[quote]pushharder wrote:
And when I said average American I meant average American voter and in this case average American GOP registered voter. But you surely understood that, right?[/quote]
Of course not. That’s why I wrote that.
Perhaps you could write more clearly next time.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Watching some of the Hillary/Benghazi hearing, I cannot understand how this woman can just sit there quietly while someone accused her of being directly responsible for the death of 4 Americans. If she was truly innocent, she would not just sit there, but would show some degree of anger and not just sit there and dither. I know I would get after Gowdy to the point where he asked me permission to go to the bathroom. This woman is monstrous in her apathy, pretty scary if you ask me. [/quote]
I’m pretty sure someone would write/say something along similar lines to the above if Clinton got angry as well.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Watching some of the Hillary/Benghazi hearing, I cannot understand how this woman can just sit there quietly while someone accused her of being directly responsible for the death of 4 Americans. If she was truly innocent, she would not just sit there, but would show some degree of anger and not just sit there and dither. I know I would get after Gowdy to the point where he asked me permission to go to the bathroom. This woman is monstrous in her apathy, pretty scary if you ask me. [/quote]
She’s been very well coached and knows if she gets past this and the FBI gives her a pass she could still win.
Just a power hungry woman.[/quote]
Direct responsibility for the Benghazi attack lies with Ansar al-Sharia and Al-Qaeda.
Senate Testimonies of Secretary of Defense Panetta and Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey on the Attack of U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, February 2013
While DoD does not have primary responsibility for the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world, we work closely with the State Department and support them as requested. In the months prior to the Benghazi attack, we had received several hundred reportson possible threats to American facilities around the world. Over the course of the day on September 11, General Dempsey and I received a number of reports of possible threats to U.S. facilities â?? including those in Egypt â?? but there were no reports of imminent threats to U.S. personnel or facilities in Benghazi.
By our best estimate, the incident at the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi began at 3:42 p.m. eastern daylight time on September 11th. The Embassy in Tripoli was notified of the attacks almost immediately and within 17 minutes of the initial reports â?? at 3:59 p.m. â?? AFRICOM directed that an unarmed, unmanned, surveillance aircraft that was nearby to reposition overhead the Benghazi facility.
Soon after the initial reports about the attack on Benghazi, General Dempsey and I met with President Obama and he ordered all available DoD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region. It is important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sana’a, and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.
In consultation with Chairman Dempsey and AFRICOM Commander General Ham, I directed several specific actions:
A Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoon, stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi;
A Second FAST platoon to prepare to deploy to the Embassy in Tripoli;
A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe; and
A special operations force based in the United States to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe.
Some have asked why other types of armed aircraft were not dispatched to Benghazi. The reason is because armed UAVs, AC-130 gunships, or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking, armaments, targeting and support capabilities were not in the vicinity of Libya and because of the distance, would have taken at least 9 to 12 hours if not more to deploy. This was, pure and simple, a problem of distance and time.
The quickest response option available was the Tripoli-based security team. Within hours, this six-person team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered a private airplane and deployed to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the Annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket propelled grenades. Members of this team, along with others at the Annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks began, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi.
Looking back, our actions in the immediate aftermath of these attacks have been subject to intense scrutiny and review. Let me share with you the conclusion that the Accountability Review Board reached: The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans.
Bismark,
I’m not going to get into the security details of how it happened, but she lied to the American people after the attack happened:
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/she-knew-all-along-1445556778-lMyQjAxMTA1MzI1MzgyODMyWj
I don’t see that changing much for her. She’s already been proven a liar so there is no new narrative. If you were previously a HRC fan you will only dig in deeper thinking Republicans are evil and she is the victim in this situation.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Bismark,
I’m not going to get into the security details of how it happened, but she lied to the American people after the attack happened:
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/she-knew-all-along-1445556778-lMyQjAxMTA1MzI1MzgyODMyWj
I don’t see that changing much for her. She’s already been proven a liar so there is no new narrative. If you were previously a HRC fan you will only dig in deeper thinking Republicans are evil and she is the victim in this situation.[/quote]
True enough Drew, she emails her daughter telling her it was a planned terrorist attack. Later on they concoct some asinine story about an online video causing a protest.
She was shown for the liar that she is in yesterdays hearings. Anyone voting for her knows exactly what they’re getting.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Bismark,
I’m not going to get into the security details of how it happened, but she lied to the American people after the attack happened:
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/she-knew-all-along-1445556778-lMyQjAxMTA1MzI1MzgyODMyWj
I don’t see that changing much for her. She’s already been proven a liar so there is no new narrative. If you were previously a HRC fan you will only dig in deeper thinking Republicans are evil and she is the victim in this situation.[/quote]
There are different accusations flying around, and these carry various degrees of gravity.
The common accusation that she “let” people die or is responsible for their deaths is a serious one, and it’s confused gobbledygook.
The accusation that she played politics or lied after the event is separate, unrelated, and not nearly as serious (there is very recent precedent for a high-ranking public official’s choosing to lie about the details of a terrorist attack for political expediency [the difference being that in the precedent case the goal, which was ultimately achieved, involved facilitating the execution of a ludicrously stupid war enormously costly to American lives, interests, and security; when the Right decides that that was consequential, the rest of us will start taking moderately seriously their manufactured hysteria over the pending case, which involves nothing remotely so grave]).
Bismark’s post seems to be aimed at the former and much more serious/consequential accusation, and it’s spot on. Nobody can even say what exactly is being alleged about Benghazi vis-a-vis anything more serious than post-event spin. What we see here – and this had been essentially admitted – is political opportunism. The opportunity to vaguely smear a presidential candidate for…something (though it really doesn’t even represent that). All the “four people died!!!” nonsense from partisans who don’t blink at the thousandfold greater death toll actually attributable to the arrant stupidity of another public figure I could name.
Speaking of that stupid public figure vis-a-vis dead Americans, does Bush deserve blame for 9/11? No. OK, then, “four people died” is no longer a self-contained criticism of Hillary Clinton.
But wait, why wasn’t there more security at the consulate? Good question, but the SoS doesn’t handle logistical security concerns. The State Department employs ~70,000 people. We can do the math pretty easily and figure out that anything below the level of policy is not a part of the SoS’ schedule.
Ambassadorships in dangerous countries are, unsurprisingly, dangerous. Ambassadors have died before. They will die again. This kind of structural danger is clear to the pro-Second-Amendment crowd after a mass shooting. By what mysterious mechanism do they forget it when we’re talking about people hired to represent American interests in terrorist-riddled shitholes? These people assume these risks knowingly.
Doc S. once told me that had heard through the grapevine, as I have, that Stevens was likely in Benghazi on business for Petraeus’ CIA and relating to his (Stevens’) previous status as liaison to a high-ranking officer in the Libyan opposition. If this is true, it’s not even clear what the SD knew about it. Either way, does that sound to us like the kind of thing that can be dangerous?
smh,
I’m not disagreeing with Bismark, or you regarding the security details (the former as you put it). I don’t know enough about that to comment.
I’m curious if you think the investigation has changed anything for her politically, specifically the lying (latter) accusation. I don’t think so.
Edit: Changed who the post is addressed to. Misread the long above post as from Zeb, it was from smh.
Does anyone actually believe muslim violence throughout the world, and specifically the events in Libya were caused by a video? Are people really that naive and stupid?
Did she say, or does anyone know what her and Barry were doing while an American Embassy was under a premeditated terrorist attack?
I invite anybody to refute anything in my post.
We can get into the post-event stuff in a bit, and we will see that while criticism is legitimate, Clinton’s conduct is not nearly as simplistic as people are suggesting. And it is fairly run of the mill in either case.
But first, our (Bis and mine) primary point. Anybody want to try that? What we’re criticizing has been hawked many, many times here.
Nothing to see here folks, keep it moving, it’s all just a smear campaign…
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Zeb,
I’m not disagreeing with Bismark, or you regarding the security details (the former as you put it). I don’t know enough about that to comment.
I’m curious if you think the investigation has changed anything for her politically, specifically the lying (latter) accusation. I don’t think so. [/quote]
From what I have seen of her support, where it comes from and why she receives it I would say that she has not lost any of her base. The problem for Hillary is what it has always been from the beginning. The more people see her the less they like her. That she is sitting in front of a Benghazi hearing answering questions about things she may have done wrong doesn’t help expand her support. But I will say this, if you are a strong Hillary supporter nothing short of her pulling a gun and knocking over a bank is going to change your mind.
But that doesn’t mean she will be able to pull the big numbers that she needs to win. Start out with the premise that people don’t like her, high negatives, this has been proven in multiple polls. The only one that is close to her negatives and in some groups exceeds them is Donald Trump. Can Trump lower his negatives? I have no idea, he seems hell bent on being petty and vindictive, not the sign of a man who is going to actually take his campaign to the next level. Yet on the same token not someone who will change with the weather like Mrs. Clinton.
Hillary on the other hand will say or do anything in order to improve her poll numbers that’s a better approach than Trump has right? The only problem is that people are wise to her approach and they don’t like it. They know she’s not real. She’s whatever she needs to be on any particular day. Let’s say she’s dishonest to the core. In fact, let’s further say that she has no real core. It’s a simple lust for power. Those who lover her can’t see that, but there are not enough of them. And in this election cycle people have really had enough of politicians saying and doing whatever they can whether they believe it or not and that is why Trump still has appeal (although I think he is faltering for other reasons).
While she didn’t get crushed in the Benghazi hearings enough came out to keep those away that she needs. Not enough to kill her chances of getting the nomination. After all it’s not like she has any real competition. At this point I will stick to my months old prediction, Hillary Clinton will not become the next President of the United States.
I have seen nothing yet that she has done which could possibly take her that far.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Bismark,
I’m not going to get into the security details of how it happened, but she lied to the American people after the attack happened:
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/she-knew-all-along-1445556778-lMyQjAxMTA1MzI1MzgyODMyWj
I don’t see that changing much for her. She’s already been proven a liar so there is no new narrative. If you were previously a HRC fan you will only dig in deeper thinking Republicans are evil and she is the victim in this situation.[/quote]
There are different accusations flying around, and these carry various degrees of gravity.
The common accusation that she “let” people die or is responsible for their deaths is a serious one, and it’s confused gobbledygook.
The accusation that she played politics or lied after the event is separate, unrelated, and not nearly as serious (there is very recent precedent for a high-ranking public official’s choosing to lie about the details of a terrorist attack for political expediency [the difference being that in the precedent case the goal, which was ultimately achieved, involved facilitating the execution of a ludicrously stupid war enormously costly to American lives, interests, and security; when the Right decides that that was consequential, the rest of us will start taking moderately seriously their manufactured hysteria over the pending case, which involves nothing remotely so grave]).
Bismark’s post seems to be aimed at the former and much more serious/consequential accusation, and it’s spot on. Nobody can even say what exactly is being alleged about Benghazi vis-a-vis anything more serious than post-event spin. What we see here – and this had been essentially admitted – is political opportunism. The opportunity to vaguely smear a presidential candidate for…something (though it really doesn’t even represent that). All the “four people died!!!” nonsense from partisans who don’t blink at the thousandfold greater death toll actually attributable to the arrant stupidity of another public figure I could name.
Speaking of that stupid public figure vis-a-vis dead Americans, does Bush deserve blame for 9/11? No. OK, then, “four people died” is no longer a self-contained criticism of Hillary Clinton.
But wait, why wasn’t there more security at the consulate? Good question, but the SoS doesn’t handle logistical security concerns. The State Department employs ~70,000 people. We can do the math pretty easily and figure out that anything below the level of policy is not a part of the SoS’ schedule.
Ambassadorships in dangerous countries are, unsurprisingly, dangerous. Ambassadors have died before. They will die again. This kind of structural danger is clear to the pro-Second-Amendment crowd after a mass shooting. By what mysterious mechanism do they forget it when we’re talking about people hired to represent American interests in terrorist-riddled shitholes? These people assume these risks knowingly.
Doc S. once told me that had heard through the grapevine, as I have, that Stevens was likely in Benghazi on business for Petraeus’ CIA and relating to his (Stevens’) previous status as liaison to a high-ranking officer in the Libyan opposition. If this is true, it’s not even clear what the SD knew about it. Either way, does that sound to us like the kind of thing that can be dangerous?[/quote]
You are not calling this even.
You call Bush a fuck-up for the deaths of 9/11, then you say Hillary is not a fuck-up for the deaths of Benghazi, and you base this on the fact that the former had many more deaths than the latter.
You are also suggesting that Republicans should not use this as a political issue, when in 2008, Democrats went all in with “Bush lied people died.”
This is not just about the deaths of 4 Americans, but an analysis of how someone looking to be president behaved under pressure. If Hillary wins, we could very well have another 9/11 attack, and by how she handled Benghazi, I don’t see how she would do any better than Bush did.