So then all she said is “the buck stops here”, except it doesn’t. She did everything right. You’re not actually helping her here.
There’s nuance, and there usually is. The buck can “stop here” while still having made reasonable decisions at the time with the knowledge available.
I endorse that view completely. And I don’t think she herself made any unreasonable decisions about the attack itself or what led up to it. But the nature of leadership is that the calls you think are right given the info you have aren’t always the right calls. Plus, as a leader, you have to diagnose what’s working and what’s not working in your department, especially when that department is taking on a big new responsibility, like managing the aftermath of a regime change. And the administration knew better on that one, because they criticized Bush for not having a plan for post-war Iraq.
Sure, and when bad things happen (which they always will) they should be investigated to see what went wrong and what lessons can be learned. And this has happened. Today isn’t contributing to that, and neither has most of the Congressional investigative activities (since they’ve been focused on trying to hurt Hillary and Obama), but there were actual legitimate fact-finding mostly aside from the politically-motivated Republican-led stuff.
On that we agree. I recognize this is 99% politics, although she should be taken to task for the State Dept’s spin after the attacks. She’s saying they had uncertain information. Well, they weren’t acting at the time as if it was uncertain. They went out there same day. That’s not how it’s usually done. The Bush administration didn’t say “bin Laden” on Sep. 11 or 12.
Yes. They should have taken longer to say anything. That certainly would have made the GOP not parade the corpses of American dead around like puppets for years.
I wish to the god I don’t believe in that I could have a video feed of adaher’s face on Nov. 2, 2016. I really, really do.
Let’s take up a collection and get him a webcam. That would be more fun than watching the videos of Romney supporters crying last time.
So Trey Gowdy (wonder if he has a brother named Deuce) says that they didn’t learn anything new today. What a surprise.
Here go the Clinton apologists making their false analogies again. :smack:
First of all, deaths on 9/11 totaled barely 3 kilocorpses. The deaths at Benghazi totalled 4000 millicorpses! To compare the one minor incident to the greatest tragedy of our generation is absurd. This is shown clearly by the scope of Congressional investigations. More time and money has been spent investigating the Tragedy at Benghazi than investigating the incident on 9/11.
Furthermore, it’s all about having the perspective to distinguish minor mischief from gross evil. Even the crackpots who think 9/11 was a government plot admit that the purpose was to enrich fine American corporations like Carlyle Group, Halliburton and House of Saud. The Presidents Bush come from a long line of honorable American munitions dealers, and America’s successful Wars have contributed to the magnificent U.S. economy, the very same prosperity which lets you send tweets denigrating Republicans from your cell-phone.
But why did Hillary instigate the attack at Benghazi? She’s never confessed, so we’re left to guess. Did Chris Stevens need to be silenced because he knew too much about Vince Foster’s “suicide”? Was it payback for the husband’s dalliance with the Zionist Mata Hari, Monica? Was it the blackmails of Whitewater finally coming back to haunt?
The American people just want the Truth. As soon as Hillary Clinton makes a full and complete confession, we can put this tragedy behind us.
The Onion is all over this angle:
Waste of a prayer, if you ask me.
That date is going to fall on a Wednesday. You’re probably thinking of the evening of the 8th, or the morning of the 9th.
If you somehow got that video feed, I don’t think you’re gonna get the results you’re hoping for.
Election Day is November 8.
Now, now, don’t confuse people with the facts.
Yes, she will. That’s my thought.
Remember you heard it from me first.
Isn’t that the Republican slogan?
So the best you’ve got is a complaint about how the P.R. was handled in the first hours after the attack.
And supposing you’re right, that for a few hours, Hillary was saying one thing in public, though she knew better in private. So what??
Seriously, I just don’t get where this goes.
Like Bored of the Rings says, these were “the councils of the Small and the Silly.”
It goes to show that Clinton always thinks of the politics and especially her career first and foremost.
If 9/11 had happened on her watch, the first meeting would be about, “How do we spin this to our best advantage?” Once they’d decided that, then they could find out how best to aid rescue efforts.
Clinton wrote that email to the Egyptian PM after Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility. Subsequently the CIA produced its assessment that the best intelligence available suggested a spontaneous protest related to the video that turned into an attack.
Intelligence was still being gathered and analyzed . Clinton’s statement to the Egyptian PM was premature and inconsistent with the assessment produced by the CIA on September 13.
You guys are really reaching.
Just how much political gain was there in either response?
Reaching even more. I’ve gotten convinced that Clinton-haters can’t see how they look in the mirror.
Because she postponed taking urgent action in Libya, when and how?
Anyway, AFAIAC, we Dems have got a candidate. Ready on Day 1 to hand the GOP Clown Car its collective ass. 
Please explain how that makes the slightest sense in context. How did one story benefit her career-wise over another, in light of the facts of the matter?
My God - they might have started planning a war against an uninvolved third country with a view to funnelling vast amounts of taxpayer money to their close business associates, destablizing the Middle East and getting thousands of American soldiers killed for no good reason! Thank heavens she wasn’t President then…