Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Mother of Benghazi victim: I blame Hillary

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/mother-of-benghazi-v ictim-i-blame-hillary/

"I blame her," said Smith, referring to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"That's her department, she's supposed to be on top of it, and yet she claims that she knows nothing, it wasn't told to her," said Smith. "Who's running the place?"

That's a great pic. Did you make that yourself?

She's the Secrtary of State, she isn't directly involved with Embassy security, senior appointed positions tend not to be. Lower level positions are based on merit, they're not political and have little to do with who is in power at the time. I mean does Obama hire every single Secret Service member individually? No because he doesn't have the expertise or technical know=how to be able to know how to hire based on that. Thus Embassy Security is left up to the experts there who know about things like that. It's obvious that they screwed up however and that there is going to be a major reform of each embassy's security staff.

This kind of shit happens all the time, Carter sent a military incursion to Iran to get hostages but the operation was so poorly executed that the two helicopters which were supposed to go into Iran got caught in a sand storm and crashed into each other. Carter then had to shake down the relevant military agencies and reorganize the agency so that something so stupid doesn't happen again.

Although can someone please explain to me why when terrorist destroy 3 skyscrapers and crash a plane into the Pentagon, Democrats are willing to work with Republicans on trying to go after who did those attacks but when an embassy is attacked or some Nigerian lights his underwear on fire in a plane the Republicans go against them for being "incompetent"?

Really? Still with this? You got the IRS thing which IS a legit scandal...though the smoking gun isn't direct tied to the administration yet but...I'm just saying, if you're a Republican, and you're fishing for a scandal for POTUS and his administration, I'd try to tie a legit scandal to him, vs. this damn fishing expedition which the public cares nothing for and isn't bearing any sort of political hay.

At 5/13/13 12:49 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm just saying, if you're a Republican, and you're fishing for a scandal for POTUS and his administration, I'd try to tie a legit scandal to him, vs. this damn fishing expedition which the public cares nothing for and isn't bearing any sort of political hay.

The Republic sexual obsession with Benghazi is more a prep for Hillary's inevitable run and likely victory in 2016 than an attack on Obama, though they are very happy to accomplish both if possible.

At 5/13/13 01:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The Republic sexual obsession with Benghazi is more a prep for Hillary's inevitable run and likely victory in 2016 than an attack on Obama, though they are very happy to accomplish both if possible.

Way to spoil the thread so early. Oh well.

At 5/13/13 01:22 AM, Feoric wrote: Way to spoil the thread so early. Oh well.

What? It's not like Chris Christie's going to become the GOP's darling anytime soon. The Republicans are trying to smokescreen until they find a somewhat (ha) reasonable person to run against Hilary. I do hope they continue their trend of picking the runner up in the primaries. Rick Santorum versus Hilary? That would be hilarious.

At 5/13/13 02:08 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: polls right now show that Rand Paul is the favorite (god help us). And I highly doubt Hilary would win.

Haha have you seen her numbers? They're higher than the Presidents's by a long shot. If she does decide to she'll have the full funding of the Democrats for sure, she'll pretty much run unopposed in the primaries, she won't have the economy as much being in the shithole it was when Obama came in, she has the international experience and has finally worked enough around the circuit to be fairly well respected. Sure, Tea Party types and whatnot will moan and hiss, but for right now 2016 is really Hillary's to lose. This whole Benghazi thing is a sad attempt by the GOP to try to deny this fact.

At 5/13/13 02:06 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: What? It's not like Chris Christie's going to become the GOP's darling anytime soon. The Republicans are trying to smokescreen until they find a somewhat (ha) reasonable person to run against Hilary. I do hope they continue their trend of picking the runner up in the primaries. Rick Santorum versus Hilary? That would be hilarious.

I know all of this, I think you misunderstood me. Christie's loud mouth NJ act isn't going to fly anywhere else outside of NJ. Camaro succinctly explained what the GOP is doing w/r/t Benghazi way too early. I wanted too see which posters here (other than Klown) are low enough to drag around 4 dead Americans as a political rallying cry against Obama (without realizing the machine is priming the pumps for Hilary's run in 2016).

At 5/13/13 03:18 AM, Feoric wrote: I wanted too see which posters here (other than Klown) are low enough to drag around 4 dead Americans as a political rallying cry against Obama (without realizing the machine is priming the pumps for Hilary's run in 2016).

Why bother? We already know who they are because they all say the same thing over and over again:

"Look, everybody! Some random schmuck wrote an op-ed that vindicates my obviously righteous hatred of the evil liberal hive-mind! LOOK! LOOK!"

At 5/13/13 01:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

The Republic sexual obsession with Benghazi is more a prep for Hillary's inevitable run and likely victory in 2016 than an attack on Obama, though they are very happy to accomplish both if possible.

because political scandals can't come from the left right? the real reason everyone on the left is screaming this line at the top of their lungs is because if it DOES comes out that the Obama administration covered up the real reason behind the attack, and/or that Hillary was somehow involved, Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston will have a better chance at singing a duet at the next Grammy Awards than Clinton will have at winning in 2016.

the left and their media allies keep screaming "political desperation!", which is ironic because the cover up was completely political in nature. Especially if it comes out that additional security was denied, and Obama (or someone directly under him) refused to send help.

this scandal would cripple the left's chances in the midterms and swing congress to the right, which is something the left DESPERATELY wants to avoid.

At 5/13/13 11:11 AM, Korriken wrote: because political scandals can't come from the left right?

Did I say that? No. End of your post.

At 5/13/13 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Did I say that? No. End of your post.

That was sarcasm, but great way to dodge responding to my post. I'll just assume you have nothing to work with.

Look I'll admit I tend to watch Fox News more than I do others, but before people start blasting me as using 4 dead Americans as political tools, I'd simply like to know who if anyone (and I do mean that IF) is to blame fore this

I'm not blaming Obama or Hillary, but why where these men in such a volatile area without adequate protection?

Was it covert that went wrong or did they not have the proper security.

No one in the media is really pushing for this, hell Colbert even downplayed it and only Fox seems to be reporting it so I can only take their word with a grain of salt.

Could someone explain why Rice said it was a protest over a video, which Hillary did say herself, that is clearly bull. I mean I would imagine it to be, because normally you don't bring rocket propelled grenades and mortars to a 'protest'.

Or am i wrong in this, and the whole protest angle was something pushed by Republicans/Conservatives that was only a minor detail.

At 5/14/13 10:06 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: I'm not blaming Obama or Hillary, but why where these men in such a volatile area without adequate protection?

There's typically at least some form of a diplomatic presence even in volatile areas, it's good for diplomacy reasons. It shows you're willing establish and maintain relations even in a time of crisis, etc. An unspoken acknowledgement that there is degree of willingness to sacrifice is basically what it comes down to in a situation like that, but of course there are cases where it's foolishly unsafe to have diplomats in the area and they're evacuated. We had no reason to suspect this was the case prior to the attack so that is not what we're dealing with.

They didn't have adequate security for several reasons. The State Department mission in Libya requested additional security funds, but this request was turned down at the undersecretary level in Washington. Hillary has gone on record saying that (1) this shouldn't have happened, and (2) no such request ever reached her desk, and (3) additional security funds were not available to begin with because Congress been too busy experimenting with austerity was was cutting everything with a budget. So, when the GOP comes out and criticizes Obama for intentionally putting Americans in danger, appreciate the irony in the fact that they were the ones who prevented more funding for the State Department mission in Libya.

Could someone explain why Rice said it was a protest over a video, which Hillary did say herself, that is clearly bull. I mean I would imagine it to be, because normally you don't bring rocket propelled grenades and mortars to a 'protest'.

The attack wasn't done by the protesters, that's where the mix up comes into play. The protests were linked to the attacks by the intelligence community from the very beginning, which is what Rice based her statements on. If people on the ground were saying something else which contradicted those claims, then the mistake was not getting that message to the appropriate intelligence channels. This is not a fault that lies on Obama, the President does not micromanage the military and the intelligence community. So it took a few days to figure out what happened...so what?

Or am i wrong in this, and the whole protest angle was something pushed by Republicans/Conservatives that was only a minor detail.

Essentially, yes. Our intelligence initially thought a protest over the video was the spark of the Benghazi attack, but it was later learned that it was the work of an AQ-affiliated group was using the protest as a cover. This is where the "cover up" conspiracy comes from: the GOP wants you to believe that Obama purposefully covered up the fact that it was the work of AQ because....? They actually haven't got a reason why he would do that. After all, the information about the attacks being linked to AQ were promptly given to Republicans in the House and Senate so how is this a cover up?

At 5/14/13 03:17 PM, Feoric wrote: (3) additional security funds were not available to begin with because Congress been too busy experimenting with austerity was was cutting everything with a budget.

That should read "...was cutting everything with a budget."

For content, who here is a fan of feigned outrage and hyperbole?

"I believe that it's a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're going to get in the zone where Benghazi is," Mr. King said."

Well that is interesting, I had no idea Republicans were capable of understanding that Iran-Contra was an embarrassment to the country. Iran-Contra was under Reagan.

At 5/14/13 03:23 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/14/13 03:17 PM, Feoric wrote:

Well that is interesting, I had no idea Republicans were capable of understanding that Iran-Contra was an embarrassment to the country. Iran-Contra was under Reagan.

Thanks for the clear up on this, again I've been trying to gain a perspective on this and the powers at be in the more liberal news stations just flat out don't cover this story, and if they are I must have missed them because the time's I've checked in they talked more about the Cleveland situation then this one.

But in regards to Iran-Contra was it really an embarrassment? So Reagan did shady shit under the table with a shady and violent group of people. It was morally wrong I'm not denying that, but in earnest who didn't during that time period.

Nearly every president during that time helped fund several groups like this, from Eisenhower to Kennedy, maybe not so much Carter, but was their human right's violation a direct problem from Reagan.

The man was so fiercely anti-communist he probably was just willing to align himself with them merely because they were against the Commies, short sighted yes, but it was a proper move if that was your intended goal.

We'd been doing proxy wars decades before the one in Nicaragua, was the reason it was an embarrassment because it was simply a failure?

And in regards to the Iranian portion of that deal, isn't what we did sell them the weapons for not only profits to fund them, but the release of hostages?

I mean I know the weapons were used to do harm, or at least with the intent but against who? Iraq? Is it such a problem that these weapons were used to kill another Dictator's enemies soldiers?

At 5/14/13 03:33 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Thanks for the clear up on this, again I've been trying to gain a perspective on this and the powers at be in the more liberal news stations just flat out don't cover this story, and if they are I must have missed them because the time's I've checked in they talked more about the Cleveland situation then this one.

It's because the 'liberal media' already cleared up the issue by now. Repeating it over and over again is just playing into the GOP's hands by dragging on a non-issue and shamelessly politicizing 4 dead Americans.

But in regards to Iran-Contra was it really an embarrassment?

Eh, that's off topic so I won't go there in detail this thread. You can make a new thread about it or PM me if you want.

At 5/14/13 05:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I don't know how this CAN'T BE a scandal they read the reports of possible attacks, and when the embassy requested multiple security measure increases they were denied. so did Obama's hand picked Secretary of State bother to even read them and tell Obama of this situation or what?

You are intentionally leaving this part out:

"The State Department mission in Libya requested additional security funds, but this request was turned down at the undersecretary level in Washington. Hillary has gone on record saying that (1) this shouldn't have happened, and (2) no such request ever reached her desk, and (3) additional security funds were not available to begin with because Congress been too busy experimenting with austerity and was cutting everything with a budget. So, when the GOP comes out and criticizes Obama for intentionally putting Americans in danger, appreciate the irony in the fact that they were the ones who prevented more funding for the State Department mission in Libya."

At 5/14/13 05:08 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: so did Obama's hand picked Secretary of State bother to even read them and tell Obama of this situation or what?

Feoric covered the bit you left out, I'll just cover the bullshit in this:

If you think Hillary was put into the cabinet for any other reason then to smooth over the bitter and nasty primary battle she and Obama engaged in in 08 (that stealth muslim shit started when hillary's camp put that photo out there, the fringe elements on the right then jumped on it and the Dems were more then happy to act like it started there) to smooth over any fractions in the party, I've got a bridge in London you might wish to buy too.

This shit is pissing me off now.

Who gives a shit about who if anyone is to blame for the lack of security/response.At this point we need to know WHO attacked us and go after these bastards with the wrath of God behind us.

The more we bicker about this stupid shit, the more time we're just giving these pricks to regroup, reform and hell maybe even launch a second attack.

At 5/14/13 08:24 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: This shit is pissing me off now.

Who gives a shit about who if anyone is to blame for the lack of security/response.

People who care about learning from our mistakes which could help prevent another attack from happening in the future, for one.

It is important to identify what security shortcomings allowed this attack to occur, it's just that partisan Republican hacks in congress are less concerned with the truth of the matter and more concerned with pinning the blame on Obama and Clinton. Quite understandable though, seeing as it was budget cuts to embassy security pushed for by Republican lawmakers that allowed this to happen, so they are trying with all their might to deflect the blame off of themselves.

At 5/14/13 08:33 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: People who care about learning from our mistakes which could help prevent another attack from happening in the future, for one.

If only that were wht is happening, but it's not. This specific blame game isn't about stopping this from happening again, it's about gaining political capital.

At 5/14/13 09:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If only that were wht is happening, but it's not. This specific blame game isn't about stopping this from happening again, it's about gaining political capital.

Yeah, that was the gist of what I said in the rest of my post.

And I get what you're saying, but it should be quite simple here, add more security and put teams on standby, when shit hits the fan send them in.

I know some one fucked up and actually told the team to stand down, and they should get their comeupence if such a person did do such a thing and if it was done for unsound morally/illegal reasons.

But really right now, I think we should be more focused on retaliation than what went wrong, it's been months since this whole thing has happened what has this administration done about it other than say it wasn't our fault or we didn't know etc.

I'd hope that such an operation is ongoing and simply covert, but with all the attention it's getting even from the big man himself it seems as though no such thing is happening.

I'll say this though if it's all an act to give an image to the people responsible, that we're too focused on what went wrong and aren't bothering to pursue them at the moment, when in reality we actually are, he's one clever bastard.

Again that's if this is the case, which doesn't seem so at the moment.

At 5/14/13 08:24 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: This shit is pissing me off now.

Who gives a shit about who if anyone is to blame for the lack of security/response.At this point we need to know WHO attacked us and go after these bastards with the wrath of God behind us.

So we can remove said person for incompetence, also if there was an intentional coverup, that needs to be punished as well. Also, we know WHO did it, well what group did it. problem is, they operate freely within Libya, it's not like they're skulking around in some mountain range or running a camp in the middle of a desert. they're operating within the city limits of Libyan cities. We'd need the Libyan government's cooperation to get them.

The more we bicker about this stupid shit, the more time we're just giving these pricks to regroup, reform and hell maybe even launch a second attack.

Which is exactly why the left should come clean and get it over with, rather than kick scream and try to protect whoever they're trying to protect.

At 5/17/13 03:52 PM, Korriken wrote: Which is exactly why the left should come clean and get it over with, rather than kick scream and try to protect whoever they're trying to protect.

Maybe there's *gasp* no massive conspiracy and nobody is being protected?

At 5/17/13 05:16 PM, Feoric wrote:

Maybe there's *gasp* no massive conspiracy and nobody is being protected?

Maybe not, but if not, why keep insisting on not cooperating? it's like telling the cops to go fuck themselves when they ask you about a murder when you had nothing to do with it.

It's just like Fast and Furious, when Obama put an end to it using executive privilege. if you don't have something to keep hidden, what's the point?

and no, I don't think if the republicans win in 2016 that they will open that can of worms and go after Holder. both sides have skeletons in the closet and there is a sort of truce between them keeping it from going into open political warfare as far as exposing the crimes of the previous administration. such a thing would destroy both parties. Those in power like to remain there.