Clinton "I was not aware of any consolate concerns for security in Benghazi"?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Get the transcript
    I read it. 

    Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. 

    Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.

    The obvious next question everyone SHOULD want to know!

    WHY DIDNT SHE SEE THEM???

    Did these 4 willfully withhold them or not follow protocol?

    What is the protocol for communicating threats to your level?

    What is being done to change this protocol or enforce it??

    When are these 4 "senior state dept senior officials" available for questions?

    [QUOTE]

    The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassador's trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy's country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.

     



    LOL yea "the board" says

     




    "Who are you gonna believe?  Me?  Or your lyin' eyes...?!"

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Clinton

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Get the transcript
    I read it. 

    Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. 

    Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.

    "I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.

    The obvious next question everyone SHOULD want to know!

    WHY DIDNT SHE SEE THEM???

    Did these 4 willfully withhold them or not follow protocol?

    What is the protocol for communicating threats to your level?

    What is being done to change this protocol or enforce it??

    When are these 4 "senior state dept senior officials" available for questions?

    [QUOTE]

    The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi. Plans for the Ambassador's trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy's country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.


    LOL yea "the board" says

     Who are you gonna believe?  Me?  Or your lyin' eyes...?!"

     




    lol funny how BS is tolerated as long as it protects your party.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share