Posted on 04/25/2013 6:41:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying in January 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said "...what difference at this point does it make?" Clinton was speaking about the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.
Well, Hillary, it does make a difference, as we are now finding out. A report of findings of a Republican led committee accuses Clinton of "...seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."
But why was the attack successful? Why was there not adequate security at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya? As it turns out, it was Hillary Clinton who denied adequate security. Page 2 of the report has:
Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel.
On page 5 of the report is this little nugget of information: "Prior to the Benghazi attacks, State Department officials in Libya made repeated requests for additional security that were denied in Washington despite ample documentation of the threat posed by violent extremist militias."
We get, on page 7 of the report, this: "...in a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012, the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi."
The report also makes this point:
Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yep. The same one that had a child with Web Hubbell
If congress wants to retain its constitutional position as a co-equal branch of government, Hillary must be charged with perjury.
They are always pushing for fairness, disclosure and transparency when it comes to protectors of the Constitution, so why don't we work for a way to identify the members of the media so readers and viewers know why they are hearing and reading certain comments?
Maybe a classification from Journalist One to Five would be start. J-1 would be an entry level and J-5 would be seasoned professionals with unquestionable reporting. Every story written and every report aired would include the "J" distinction after the reporter's name. It would be printed or clearly stated when they sign off.
Dan Rather is a great example: though he was once viewed (by some) as a pro his designation would have been reduced back to J-1 after his fake reports about Vietnam Vets . Every time he opens his mouth he would have to say, "This is Journalist One Dan Rather Reporting. Over the years he may have worked up to level 2 or 3, but his credibility would have been an immediate issue when he faked the George Bush story and the public spot light would have been on him first. Maybe there could even be a journalist license since libs love government control so much. Journalists could take some sort of test and ethics board and if they behave like Rather and his cohort Mary Mapes their license could be pulled or surrendered like the law licenses of Bill Clinton, Michelle Obama and Barack Obama.
Hey, their could even be an annual fee for licenses, the libs would love that. I'd even go so far as to have a rating system for news shows and print media so the public would know if they are reputable and unbiased.
The government lies, then the media lies to cover up the government lies.
Congress abdicated that role a long time ago.
It will ring into Eternity that THIS CONGRESS
supported crucifixions of Christians,
and rockets against Jewish and other children,
treason from benGhazi to Fast&Furious,
to hurting allies around the world,
and to opening up America
to attack after attack after attack after attack,
WHILE THEY ALL made money off the system by making
the Laws not apply to them and Moslems.
I don’t know, the dems seem to go way out of their way to avoid a klintoon3 repeat, even push to the top the likes of nobama. Same will happen in 2016, hitlery scares the dems more than us.
I don’t know why the Secretary of State of the United States of America went virtually unchallenged when she said that what happened at Benghazi didn’t matter.
Democrats cheered. Republicans wrung their hands a bit. And it was all over. Apparently, in the end, it didn’t matter that Americans had been attacked by a mob and deserted by their country.
If that doesn’t make any difference, what does?
“Hillary lied under oath about Benghazi” Well Duh...
When a Republican or worse Conservative lies, the response is “There are those family values and bible teachings on display again from the party of morals.”
As long as enough people continue to send their children to Public schools this will not be stopped.
As long as enough people continue to watch the Alphabet Networks this will not be stopped.
As long as enough people continue to subscribe to leftist newspapers this will not be stopped.
I have done all 3. Anyone else care to join?
I have no doubt this is true, and I have no doubt that she will win, and the destruction of the country will continue. I wish things were different, but sadly, she will win.
Since that broadcast, she's added American diplomats and their security people.
Vince Fosters hand moves.
OMG i hope she runs for president
President Shrillary could never win
What Difference Does it Make?
Pictures people :)
Note: this topic is from 4/25/2013. Thanks EXCH54FE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.