Benghazi and Hillary

The questions have been asked but the answers are somewhat convoluted and in many peoples opinion, have not been answered fully. just because you seem satisfied does not mean that others are wrong to seek deeper information.

frogger wrote: The questions have been asked but the answers are somewhat convoluted and in many peoples opinion, have not been answered fully. just because you seem satisfied does not mean that others are wrong to seek deeper information.

In my opinion....fully answered to the Republicans would mean answering the question with the answer the Republicans want to hear.....they want ammunition to embarrass Hillary and Obama.....anything short of that will be a failure to them.

well, that is merely your opinion.

homeagain wrote: PERHAPS it might be helpful to read the WSJ........Nov.2,2012 edition. I get the PRINT edition,so you might want to peruse the
article entiltled WSJ: STATE DEPT.AND CIA HAD SECRET,BOTHCHED DEAL FOR BENGHAZI SECURITY......

"The CIA is said to have been the DOMINANT U.S. presence in Bengahzi,where it had a "symbiotic" relationship with the State dept.
consulate that served as cover for its' staff. "THE STATE DEPARTMENT BELIEVED IT HAD A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CIA TO
PROVIDE BACKUP SECURITY",the Journal says,"altho a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ITS SEC. RESPONSIBILITIES."


Read the rest of the article,it was a FUBAR from the get-go. NO ONE sealed the deal in writing and the loosey- goosey security
created the now infamous incident. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND.......(Clinton is collateral damage,as was
Rice)

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote: PERHAPS it might be helpful to read the WSJ........Nov.2,2012 edition. I get the PRINT edition,so you might want to peruse the
article entiltled WSJ: STATE DEPT.AND CIA HAD SECRET,BOTHCHED DEAL FOR BENGHAZI SECURITY......

"The CIA is said to have been the DOMINANT U.S. presence in Bengahzi,where it had a "symbiotic" relationship with the State dept.
consulate that served as cover for its' staff. "THE STATE DEPARTMENT BELIEVED IT HAD A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CIA TO
PROVIDE BACKUP SECURITY",the Journal says,"altho a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ITS SEC. RESPONSIBILITIES."


Read the rest of the article,it was a FUBAR from the get-go. NO ONE sealed the deal in writing and the loosey- goosey security
created the now infamous incident. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND.......(Clinton is collateral damage,as was
Rice)

Do you have a comment?

frogger wrote: well, that is merely your opinion.

Why yes it is. Just as you have your opinion.....as do all of the Republicans asking the questions in the hearings. The difference is that these Republicans are using their opinions, and their version of events, to try and discredit the administration and the State Department. Indeed there is plenty of blame to go around....just as there has been in every terrorist attack on Americans.....from the World Trade Center attacks, to the Pentagon, to attacks on embassies around the world over many decades.....hindsight is so easy......even the average American can look back and say "we should have done.....". You don't see the GOP commenting on the many attacks that have been thwarted by intelligence and this administration.......no, but they sure seem to think they know exactly what happened behind closed doors on this particular attack.

frogger wrote:

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote: PERHAPS it might be helpful to read the WSJ........Nov.2,2012 edition. I get the PRINT edition,so you might want to peruse the
article entiltled WSJ: STATE DEPT.AND CIA HAD SECRET,BOTHCHED DEAL FOR BENGHAZI SECURITY......

"The CIA is said to have been the DOMINANT U.S. presence in Bengahzi,where it had a "symbiotic" relationship with the State dept.
consulate that served as cover for its' staff. "THE STATE DEPARTMENT BELIEVED IT HAD A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CIA TO
PROVIDE BACKUP SECURITY",the Journal says,"altho a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ITS SEC. RESPONSIBILITIES."


Read the rest of the article,it was a FUBAR from the get-go. NO ONE sealed the deal in writing and the loosey- goosey security
created the now infamous incident. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND.......(Clinton is collateral damage,as was
Rice)

[/b][/b]
Do you have a comment?

I believe I DID comment.......(bolded)

archer wrote:

frogger wrote: I did see her duck responsibility in the respect that much of the information was NOT supposedly passed on to her and that most of the responsibility for failure laid at the deputy sec of state.
How does one know what the committee actually thinks? The committee is frustrated at the lack of candor and would like to resolve it.

Actually, I have been surprised at the amount of candor......it would have been very easy to cite national security issues and not even attended these hearings (which, in my opinion, are sounding more like a witch hunt or a kangaroo court). Too bad we don't have much precedent for this type of hearing....I don't recall months of hearings on previous embassy attacks under other presidents.

Because this was a totally unique situation. Fact, there were prior attacks and there was a call for more security which was denied (still don't know by who). Fact, they knew within 24 hours it was a terrorist attack and not a spontanious protest, yet that's what was repeated over and over. This also happened during a heated election and it didn't fit the narrative the AQ was desimated and on the run. There are no other embassy atttacks that even come close to this incompetence. Not sure which was worse, Benghazi or F&F, but the covering of facts and respnsibility is quite similar.

Rick wrote:

archer wrote:

frogger wrote: I did see her duck responsibility in the respect that much of the information was NOT supposedly passed on to her and that most of the responsibility for failure laid at the deputy sec of state.
How does one know what the committee actually thinks? The committee is frustrated at the lack of candor and would like to resolve it.

Actually, I have been surprised at the amount of candor......it would have been very easy to cite national security issues and not even attended these hearings (which, in my opinion, are sounding more like a witch hunt or a kangaroo court). Too bad we don't have much precedent for this type of hearing....I don't recall months of hearings on previous embassy attacks under other presidents.

Because this was a totally unique situation. Fact, there were prior attacks and there was a call for more security which was denied (still don't know by who). Fact, they knew within 24 hours it was a terrorist attack and not a spontanious protest, yet that's what was repeated over and over. This also happened during a heated election and it didn't fit the narrative the AQ was desimated and on the run. There are no other embassy atttacks that even come close to this incompetence. Not sure which was worse, Benghazi or F&F, but the covering of facts and respnsibility is quite similar.

If you listened to the hearing those questions were answered and explained......your "facts" are right wing talking points, they are not proven facts. In a he said/she said situation.....you can choose a side, but you can't make the case that only your side is right.

and once again, that is merely your opinion. At some point, one has to a agree to disagree. Questions have NOT been completely answered.