stevens was offered security but turned it down. This detail was not reported in the ARB or mentioned in the past or recent Congressional Hearings. It may be true but no one but you seem to think it’s significant.

Then you have an OPINION piece where unsigned letters were found in the rubble of the Consulate. The letters were dated 9/11, the day of the attack and referred to past requests.

And this means what exactly? The writer himself states his various scenarios are “hazy” and that the conclusions could change:

***Caveats: Like everyone else, I’m working with incomplete information, and it’s entirely possible that new revelations will alter or even contradict my already-hazy reading. And the weak security at the time of the attack is not the only issue here – David Ignatius raised questions about the U.S. response once the attack had begun, which is its own complicated and foggy story. But it’s worth trying to nail down what we know and don’t, what we can plausibly imagine based on this information and can’t.

What am I missing?***

Further the writer concludes that his “hazy reading” of these documents doesn’t address the other issues such as the failure to respond.

Finally none of this has ANYTHING to do with the thread. I don’t know why you are so easily convinced that you now have the definitive answer on Benghazi. I see a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

The conservative Hicks narrative has been torn to shreds, partially, by his own testimony. Of course Hicks wouldn’t be aware of private conversations between Stevens and Ham, but he should also know that Stevens never sent that second cabal requesting additional American security forces. Indeed, he knew that Stevens wanted more security, but its those letters which tell us from whom and this recent revelation that it wasn’t the US.

The “conservative” Hicks voted for Hillary in the primary and twice for Obama. You’re kidding aren’t you?

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Again you have an anonymous source claiming Ambassador Stevens was offered security but turned it down. This detail was not reported in the ARB or mentioned in the past or recent Congressional Hearings.

Yet that detail was already known on Capitol Hill.

Then you have an OPINION piece where unsigned letters were found in the rubble of the Consulate. The letters were dated 9/11, the day of the attack and referred to past requests.

You keep fixating on the opinion portion of the piece. That is not the point of posting that source; rather the letters mentioned there.

The letters were dated 9/11, the day of the attack and referred to past requests. And this means what exactly?

What all of this means is that the narrative that Hillary Clinton was responsible for lax security at the consulate is falling apart. We know that Stevens did not request additional American security forces, as he never sent the second cabal. We know that Stevens declined additional American security forces when asked on two occasions. We also know that Stevens wanted the Libyans to address his security concerns.

The “conservative” Hicks voted for Hillary in the primary and twice for Obama. You’re kidding aren’t you?

Hicks is a disgruntled employee and I wasn’t referring to his politics; rather the web of lies spun around him by conservative pundits and politicians which were debunked by his own testimony.