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

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia;10776149[URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/300879-benghazi-witness-points-finger-at-clinton-on-lapses-in-security":
Benghazi witness points finger at Clinton on lapses in consulate security
Click to expand...
Re this story…it seems like the ARB either “forgot” or found a better answer…blame the dead man…that Stevens was in Benghazi at the behest of Mrs Clinton and the odd timing was due to her desire to have this completed by 9/30 the end of the fiscal year:

***Hicks’s attorney has been drawing attention to that section of his testimony, which was overshadowed by revelations that no one at the U.S. embassy in Libya believed the terrorist attack was preceded by a peaceful protest, and that the Pentagon told a special operations team to stand down.

“According to Stevens, Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post,” Hicks testified.

“Timing for this decision [to visit the region on Sept. 11] was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the … political and security environment in Benghazi.”

He said Pickering appeared “surprised.”

“I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent,” Hicks testified.

“Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways … to the members of the board, saying, ‘Does the seventh floor [the secretary of State’s office] know about this?’ ”

The ARB appears to have ignored Hicks’s statement in its public report. Instead, the board appeared to place responsibility on Stevens.

Read more: thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/300879-benghazi-witness-points-finger-at-clinton-on-lapses-in-security#ixzz2TyFtsybR*
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook**

Recall that the ARB did NOT speak to Mrs Clintion saying they already knew her position…convenient?

I heard today that following a meeting with Pentagon officials, Stevens was named as the decider with respect to the security team that left in August. I recall someone trying to deflect blame to Stevens but again that was with respect to Tripoli and not necessarily related to the Benghazi facility which at the time was not permanent.

Gets curiouser and curiouser!

Lisa
 
The votes probably are not there to impeach.

But perhaps this will make for an extremely weakened and ineffective president and perhaps the Affordable Care Act will be repealed.

One does have to wonder though, if like pealing an onion, layer by layer we see either incompetence, corruption or downright repression and intimidation.

It seems some journalists are claiming to have spoken to some of the others at Benghazi.
 
The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn’t enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.- AP
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BroomWagon:
From NRO
Benghazi: The Story the Obama Administration Would Prefer We Forgot About

Sorry, families of Benghazi victims. We know who killed your loved ones, but we just don’t have enough to prosecute yet:

The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn’t enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

The men remain at large while the FBI gathers evidence. But the investigation has been slowed by the reduced U.S. intelligence presence in the region since the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, and by the limited ability to assist by Libya’s post-revolutionary law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which are still in their infancy since the overthrow of dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is toward a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the U.S. with the host country’s cooperation and tried in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using military force to detain the men might also harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments with whom the U.S. is trying to build partnerships to hunt al-Qaida as the organization expands throughout the region.

Hey, you know what else harmed fledging relations with Libya? Susan Rice going on the Sunday shows and contradicting the other big guest on the shows that week, Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who was telling anyone who would listen that weekend he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya. You’ll recall Gregory Hicks’ testimony that Rice’s contradiction of their president infuriated the Libyan government and impeded further cooperation on the investigation for more than two weeks.

Hey, President El-Magariaf, sorry about that.

Anyway . . . now Obama gets gun-shy on droning bad guys who kill Americans? Now?
 
LisaA said:
From NRO
Benghazi: The Story the Obama Administration Would Prefer We Forgot About

Sorry, families of Benghazi victims. We know who killed your loved ones, but we just don’t have enough to prosecute yet:

The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn’t enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

The men remain at large while the FBI gathers evidence. But the investigation has been slowed by the reduced U.S. intelligence presence in the region since the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, and by the limited ability to assist by Libya’s post-revolutionary law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which are still in their infancy since the overthrow of dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is toward a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the U.S. with the host country’s cooperation and tried in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using military force to detain the men might also harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments with whom the U.S. is trying to build partnerships to hunt al-Qaida as the organization expands throughout the region.

Hey, you know what else harmed fledging relations with Libya? Susan Rice going on the Sunday shows and contradicting the other big guest on the shows that week, Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who was telling anyone who would listen that weekend he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya. You’ll recall Gregory Hicks’ testimony that Rice’s contradiction of their president infuriated the Libyan government and impeded further cooperation on the investigation for more than two weeks.

Hey, President El-Magariaf, sorry about that.

Anyway . . . now Obama gets gun-shy on droning bad guys who kill Americans? Now?
Click to expand...
they need tho plant a copy of the anti Mohammed tape among their belongings before they arrest them
 
estesbob said:
No It would be an absolute disaster for the country and setrace relations back 50 years.
Click to expand...
Also it would be an impossibility from a legislative aspect as well because you need 2/3 support and with the 2014 Senate Race coming up the Republicans, if they won EVERY seat in 2014 would end up with 66 votes where they would need 67 and that is assuming that they would win EVERY seat which they won’t.
 
estesbob said:
No It would be an absolute disaster for the country and setrace relations back 50 years.
Click to expand...
“African-Americans must work TWICE as hard” (as whites to get ahead). It’s incendiary rabble rousing rhetoric such as THIS from OBAMA at Morehouse College which sets back race relations. He sounds like Farrakhan or Sharpton here, actually.
Two more points, however. One, if this is true, how does a lazy Narcissist like Obama get ahead? Two, there is no intention among Democrat leaders to EVER get past racial hostilities, b/c a healthy attitude among blacks toward America would erode their power base. 😉 Rob
 
JMJSHJ said:
Also it would be an impossibility from a legislative aspect as well because you need 2/3 support and with the 2014 Senate Race coming up the Republicans, if they won EVERY seat in 2014 would end up with 66 votes where they would need 67 and that is assuming that they would win EVERY seat which they won’t.
Click to expand...
You are correct, but I think you will agree that it is urgent that Congress get to the bottom of every Obama scandal, so Americans can learn the truth about the man they have elected. Sadly, many millions are still in denial. If Obama is truly superior to a Banana Republic dictator, investigations will give him every chance to clear his good name. :yup: Rob
 
RACJ said:
“African-Americans must work TWICE as hard” (as whites to get ahead). It’s incendiary rabble rousing rhetoric such as THIS from OBAMA at Morehouse College which sets back race relations. He sounds like Farrakhan or Sharpton here, actually.
Two more points, however. One, if this is true, how does a lazy Narcissist like Obama get ahead? Two, there is no intention among Democrat leaders to EVER get past racial hostilities, b/c a healthy attitude among blacks toward America would erode their power base. 😉 Rob
Click to expand...
👍👍 I agree with your points. Obama has had practically everything handed to him because of his race if you ask me. I get tired of hearing this type of rhetoric. I think Obama loves to stir up controversy by what he says in his speeches and he knows what buttons to push - on both sides.
 
7_Sorrows said:
👍👍 I agree with your points. Obama has had practically everything handed to him because of his race if you ask me. I get tired of hearing this type of rhetoric. I think Obama loves to stir up controversy by what he says in his speeches and he knows what buttons to push - on both sides.
Click to expand...
Race baiting is the Democrats bread and butter. That along with class baiting. :mad:
 
7_Sorrows said:
👍👍 I agree with your points. Obama has had practically everything handed to him because of his race if you ask me. I get tired of hearing this type of rhetoric. I think Obama loves to stir up controversy by what he says in his speeches and he knows what buttons to push - on both sides.
Click to expand...
Especially, with respect to the President, he hasn’t had to work in the real world save his Baskins Robbins job in high school it sounds to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top