Still Banging the Benghazi Drum

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi report: Clinton should have realized risks
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton/index.html

You do realize that during the last hearing her numbers started to rise,  don't you?  You remember the one? That 10 hour marathon?

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

Thing is, if the parties were flipped you'd think it was all Gods truth.

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

I'm sorry.  I like my sources to be reputable.  I know to some that being reputable doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but this is my hill,  and these are my beans, so you can bite me.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the source of your article,  but to the source of the so called "report".  Having Republicans report on Benghazi is like having a bunch of nuns do a report on Mardi Gras.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

I'm sorry.  I like my sources to be reputable.  I know to some that being reputable doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but this is my hill,  and these are my beans, so you can bite me.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the source of your article,  but to the source of the so called "report".  Having Republicans report on Benghazi is like having a bunch of nuns do a report on Mardi Gras.

You mean "reputable" .. like in Susan Rice proclaiming the attack was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video?

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi victim's family speaks out:

Amb. Stevens' sister: Don't blame Clinton for Benghazi
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi victim's family speaks out:

Amb. Stevens' sister: Don't blame Clinton for Benghazi
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi victim's family speaks out:

Amb. Stevens' sister: Don't blame Clinton for Benghazi
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

While I'm sorry for her loss, the Benghazi report specifically pointed out that the facility in Benghazi was designated “temporary” precisely in order to skirt stringent security provisions required by the State Department for permanent outposts like consulates and embassies.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi victim's family speaks out:

Amb. Stevens' sister: Don't blame Clinton for Benghazi
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

While I'm sorry for her loss, the Benghazi report specifically pointed out that the facility in Benghazi was designated “temporary” precisely in order to skirt stringent security provisions required by the State Department for permanent outposts like consulates and embassies.

Good golly, that's interesting.  What are the different designations?  And what do their security provisions entail?  Was their security consistent with similar compounds with similar security concerns?  How about of the last fifty years?  

More importantly, can you, or your precious report tell me what the proper amount of security and upgraded protocol  would have been to avoid this tragedy?  Please be specific.

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi victim's family speaks out:

Amb. Stevens' sister: Don't blame Clinton for Benghazi
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

While I'm sorry for her loss, the Benghazi report specifically pointed out that the facility in Benghazi was designated “temporary” precisely in order to skirt stringent security provisions required by the State Department for permanent outposts like consulates and embassies.

Good golly, that's interesting.  What are the different designations?  And what do their security provisions entail?  Was their security consistent with similar compounds with similar security concerns?  How about of the last fifty years?  

More importantly, can you, or your precious report tell me what the proper amount of security and upgraded protocol  would have been to avoid this tragedy?  Please be specific.

Right after you tell us how more gun laws could have prevented Columbine, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Ft. Hood. U of Va.

The State Department renewed the lease for the U.S. compound in Benghazi two months before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks without requiring the facility to meet normal security standards. That news comes from an interview Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., conducted with a survivor of the attacks.

The survivor, a State Department diplomatic security agent whose name isn't being disclosed, spoke behind closed doors in late November to Senators Graham, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J. The previously-undisclosed existence of the year-long lease calls into question the State Department's designation of the compound as "temporary" and therefore exempt from normal security requirements.

According to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) that investigated security shortfalls, a "key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility...This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability" under federal law. The ARB said Benghazi's security was "far short" of standards from the start in November 2011 and "remained so even in September 2012, despite multiple field-expedient upgrades funded by [diplomatic security]."

A State Department official told CBS News that although the facility was exempt from normal requirements, a long list of improvements was made to physical security including concrete jersey barriers, barbed wire and hardened safe rooms with steel doors. As to what makes a facility considered "temporary" even with a year-long commitment, the State Department told CBS News "a temporary facility is one we occupy in a place where we have not yet decided to have a permanent diplomatic presence."


The lease renewal came shortly after a June 2012 assault in which an improvised explosive device blew a giant hole in the exterior wall of the facility. Graham also says he learned that in addition to other denied requests, the State Department's Regional Security Officer for Libya asked for stronger security for the compound in August 2012 but it was denied. The State Department told CBS News that the August 2012 request for more security was not submitted to headquarters, so there was no denial.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Benghazi victim's family speaks out:

Amb. Stevens' sister: Don't blame Clinton for Benghazi
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/index.html

Sean Smith, an US information management officer killed in the attack, mother blames Clinton.

"There’s a special place in hell’ for people like Hillary Clinton and I hope she enjoys it there!"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/11/patricia-smith-mother-of-benghazi-victim-i-hope-hi/

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

I'm sorry.  I like my sources to be reputable.  I know to some that being reputable doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but this is my hill,  and these are my beans, so you can bite me.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the source of your article,  but to the source of the so called "report".  Having Republicans report on Benghazi is like having a bunch of nuns do a report on Mardi Gras.

You mean "reputable" .. like in Susan Rice proclaiming the attack was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video?

Here we go again.....*sigh*........  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/benghazi-attack-suspect-had-been-living-defiantly-in-plain-sight.html

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

I'm sorry.  I like my sources to be reputable.  I know to some that being reputable doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but this is my hill,  and these are my beans, so you can bite me.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the source of your article,  but to the source of the so called "report".  Having Republicans report on Benghazi is like having a bunch of nuns do a report on Mardi Gras.

You mean "reputable" .. like in Susan Rice proclaiming the attack was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video?

Here we go again.....*sigh*........  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/benghazi-attack-suspect-had-been-living-defiantly-in-plain-sight.html

What a choice!  

Which of these liars do you believe?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

I'm sorry.  I like my sources to be reputable.  I know to some that being reputable doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but this is my hill,  and these are my beans, so you can bite me.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the source of your article,  but to the source of the so called "report".  Having Republicans report on Benghazi is like having a bunch of nuns do a report on Mardi Gras.

You mean "reputable" .. like in Susan Rice proclaiming the attack was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video?

Here we go again.....*sigh*........  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/benghazi-attack-suspect-had-been-living-defiantly-in-plain-sight.html

What a choice!  

Which of these liars do you believe?

Which of what liars?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I'd take the use of the word "report" with a block of salt considering it's source, and the politics behind it.   Maybe more of an editorial.  I haven't bothered to read into it much but from what I'm reading here they've pivoted away from Hillary to Obama.  Well isn't that special??  Probably better off that way,  there wasn't much left of that horse.

I agree with Clicker that this isn't election year politics though.  It's perpetual.

I'm surprised you're not taking it with a train of salt since it did't come through your CNN filter. Benghazi was such a clusterfcuk that there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And since the Broomrider was the point person for the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, she gets to share in the resulting shiste storm. She's a proven pathological liar, when the 3:00 am call comes, she sleeps through it and as a Commander in Chief she has demonstrated she won't have your back in a fight. Why any one still defends this piece of human garbage let alone vote for her goes beyond the pale.

I'm sorry.  I like my sources to be reputable.  I know to some that being reputable doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but this is my hill,  and these are my beans, so you can bite me.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the source of your article,  but to the source of the so called "report".  Having Republicans report on Benghazi is like having a bunch of nuns do a report on Mardi Gras.

You mean "reputable" .. like in Susan Rice proclaiming the attack was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video?

Here we go again.....*sigh*........  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/17/benghazi-attack-suspect-had-been-living-defiantly-in-plain-sight.html

What a choice!  

Which of these liars do you believe?

Which of what liars?

Susan Rice or your idol .. the Benghazi attack suspect