Benghazi and Hillary

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

and once again, that is YOUR opinion. Please, just occasionally agree that what you post is opinion, not fact. We disagree....obviously, I watched the hearings and what Secretary Clinton testified to made sense and explained issues to at least my satisfaction.....not to yours...but seriously, would anything she testified to be acceptable to you unless she agreed with your pre-conceived notion of what happened?

How do you know what my preconceived notion is? have I stated it here?

frogger wrote: How do you know what my preconceived notion is? have I stated it here?

Well honed powers of deduction.

ahhhhh mind reading? I see.

If we are going to put diplomats in wartorn Libya we should protect them.

FredHayek wrote: If we are going to put diplomats in wartorn Libya we should protect them.

Actually, we should have been smart enough to know that you don't put diplomats into a snake pit with a new unstable government surrounded by terrorists. Once the consulate was bombed the first time, we should have gotten everybody out of there instead of just HOPING they would all play nice. Now these terrorists are more embolden and the killing has only just begun. Maybe another speech is in order since it worked so well the first time.

I love Monday morning quarterbacks.......anyone can tell us after the fact what should be done..

If there are plausible explanations for what happened then why isn't Hillary providing them? Instead she was in full defense mode, denying any and everything. Last time I checked the Secretary of State is responsible for the entire State Department and the conduct of all of the employees of the State Department.

CIA was supposed to provide back up security? The Consulate is a burnt out shell and four American citizens are dead, don't tell me that would be a classified fact because there isn't anything left to protect.

Prior attacks and repeated requests for additional security denied - there are official messages and I hope they surface along with the names of the responsible party(ies) who denied those requests.

"What difference does it make?" Hillary Clinton, 23 January 2013. I agree that it won't bring four American citizens back to life or restore the Consulate to its previous state. Beyond that, it gives me the impression that our current Secretary of State places little or no value on the lives of those who serve our nation abroad. Hillary is apparently far more concerned about her personal reputation and not being found to be at fault for anything that goes wrong on her watch.

Hillary took full responsibility....or did you miss that part of her testimony? She reiterated that several times. How much clearer could she possibly make it?

otisptoadwater wrote: If there are plausible explanations for what happened then why isn't Hillary providing them? Instead she was in full defense mode, denying any and everything. Last time I checked the Secretary of State is responsible for the entire State Department and the conduct of all of the employees of the State Department.

CIA was supposed to provide back up security? The Consulate is a burnt out shell and four American citizens are dead, don't tell me that would be a classified fact because there isn't anything left to protect.

Prior attacks and repeated requests for additional security denied - there are official messages and I hope they surface along with the names of the responsible party(ies) who denied those requests.

"What difference does it make?" Hillary Clinton, 23 January 2013. I agree that it won't bring four American citizens back to life or restore the Consulate to its previous state. Beyond that, it gives me the impression that our current Secretary of State places little or no value on the lives of those who serve our nation abroad. Hillary is apparently far more concerned about her personal reputation and not being found to be at fault for anything that goes wrong on her watch.

The BOLDED is a mis-statement.......you MUST consider the politically sagacious stance when dealing with ALL things government or
corporate. To put it ANOTHER way.......IF you aspire to bigger things within the organization.....you tread LIGHTLY upon other departments/territory because you NEVER know WHO will be your next enemy/mentor/boss.

The OTHER factor involved here......having listened CLOSELY to most of the hearings that day........what emerges is a picture of
our government ATTEMPTING to monitor/stop/mitigate MANY factions on MANY different fronts.......an overview is this.....we are
INUNDATED with emerging groups,newly birthed nations that REQUIRE assistance and we are STRETCHED TO THIN to provide those
resources/assistance. The image that comes to mind....HYDRA,the Greek mythological creature.JMO