Posted on 09/08/2016 12:18:42 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Glossing over the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four U.S. diplomats, Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night claimed that “we did not lose a single American” due to military intervention in Libya.
Speaking at a veterans’ forum hosted by NBC News, the former secretary of state said she stands by the 2011 decision to take action in Libya and that America suffered no casualties.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
He served his time, and is now living in a Baptist homeless shelter, trying to keep a low profile. He’s become estranged from his family and friends.
-—Why did we go to war period?——
because the Italians asked us to
The lobbyist who got her to persuade Obama to go for this.
It was discussed at the televised hearing where Hillary was brought in for questioning.
My gosh, she destabilized and overthrew a neutered dictator and opened libya to chaos!
She doesn’t recall......
I disagree. It seems to me that she really believes this (as all "good" liars believe their lies). To her, the whole Benghazi debacle was just a bad dream, a GOP conspiracy.
What?? The old girl has already lost her marbles.
You win the prize. That’s the exact word her creepy consort used when discussing Lewinsky. He didn’t have sex a single time. Nope. He had it multiple times. I remember picking up on that but very few others did.
Even if it were true that not a single person was ‘lost’ - we lost Libya. Completely. Totally.
Dilusional.
But those who will vote for her will accept it as truth.
No, she’ll tell you (if you dare ask), they were all married, not single.
Oh, it occurred to her. She didn’t care because their plight didn’t match her agenda.
They aren’t lying—even though they know damned well what you’re asking. You just aren’t asking the right question. Obama does this parsing, too, but the Clintons are masters.
Hillary wants to cast Trump as a wreckless warmonger, yet she was instrumental in the military expending extensive resources in Libya to accomplish ???
The resulting chaos from this action cost four Americans their lives, but fixating on Benghazi doesnt seem to get through to people who dont already know that. The story isnt just Benghazi and Chris Stevens, but it is also so much more.
By enabling the tribal militias in Libya to overthrow an awful but cooperarive to western interests strongman, Clinton demonstrated reckless warmongering. It didn’t improve anything in Libya, helped justify radicalization by Islamists and spread lots of weapons into Syria and Africa. It was also really bad diplomacy to depose a relatively cooperative foreign leader.
And she was also instrumental in keeping the US out of military intervention in Syria, even though Obama gave the Syrian regime a red line about using chemical weapons then backed off of it like a coward when it was crossed. The chaos in Syria has cost and will cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and destabilized the entire region, including Europe and the US. And there are currently no good solutions, just different versions of bad ones. That is Clinton’s record, she was in those meetings and had opportunities to change the course of history there and she either did nothing or did something and it turned out to be bad.
You must always parse the words any Clinton says. The key words are “due to military intervention”. She says nothing about losing American lives due to the terrorist attacks brought about by overthrowing Gadaffi.
It all depends on the meaning of “lose”.
You have to notice her qualifying statement,she said no Americans died in the bombing campaign that helped depose Quaddaffi,the disaster she caused and left where our 4 AMERICANS were killed because she flubbed it was not mentioned.People have to listen to every word this scumbag says,havent people learned by now how they operate,they are freakin liars,she plays you for suckers because you don’t listen to the weasle words
True. They weren’t lost in the desert, they were brutally slaughtered like sitting ducks.
Ivy league lawyers like the Clintoons and Obama, are incapable of ever telling the truth.
They parse verbs and lie and lie while pretending their lies are the truth.
Their rabid mediots and voters love them for their ability to lie.
Since when did low casualty numbers become the measure of success for a military operation anyway? Don’t get me wrong: I have no desire to see our troops die in combat operations. However it is the nature of combat operations that there will be casualties. The real question is whether or not achieving the objective is worth the cost of the inevitable killing and wounding of our military personnel.
If the objective is worthwhile, then success of the operation rests on achieving the objective. All possible measures must be taken to ensure that success. The number of casualties is not relevant. For example, was the D-Day invasion a failure because of the high number of casualties that resulted? Obviously not; that was a vital objective in the efffort to defeat the Nazis.
If, as increasingly seems to be the case, the objective is ill-defined and/or not worthwhile, then why the hell are we risking the lives of our military personnel? That’s really what galls me with Hillary here; she just doesn’t get that the whole Libya engagement was a poor idea in the first place regardless of casualty numbers. No lives should have been risked because there was no clear and worthwhile objective.
translation: Chris Stevens took the Oath of Burmese Citizenship five minutes before he died.
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.