What's new
By:

Never Hillary

Joe Bagadonuts said:
Read the report. It includes the action item notes of a meeting Clinton held during the attack. Also, marines are claiming that they were told to change uniforms numerous times for this reason:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/st...weapons-and-uniforms-commander-says/86478466/

I'm interested whether that article provides sufficient evidence for you to make a judgement on this.
Click to expand...


Couple of things.

1. That they debated what outfit to wear at that time is absurd to me. Just asinine.

2. It wasn't a "meeting Clinton held". It was a White House meeting.

3. This says that is was the Defense Sec. Panettas call to send in the Marines, not Clintons.


This is just from that report. It mentions the official report, not news articles written on it, is over 75,000 pages. Jesus that's long.

So many of my earlier questions are still unanswered. Like what security requests before the attacks were denied and which were approved.

But as for the marines being held up. Panetta should have his *** in a sling for that.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
From the article:

I cannot believe discussions like this are even happening. Our embassy was under terrorist attack and we had Marines available to protect it, but instead of doing anything a ridiculous discussion ensued. Meanwhile our ambassador and his staff died. If politics were not involved every sane person would agree that the Marines should have been sent.
Click to expand...

So. . . . this is perfectly reasonable, given the priorities of folks like Obama and Hillary, whose perspective is firmly post-American global community. Like the bureaucrats of Brussels being post-national Euro statists, the decisions that follow are natural. We have to consider how our actions will be seen in the eyes of relevant others, beyond the archaic national perspective. We had new "friends" in Libya, whom we had helped come to power. Of course we did not want to seem overbearing, nor too weak somehow. Ya gotta think things over carefully, paying great attention to the table settings. . . .

Actually, I do think anyone who is not outraged at this betrayal of American citizens is simmering in the same globalist pot, cooking ever so slowly they hardly know it, and can't just decide to get out.

Hence my whole vain effort to wake up Stoked, lol.

More to the point, I think if anything, the report missed some important aspects they should have hit hard on, and in effect actually "covered" for the Obama Administration. Yah gotta play your cards right, ya know, don't over-reach or nobody will like you.

The fact is, this attack was crucial to the development of ISIS, and the arms seized were put there for them, and the Obama Administration wanted to run cover for the operation with the video story. The people on the ground at the annex were supposed to run and hide, not fight. What kind of staff do we have anymore anyway, a bunch of local yokel red-necks who think national honor counts more than discretion?

As for Games report of relatives of the Obama Administration foreign service official's relatives who "understood", well, that is precisely what it takes to be a good American citizen under globalism.

Stockholm syndrome compliance and support for the new way.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
From the article:

I cannot believe discussions like this are even happening. Our embassy was under terrorist attack and we had Marines available to protect it, but instead of doing anything a ridiculous discussion ensued. Meanwhile our ambassador and his staff died. If politics were not involved every sane person would agree that the Marines should have been sent.
Click to expand...
The Marines were on the plane. Where did it say them changing close happened while the plane was on the ground.

Maybe it seems silly but the military ID downright silly when it comes to retire regarding when to wear and to not wear your uniform.

Before 9-11 we were sometimes required to wear our uniform when flying on civilian aircraft under orders (changing our duty station, for instance). If it wasn't explicitly required it was encouraged. After 9-11 it was forbidden.

Overseas we were sometimes required to be in uniform while on liberty, other times we could wear civilian clothes, but we were typically required to wear a collared shirt and long pants with no frays.

On ship while in port we were required to wear our covers (ball caps) but once at sea we were forbidden from wearing them.

It's the military. They play uniform games constantly. You wanna blame that on Hillary?
 
Gameface said:
The Marines were on the plane. Where did it say them changing close happened while the plane was on the ground.

Maybe it seems silly but the military ID downright silly when it comes to retire regarding when to wear and to not wear your uniform.

Before 9-11 we were sometimes required to wear our uniform when flying on civilian aircraft under orders (changing our duty station, for instance). If it wasn't explicitly required it was encouraged. After 9-11 it was forbidden.

Overseas we were sometimes required to be in uniform while on liberty, other times we could wear civilian clothes, but we were typically required to wear a collared shirt and long pants with no frays.

On ship while in port we were required to wear our covers (ball caps) but once at sea we were forbidden from wearing them.

It's the military. They play uniform games constantly. You wanna blame that on Hillary?
Click to expand...

Military has military reasons, politicians have political reasons. The report indicated political actors expressing concerns about appearances on the ground in Libya. Would uniformed American military personnel responding be a provocation of more widespread violence? It's an understandable issue, both on the military and political scale of the concerns these leaders were putting on their top burners, conceptually-speaking.

There has to be a reason, a real reason for this indecision or seeming indecision. Hillary is not one to be indecisive. She's one of the most focused purposed humans on the planet. I don't like her agenda or values, but I have to respect her intelligence, and competence. With Hillary involved, you have to find a reason, or you have not done your work well enough.

That is my criticism of the house report. They did not uncover the reason.

I said before that it was intended to be an incident, downplayed by the media as a popular uprising, to get some guns in the hands of ISIS. Conspiracy theory? yeah, I don't have any proof, except that's where the weapons seized went. Intended? Obama overtly stated his need to get some strength on the ground to oust Assad. All the "nice" rebels were being beaten back, and somehow the serious contenders needed to be legitimized? Russia was helping Assad. Putin criticizes America for not considering where our weapons were going to end up.

I pay attention to the news. Obama joked early on about the mistakes ISIS was making and how they needed some help to actually dc the job on Assad. Once Assad was out, it would be a pure American play, Russia booted out. Just us and our "friends", including ISIS. As brutal as they are, they are respected for their strength of purpose, just like HIllary should be.

Obama's agenda was to get Assad out at any cost.

Putin also notes that we know where ISIS is selling the oil, and we could stop it if we wanted, and that immediately the mercenaries would go back to fight for some other moneyed organization. Clearly, Putin says that means we are funding ISIS, indirectly, by buying the oil or allowing it to be bought on our markets. ISIS, the Russians, believe, is our baby. Of course they would blame ISIS on us, but the reasons they give are pretty strong.

We've been playing war games too long, in too many places, with too much impunity. Stoked is right to just not trust anyone in our government. We're tpp messed up.

That's why we need an alpha leader with a no nonsense attitude to restore our sensibilities a smidgeon.
 
Some people take themselves pretty seriously in here. I'm not here to mock or put you down, though. Most of you seem not to understand that there must be reasons our leaders do what they do. Their reasons might not be your reasons, certainly they are not mine.

The "America" we are sold on the news, and in our politics, is not "The America" I want. Our nation has been hijacked by a movement, and ideologically-rationalized movement. I don't believe the ideology is valid, and I think it's put out on purpose to sell a load of stuff we're not really being told much about. It's a power grab, pure and simple, a wresting of power from the hands of the supposedly ignorant and incompetent, a placing of great power in the hands of the supposedlty knowledgeable, professional and competent.

We fear the migration of third-world refugees into developed countries, "they" don't. They see it as an excuse for more power, "to keep the peace", and a dilution of local interests and the capacity of people to unite in any way to reject the power grab.

It's a global power grab, and a lot of little pockets of strength have gotta be downgraded somehow. Some wars, some local conflicts, here and there, all carefully incited, are called for.

I don't like our global agenda. I like national governments that are independent, and that are controlled by the locals.

Nothing personal, really, but this forum is not a representative cross section of America. It's a little pocket of pretty intelligent, idealistic believers in globalism and various associated values. It seems like a different point of view is not really appreciated in here.

I like Assad, and Putin. I'd call in the dogs, all the little games we got our irons in, give some respect to the people in the region and keep Israel as our main ally. All the crap the conservatives dish out about the Saudi's is off the table for me. I'm not going to change the world one country at a time, I'm gonna figure out what Americans want for American, and give them their government back.

trump is my kind of practical problem solver. He doesn't care to push the progressive ideology, a made-up fiction, a vision for the world the only benefits a few, really. He wants real progress, and Americans being justly proud of who they are and what they can do. Make America great again, and a whole lot of folks will follow our example and make their own places on earth great too.

Alliance with none, commerce with all.
 
I didn't make it through your post Babe, but my belief is that the reason for the inaction and ultimately the attempt to define this attack as something other than terror was that the election was two months away. Keeping us safe from terrorism is a big deal, so it's important to minimize or redefine any attacks that might be interpreted as terror. We are still seeing the same pattern. In Orlando the government tried to scrub info that indicated it was a terror attack. Just previous to the Republican report on Benghazi the Dems released a report that said it wasn't known what the reason for that attack was.

Game's comments about uniforms are interesting to me. I'm going to discuss those issues with my military friends. The reason I thought it was relevant to this story is that my impression is that this administration cares a lot more about world impressions than getting the job done and this seemed to be yet another indication of that. Maybe I was wrong.

One final thing. I heard on CNN that the report indicated that Panetta did order the military to Benghazi and that Hillary and Obama were aware of that, but for some reason the orders were never carried out. Apparently nobody knows what went wrong. Frustrating.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I didn't make it through your post Babe, but my belief is that the reason for the inaction and ultimately the attempt to define this attack as something other than terror was that the election was two months away. Keeping us safe from terrorism is a big deal, so it's important to minimize or redefine any attacks that might be interpreted as terror. We are still seeing the same pattern. In Orlando the government tried to scrub info that indicated it was a terror attack. Just previous to the Republican report on Benghazi the Dems released a report that said it wasn't known what the reason for that attack was.

Game's comments about uniforms are interesting to me. I'm going to discuss those issues with my military friends. The reason I thought it was relevant to this story is that my impression is that this administration cares a lot more about world impressions than getting the job done and this seemed to be yet another indication of that. Maybe I was wrong.

One final thing. I heard on CNN that the report indicated that Panetta did order the military to Benghazi and that Hillary and Obama were aware of that, but for some reason the orders were never carried out. Apparently nobody knows what went wrong. Frustrating.
Click to expand...

How convenient. And they wonder why nobody trusts them...
 
https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/poli...nd-charges-against-hillary-clinton/index.html

(CNN)FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that he would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state -- but he added Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless" handling classified information.
"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey announced after a lengthy recap of the investigation the FBI conducted.
Click to expand...
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I'll bet Trump is secretly celebrating. It's hard to imagine him having a prayer against almost any likely opponent. I will not be surprised if he figures out a way to beat her, though.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Gameface said:
You think Trump is gonna beat Hillary? Or are you just saying that you think Trump is actually happy he doesn't have to face someone else?
Click to expand...

I think what he meant is that if the FBI had recommended criminal charges, the DNC would have turned to someone else. . . almost any other person would trounce Trump while Hillary is so lamed by her record, she might have difficulty beating him. I think a five point lead says HIllary's chances are good for winning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top