I believe ther is a quote from Barbara Boxer (of all people) that destroys the budget cuts argument.
The Benghazi tragedy happened because of the Republicans?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Let’s ask the killers who attacked our embassy why they did it.
Oh.
We can’t.
We’ve never caught them.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Yeah, they attacked because they were mad that the Republicans didn’t allocate more money for embassy security.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Obama was our President when they attacked.
Hillary was our Secretary of State when they attacked.
They are both Democrats.
Think about it yourself, Apple. Why did the enemy attack us at Benghazi?
The Bitch of Benghazi stood over the Four caskets of Our Diplomats and told the Parents it was a Video that caused a spontaneous riot ,Lasting 13 Hours.
Hillary Clinton was fully aware of the fact that Ambassador Stevens and the embassy compound was UNDER ATTACK BY MUSIM TERRORISTS ON SEPTEMBER 11th FOR THIRTEEN HOURS STRAIGHT AND SHE DID N O T H I N G TO RESCUE THEM! THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE OVERHEAD DRONE BROADCASTING LIVE IMAGES OF THE ATTACK BACK TO WASHINGTON DC AND HILLARY CLINTON''S STATE DEPARTMENT NEARLY THE ENTIRE TIME!
C130 gunships, military rescue teams along with fighter jets and other assets WERE AVAILABLE AND COULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED IN TO THWART THE ONGOING ATTACK AND LEND AID TO THE DEFENDERS DURING THE THIRTEEN HOURS OF ATTACK BUT HILLARY CLINTON AND HER STATE DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO SEND ANY READILY AVAILABLE MILITARY ASSETS TO HELP OR TO RESCUE THEM IN SPITE OF NUMEROUS REQUESTS FROM AMBASSADOR STEVENS PRIOR TO HIS DEATH AND FROM THE DEFENDERS DURING THE PROLONGED THIRTEEN HOURS OF UNRELENTING WAVES OF ATTACK FROM MUSLIM TERRORISTS AND HILLARY CLINTON DID N O T H I N G!
Those are just some of THE FACTS. And Hillary Clinton's utterly reprehensible response to these facts concerning her total incompetence and malfeasance when confronted with them when she testified before the congressional house committee:
"At this point, what difference does it make?"
Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the fearlessly brave Americans who came to their rescue.
She is also directly responsible for the attack itself because IF Hillary had given Ambassador Stevens the additional Embassy security he had requested well in advance of any attack, the Muslim terrorists would have looked at the newly FORTIFIED AND SECURED Embassy and deemed an attack would be unsuccessful and too costly resulting in heavy casualties and death on their side. Hence the attack would never have taken place and Ambassador Stevens and the defenders who needlessly lost their lives would all be alive today IF ONLY Hillary Clinton HAD DONE HER JOB!
When the truth came out concerning Hillary Clinton's total dereliction of duty came to light, true to form, SHE LIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO EXHONORTATE HERSELF AND OBFUSCATE THE FACTS! And her response to ALL OF THE ABOVE:
"At this point, what difference does it make?"
I just did a search on Judicial Watch’s website. You might review this file...
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/121624110-JW-Benghazi-Report-1.pdf
If Hillary wanted money for security she could have gotten it from the 10 Trillion dollars in new debt this administration took on.
Or, she could have gotten it from the tens of millions the Clinton Foundation has been accumulating- she did after all, claim that Stevens was a close friend [in spite of getting his name wrong in emails]. Surely she could spare a dime to keep her close friend safe?
Or, she could have cencelled the multimillion dollar landscaping jobs tat were underway at our embassies in Switzerland and Belgium at the time, etc.
Or, she could have cancelled the purchase of the grossly overpriced electric cars for the State Department and had employees drive the older vehicles another year or two.
Or, she could have done what Powell did and eat at McDonalds instead of having staff pig out at fancy shindigs.
Or, she could have cancelled some of those stupid videos.
Or, she could have cancelled seminars on gender/race an other horseschnitt they always have.
Or, if lacking money, she could have closed down the office in Benghazi until security improved instead of sending Stevens there because we had a full fledged embassy in Tripoli.
I guarantee if I had been Sec of State I would have provided security even if I had to hold yard sales of State Dept furniture.
Having one or two more security personnel per embassy and consulate would have made no difference. We had resources sufficient to the challenge. A ready reaction force. It was kept on the tarmac as the State Department debated the optics of sending in an American force.
The real issue of Benghazi is truly alarming. We now know via wikileaks what we had suspected all along. The State Department was running weapons from Libya via Qater to Al Qaida in Syria. The Ambassador was involved because these weapons included shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons that could be used against civilian airplanes. We were o.k. with arming Al Qaida, but not with those weapons. So, the Ambassador was supposed to fix this mess up.
Begs the question on why they were there in the first place. All other nations and the Red Cross had removed their personnel from Libya because it was considered unsafe for any diplomatic mission.
Amb. Stevens requests for more security only serves to underscore what every other nation thought. Libya was not safe for diplomats.
Amb. Stevens was there solely to oversee the transfer of arms from Libya to Syrian rebels.....rebels that soon thereafter became ISIS!
Hillary let Americans die, because to go save them, would have made Obummer look like a foreign policy failure just before the 2012 election. O’Muslim needed to maintain the lie about what a success his foreign policy was. This is why they used the lie about the attack being spontaneous and about a video. Spontaneous rioters don’t have Rocket Propelled Grenades, among other high level weapons used.
It was all a lie and a sham to protect Barry before the 2012 election.
Simple.
Go back and look at Tig and the other's interview with Bret Baier from last year.
I think they all referred to it.
There is nothing you can TELL these “undecided voters” (who aren’t really undecided) to change their minds. Just torture them by making them answer questions, such as:
1) What do you think the purpose of the the Benghazi Diplomatic Mission was?
2) What did Hillary say it was? (Hillary’s State Dept claims the purpose of the Benghazi Diplomatic Mission was to have a library with books for children.)
3) If Congress cut funding for security, did Hillary and the State Dept know it, or was that a secret?
4) Why did Hillary risk lives to open an unnecessary reading room without having all resources in place beforehand, including proper security?
5) Had the British and other westerners already been attacked, and driven out of Benghazi by Islamist militias, before our mission was attacked?
6) Why, knowing this, and presumably knowing she had no security resources to devote, didn’t Hillary pull the plug on her “reading room”?
7) Why didn’t the Secretary of State have sufficient clout to have Obama procure a cross-border authorization so that US forces could enter Libya to rescue her personnel?
8) Should a Secretary of State have sufficient foresight to anticipate problems and solutions, when conducting adventures in a foreign land torn by civil war, in which the US had taken sides and was not exactly loved?
9) Did Hillary email her daughter Chelsea and tell her that the attack was an act of terrorism, not a blasphemous video trailer? Did she simultaneously grovel before the world, and send surrogates to lie to the American public, blaming the attack on blasphemous video trailer?.
Your pals know the answers. If necessary, waterboard ‘em.
There was no embassy in Benghazi. The U.S. embassy in Libya is -- and always has been -- located in Tripoli, the capital of Libya. Security at U.S. embassies is provided by the U.S. Marine Corps, not private contractors.
The facility in Benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy. A consulate usually functions in a support role for visitors and business dealings, not in a diplomatic role. It is unusual for an ambassador to be working in a consulate, especially with a group of private security contractors instead of U.S. Marines. As a result, I think it is safe to say that "Ambassador" Stevens wasn't really an ambassador at all -- but was part of a covert operation that had nothing to do with a diplomatic mission.
Hillary bragged about flying nearly one million miles as Secretary of State. The cost of that travel has to be in the 100s of millions of dollars. If the State Department was hurting for cash, she could have economized on travel: took military hops, slept on cots in embassy dining rooms, ate take-out, etc.
Hillary Clinton on State Dept. budget for FY 2012.
FY 2012 Budget Request March 10, 2011"The second part of our request funds the extraordinary, temporary portion of our war effort the same way the Pentagon’s request is funded: in a separate Overseas Contingency Operations account known as OCO. Instead of covering war expenses through supplemental appropriations, we are now taking a more transparent approach that fully reflects the integrated civilian-military efforts. Our share of the President’s $126 billion request for exceptional wartime costs is $8.7 billion. So all told, we have a $47 billion operational account and an $8.7 billion Overseas Contingency Operations account."
(snip)
"But let me just quickly walk you through this, because on this issue of our $8.7 billion Overseas Contingency Operations, we have the strongest support from Secretary Gates, from Admiral Mullen. And next week – I was speaking with General Petraeus last night. He will be here on the Hill strongly supporting the civilian effort that goes hand-in-hand with what he is doing so heroically in Afghanistan. So we are funding vital civilian missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq with this $8.7 billion."
Now that you've seen the budget you can ask why only $250,000 dollars was allocated for security in Benghazi, why was some private British contractor hired to provide it and why were they allowed to hire the February 17th Martyr's Brigade (with Al Qaeda ties) to be the manpower?
First, get them to agree that there was no “clock” on the assault until after the fact. We know NOW that the battle ensued for 13 hours, but in real time, it very well could have gone on for hours, or even full days, more.
Once they agree to that, remind them of Obama’s own words, in an interview:
“the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.”
Now, given that the timeline was unknown, and IF Obama did give that order, where is the evidence that the military obeyed that order? Is Obama so weak as CinC that his military ignores his orders? That must be the case, or there would be testimony that we turned our birds around once the fighting stopped.
It was infuriating that the committee seems to have accepted Hillary’s premise that we couldn’t have gotten there in time, when the amount of time left to get there was unknowable while it was happening.
The only conclusions left are, either Obama and Hillary are lying about orders to “do everything”, or our military was mutinous in ignoring his order.
We all know what the correct answer is.
IIRC, although “only” four people died, Hillary was comfortable with more than 40 deaths. When pleas for help began, there were more than 40 people in harm’s way. She ignored them.
The Dems spread the version of Repubs cutting funding. But really happened was this: Obama asked for a certain dollar amount let’s just say 180 million. Repubs gave him 175M and that 175 million was an increase over the previous year budget. So really, the Repubs approved more then previous year budget request but it was less than what Obama wanted. So Dems spin it that Repubs reduced the funding.
DOJ Wants Lawsuit Filed by Parents of Benghazi Victims Thrown Out
by Rachel Stockman | 7:35 pm, October 21st, 2016
211
Clinton Benghazi Hearing via screengrabThe U.S.Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, filed a motion in court Friday to get the lawsuit filed by the parents of Benghazi victims dismissed. The parents filed the lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, but the DOJ is now involved because the plaintiffs are suing her based on her actions as Secretary of State during the September 11 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.
In the motion, Benjamin Mizer, with the DOJ’s civil division, said the plaintiffs hadn’t exhausted all of their administrative remedies before they filed a suit. On top of that, they claim the plaintiffs didn’t properly serve the U.S. government.
“Although Plaintiffs attempted to serve the United States Attorney’s Office by mail, they erroneously mailed process directly to the United States Attorney rather than to the civil-process clerk,” the motion states. Therefore, the DOJ thinks the whole claim should be thrown out.
Patricia Smith and Charles Woods are the parents of American U.S. Foreign Service member Sean Smith, and Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods who both died during the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. They sued Clinton for wrongful death, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
They allege that Clinton lied to them about the cause of the Benghazi attack. She allegedly told them in a private meeting that the attack “was the result of [an] anti-Muslim YouTube video that had been posted online and that the creator of the video would be arrested.” The complaint alleges that “Clinton has negligently, recklessly, and/or maliciously defamed Plaintiffs by … directly calling them liars[.]”
Clinton’s attorneys said that the underlying lawsuit is “facially implausible,” politically motivated, and contradicted by the findings of the FBI.
filed under
2016 election, benghazi parents, election 2016
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/doj-wants-lawsuit-filed-by-parents-of-benghazi-victims-thrown-out/