Hillary Emails/Private Server (THREADS MERGED)

[AUUSN 823]

Majority members acknowledge that embassy security involves estimating and managing risk.

Department representatives appearing before the committee pointed out that some danger will always be present, regardless of the preparations, especially in tension-prone areas of the world.64 Before the Benghazi attacks, there was also the presumption (in Libya and elsewhere) that indigenous forces would be more helpful in protecting Americans than proved to be the case.65

Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack. While majority members are reluctant to disagree with specific tactical decisions made by professional career uniformed officers in the heat of battle and they believe the U.S. military performed well in responding to the attacks, it is nonetheless necessary to evaluate thoroughly the choices commanders made. Limitations on situational awareness Majority members also believe that the military response may have been complicated by the lack of much real-time knowledge of what was transpiring on the ground. The dearth of information seems relevant when considering how commanders shaped their response to the attack. For example, about 20 minutes after the attack started, CIA security personnel from a nearby CIA facility (informally known as “the annex”) raced to the SMC. Once there, CIA personnel exchanged fire with the attackers and then, joined by the SMC survivors, fought their way back to the annex. Amidst sporadic fire, that facility then took two discrete attacks, including a mortar barrage that killed CIA security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.66 Significantly, however, DOD reported to the committee that General Ham and some others at AFRICOM did not know the annex existed before the attack on the SMC began.67 Learning about a second facility in Benghazi amidst an attack may have complicated the military’s process of assessing events and response options, in part because the second location was both an attack target and a U.S. security resource. Although the committee will continue to explore this point, majority members believe a combatant commander’s apparent unfamiliarity with a vital detail in his Area of Responsibility further illustrates the deficiency of the review undertaken by the White House before September 11, 2012.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Majority members acknowledge that embassy security involves estimating and managing risk.

Department representatives appearing before the committee pointed out that some danger will always be present, regardless of the preparations, especially in tension-prone areas of the world.64 Before the Benghazi attacks, there was also the presumption (in Libya and elsewhere) that indigenous forces would be more helpful in protecting Americans than proved to be the case.65

Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack. While majority members are reluctant to disagree with specific tactical decisions made by professional career uniformed officers in the heat of battle and they believe the U.S. military performed well in responding to the attacks, it is nonetheless necessary to evaluate thoroughly the choices commanders made. Limitations on situational awareness Majority members also believe that the military response may have been complicated by the lack of much real-time knowledge of what was transpiring on the ground. The dearth of information seems relevant when considering how commanders shaped their response to the attack. For example, about 20 minutes after the attack started, CIA security personnel from a nearby CIA facility (informally known as “the annex”) raced to the SMC. Once there, CIA personnel exchanged fire with the attackers and then, joined by the SMC survivors, fought their way back to the annex. Amidst sporadic fire, that facility then took two discrete attacks, including a mortar barrage that killed CIA security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.66 Significantly, however, DOD reported to the committee that General Ham and some others at AFRICOM did not know the annex existed before the attack on the SMC began.67 Learning about a second facility in Benghazi amidst an attack may have complicated the military’s process of assessing events and response options, in part because the second location was both an attack target and a U.S. security resource. Although the committee will continue to explore this point, majority members believe a combatant commander’s apparent unfamiliarity with a vital detail in his Area of Responsibility further illustrates the deficiency of the review undertaken by the White House before September 11, 2012.

Sounds like this calling out fault with the military and the WH.

[AUUSN 823]

Unarmed Overflight As for scrambling an unarmed fighter jet, Major General Roberson, a veteran F-16 pilot, discussed the theoretical possibility of such an overflight with the committee. [T]here is a potential you could have flown a show of force and made everyone aware there was a fighter airborne. Would it have changed anything? Certainly, we couldn’t have gotten there before the ambassador [and a State Department colleague were] dead. We know that. But even if we had gotten there before the annex attack [which killed two more Americans] in my experience it [would not] necessarily stop the fighting, especially if [the enemy were] conditioned to it.82 This is because, he explained, “experienced” combatants can discern “show of force” overflights from aerial attacks and react accordingly. “[T]hey know what it means. It means there [are] no bombs dropping. It just means you are trying to let them know you are there.” He concluded, “I can’t tell” if an unarmed overflight would have “been effective or not in Benghazi.”83 In recounting his experiences to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Greg Hicks, who was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli and became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was missing, suggested that he thought such an aircraft from Aviano might arrive over Benghazi within a few hours.84 Mr. Hicks thought an unarmed overflight was desirable. Using a colloquialism for a fighter, he declared before the Oversight Committee that “a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point . . . as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.”8

Although the committee will continue to gather and assess information on this topic, it seems that had the risks been deemed acceptable and one or more unarmed fighter aircraft were flown over Benghazi, the effort would probably have been ineffective. Even if such planes could have been dispatched in a timely manner, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for pilots (even with night vision capability) to identify and overfly attackers in very low light. Furthermore, to minimize the antiaircraft threat, an overflight would probably taken place at a relatively high altitude and this would have lessened the putative deterrent effect on enemy forces arrayed far below.86 This is especially the case because the Benghazi attackers demonstrated that they were the sort of experienced fighters that Major General Roberson warned might be less fearful of an unarmed overflight. Those who struck the U.S. facilities seemed to have carefully planned their actions, scouted the scene beforehand, and were able to skillfully and accurately employ mortar fire.87 Nonetheless, some have suggested that dispatching unarmed aircraft should have been considered, at least as an interim step before more about the attack and potential response became known. In this reading, had one or more jets been launched, a recall order could have been issued before arriving over Benghazi if problems arose with refueling or overflight permissions, or if a preferable alternative was developed in the meantime. But, in light of all these factors, majority members believe the use of unarmed aircraft, with no countermeasure capability, refueling arrangements, or targeting assistance, amidst a dangerous antiaircraft environment, would have offered only a small likelihood of benefitting those under attack. It makes sense that this remote option was apparently not more actively contemplated.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Key words here are "probably" and "apparently." If I had been one of the guys at the embassy I would have appreciated ANY help no matter what the odds were it would help. But that's just me I guess.

[AUUSN 823]

Key words here are "probably" and "apparently." If I had been one of the guys at the embassy I would have appreciated ANY help no matter what the odds were it would help. But that's just me I guess.

Yep that's just you. History is freaking littered with those who could have used more help. You just selectively chose to be outraged at this incident and choose politics over the military.

[Grumps 3,704]

So were the "experienced military combatants" just there to protest the video?

[AUUSN 823]

So were the "experienced military combatants" just there to protest the video?

No. It was a coordinated attack by Ansar al Sharia and elements of AQIM.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Key words here are "probably" and "apparently." If I had been one of the guys at the embassy I would have appreciated ANY help no matter what the odds were it would help. But that's just me I guess.

Sounds like an excuse of some 15-year-old kid. "Like it wouldn't work anyways dude. So, like why even bother trying? "

[AUUSN 823]

Key words here are "probably" and "apparently." If I had been one of the guys at the embassy I would have appreciated ANY help no matter what the odds were it would help. But that's just me I guess.

Sounds like an excuse of some 15-year-old kid. "Like it wouldn't work anyways dude. So, like why even bother trying? "

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

At first blush this seems to be another nail in Hillary's coffin but then I have to wonder if it's not the beginning of another long line of cover ups. Your thoughts?

http://www.foxnews.c...ml?intcmp=hpbt1

Here is one opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/28/hillary-clintons-worst-nightmare-hint-its-not-bernie-sanders.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[AURaptor 1,128]

Darn it all to heck ! And she wanted so very much to be 100% transparent on this matter!

[Auburn4life 24]

Well I be da#n3d! We told yall she was a liar. I didn't need proof to see this. Just glad, that it seems there is proof.

She is a BOLDFACE liar. She talks about transparency and moving forward with change for better and how the republicans just want to go back 50 years in the past. She is for nothing but HERSELF, power, greed.

New campaign slogan: Burn Hiliary Burn

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It sure looks like there enough evidence now to trump her candidacy (pun intended). I keep wondering how long it will be before Biden jumps in in order for the Dems to save face by going to far down the road with Hillary.

[JayH4AU 1]

The pile of Scandals keeps getting bigger and bigger for Ol' Hilldawg. Is this who we really want running our country?

[AURaptor 1,128]

The pile of Scandals keeps getting bigger and bigger for Ol' Hilldawg. Is this who we really want running our country?

Homer, Jeff, TexasTiger, usn ...

[homersapien 11,465]

The pile of Scandals keeps getting bigger and bigger for Ol' Hilldawg. Is this who we really want running our country?

Homer, Jeff, TexasTiger, usn ...

No thanks, I'm retired.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Remember folks, according to Hillary she has nothing wrong. She just cant control what the Republicans choose to leak about the 22 Top secret emails that will not be released because they contain too much top secret info.

its just another vast right wing conspiracy. Besides, she answered questions about this for 11 hours so this is all old news that she has already addressed.

Right?

[AURaptor 1,128]

The pile of Scandals keeps getting bigger and bigger for Ol' Hilldawg. Is this who we really want running our country?

Homer, Jeff, TexasTiger, usn ...

No thanks, I'm retired.

No one offered you the job, genius. I was listing those on this board who would be fine with Hillary being president. Lying cheating criminal that she is.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Pretty tough for the White House to come out and support or endorse Hillary for president when they just came out and admitted she had top-secret emails on her server, the very server she claimed had zero top secret emails.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Lying cheating criminal that she is."

All those you listed would have no problem with her being President even if she was indicted, convicted and sentenced to Leavenworth. They would argue she is capable of being President from inside the big house. LOL Such is the blind devotion of a typical democrat lemming.

Amazing anyone could get behind this unethical lying life long criminal who would sell out America in a heart beat for a couple $mil. dollas

[AURaptor 1,128]

Said it before, and it needs to be said again. She is either incredibly incompetent, or a flat out dishonest, amoral criminal.

Which is it?

( of course, she could be both. But at least I'm giving you an option. )

[TheBlueVue 177]

Said it before, and it needs to be said again. She is either incredibly incompetent, or a flat out dishonest, amoral criminal.

Which is it?

( of course, she could be both. But at least I'm giving you an option. )

Its truly a sad day in American when the best thing that can be said about the presumptive democrat nominee for President is that she's an incompetent boob.

[AURaptor 1,128]

The reality of the real world is coming into focus, even for those most blinded by their partisanship.

Hillary is a criminal. Straight up. She's lying, she knows it, and anyone paying attention knows it too.

The ONLY way her fans can respond to this train wreck is with " Yeah, but...( insert name here ) did the same thing ! " which rings hollow, because no one else has done this., or " She didn't know ", which is utterly false.

[kd4au 1,145]

There is no doubt in my mind that she is lying.The trail of corruption that follows the Clintons is amazing and yet they are never found guilty of any of it and she is still polling in the 40 something percent range for dems,it's just unreal.

[AURaptor 1,128]

There is no doubt in my mind that she is lying.The trail of corruption that follows the Clintons is amazing and yet they are never found guilty of any of it and she is still polling in the 40 something percent range for dems,it's just unreal.

Her CRIMES are unreal, because no one can believe anyone would be that bold, that brash, and THAT corrupt, with out any regard to the security of the country, or any operateives she may have put in harms way, simply because she didn't want to be INCONVENIENCED with 2 devices, even though she DID carry 2 ,and maybe more.