White House Looked for Youtube Video During Benghazi Attack

[tgr4lfe 220]

Be sure to watch the behavior of the Democrat members of the committee. They will deflect, distract, lie and do whatever they can to obstruct the investigation.

Hillary may whine about a witch hunt over emails but she still is responsible for the deaths of four Americans.

Really?

At least partially don't you think?

It certainly happened while she was SOS. That doesn't make her personally and directly responsible.

As SOS, was it or was it not her direct responsibility to ensure that foreign U.S. embassies are properly secure and safe for our U.S. delegates in that foreign country??

That was sort of my point. General responsibility should always accrue to the top.

But that doesn't mean she is personally responsible for directing security arrangements at every embassy. It's possible she had a direct hand in it - or was at least made aware of it. That was certainly true of Reagan in the Beirut embassy bombing (for example).

I think times are a lot different now than then, honestly don't remember much about that incident, but with now, with the almost constant threat of terrorist activity, the intel there the fact 9/11 was approaching, there SHOULD have been a HIGH level of awareness from the SOS regarding foreign embassies. It appears she knew of the concerns there, requests were denied for extra security details, whether she directly made those denials or not, she has consistently lied and appeared to cover up transactions or transgressions with the email scandal. I think the primary reason for the email scandal was to cover up things connected to Benghazi. The crap trickles up the chain, in the end she was responsible for what went on in foreign embassies.

EMTs narrative makes the most sense to me too. Having watched a couple of the pieces of video from the hearings, Clinton is obviously uncomfortable there, and obviously lying and covering up the truth. Her body language, tone, gestures, she is squirming to cover her ass and she will do whatever it takes.

That is a subjective - and obviously biased - assessment that is not generally shared.

That is based on nearly a decade of experience and training in interveiew/interrogation, and yes my opinion based on observation.

I'm sure the search of the accuracy of Wiki, is to a wiki page that says it is very accurate.

So, in your opinion, this was a result of a spontaneous demonstration that turned into a strategic militaristic style attack on the U.S. Embassy?? Playing it off as a spontaneous attack looks a lot better than it being a calculated planned militaristic style terrorist attack, don't you think? Then they could claim they weren't ready for nor expected the crowds to become violent versus knowing that there might be planned attacks to the embassy on 9/11 and practically ignoring requests to increase security b/c of that.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Anyone attempting to draw a black and white narrative for obvious political reasons is a hypocrite. Sadly, that seems to include almost everyone on both sides.

The willingness to allow your politics to determine your reality is frightening and pathetic.

[homersapien 11,352]

Be sure to watch the behavior of the Democrat members of the committee. They will deflect, distract, lie and do whatever they can to obstruct the investigation.

Hillary may whine about a witch hunt over emails but she still is responsible for the deaths of four Americans.

Really?

At least partially don't you think?

It certainly happened while she was SOS. That doesn't make her personally and directly responsible.

As SOS, was it or was it not her direct responsibility to ensure that foreign U.S. embassies are properly secure and safe for our U.S. delegates in that foreign country??

That was sort of my point. General responsibility should always accrue to the top.

But that doesn't mean she is personally responsible for directing security arrangements at every embassy. It's possible she had a direct hand in it - or was at least made aware of it. That was certainly true of Reagan in the Beirut embassy bombing (for example).

I think times are a lot different now than then, honestly don't remember much about that incident, but with now, with the almost constant threat of terrorist activity, the intel there the fact 9/11 was approaching, there SHOULD have been a HIGH level of awareness from the SOS regarding foreign embassies. It appears she knew of the concerns there, requests were denied for extra security details, whether she directly made those denials or not, she has consistently lied and appeared to cover up transactions or transgressions with the email scandal. I think the primary reason for the email scandal was to cover up things connected to Benghazi. The crap trickles up the chain, in the end she was responsible for what went on in foreign embassies.

EMTs narrative makes the most sense to me too. Having watched a couple of the pieces of video from the hearings, Clinton is obviously uncomfortable there, and obviously lying and covering up the truth. Her body language, tone, gestures, she is squirming to cover her ass and she will do whatever it takes.

That is a subjective - and obviously biased - assessment that is not generally shared.

That is based on nearly a decade of experience and training in interveiew/interrogation, and yes my opinion based on observation.

I'm sure the search of the accuracy of Wiki, is to a wiki page that says it is very accurate.

Sorry, but you are the only one who is claims came across that way in yesterday's hearing. Everyone else I have read - including Republicans - says she benefited from it:

http://www.alternet....ust-crashed-and

.....No prizes for guessing which image will linger more in the mind. The ultimate impression left by the first half of the hearings was the one that everybody already has: Congress is terrible."

http://www.politico....est-week-213285

Hillary’s Best Week Yet

The once-beleaguered candidate looks like a frontrunner again.

http://www.slate.com...nt_for_the.html

The performance was a self-destructive, partisan embarrassment for the GOP.

......Eleven hours after the hearing began, Gowdy gave up. Clinton was exhausted but still in good humor. Her inquisitors, however, were furious. After all the subpoenas, emails, and testimony, the evidence had once again failed to match their beliefs. But the committee did its job. It clarified the truth about Benghazi: Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong. And Republicans can’t stand it.

http://www.cnn.com/2...earing-updates/

Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed

http://www.theatlant...mmittee/412117/

What Conservative Media Say About the Benghazi Hearing

Many on the right grudgingly say the former secretary of state avoided missteps and bested her interrogators in Thursday’s House committee marathon.

http://www.nytimes.c...-committee.html

But during most of her testimony, Mrs. Clinton sought to project an image of composure and authority, challenging the committee in her opening statement to “reach for statesmanship” in its long-running inquiry. Alternately bemused and disdainful but never showing anger, Mrs. Clinton recalled on several occasions the courage of J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya, and the three others who died at the mission in Benghazi.

https://www.washingt...eb69_story.html

GOP lands no solid punches while sparring with Clinton over Benghazi

http://www.latimes.c...1021-story.html

Clinton isn't the one on the defensive in the Benghazi hearings

..... It is the committee.

[homersapien 11,352]

Be sure to watch the behavior of the Democrat members of the committee. They will deflect, distract, lie and do whatever they can to obstruct the investigation.

Hillary may whine about a witch hunt over emails but she still is responsible for the deaths of four Americans.

Really?

At least partially don't you think?

It certainly happened while she was SOS. That doesn't make her personally and directly responsible.

As SOS, was it or was it not her direct responsibility to ensure that foreign U.S. embassies are properly secure and safe for our U.S. delegates in that foreign country??

That was sort of my point. General responsibility should always accrue to the top.

But that doesn't mean she is personally responsible for directing security arrangements at every embassy. It's possible she had a direct hand in it - or was at least made aware of it. That was certainly true of Reagan in the Beirut embassy bombing (for example).

I think times are a lot different now than then, honestly don't remember much about that incident, but with now, with the almost constant threat of terrorist activity, the intel there the fact 9/11 was approaching, there SHOULD have been a HIGH level of awareness from the SOS regarding foreign embassies. It appears she knew of the concerns there, requests were denied for extra security details, whether she directly made those denials or not, she has consistently lied and appeared to cover up transactions or transgressions with the email scandal. I think the primary reason for the email scandal was to cover up things connected to Benghazi. The crap trickles up the chain, in the end she was responsible for what went on in foreign embassies.

EMTs narrative makes the most sense to me too. Having watched a couple of the pieces of video from the hearings, Clinton is obviously uncomfortable there, and obviously lying and covering up the truth. Her body language, tone, gestures, she is squirming to cover her ass and she will do whatever it takes.

That is a subjective - and obviously biased - assessment that is not generally shared.

...........So, in your opinion, this was a result of a spontaneous demonstration that turned into a strategic militaristic style attack on the U.S. Embassy?? Playing it off as a spontaneous attack looks a lot better than it being a calculated planned militaristic style terrorist attack, don't you think? Then they could claim they weren't ready for nor expected the crowds to become violent versus knowing that there might be planned attacks to the embassy on 9/11 and practically ignoring requests to increase security b/c of that.

No.

No. In fact, it makes it look worse by implying the security couldn't even deal with a "demonstration".

[homersapien 11,352]

Anyone attempting to draw a black and white narrative for obvious political reasons is a hypocrite. Sadly, that seems to include almost everyone on both sides.

The willingness to allow your politics to determine your reality is frightening and pathetic.

Obama claimed - and believes - he personally owns the White House!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Anyone attempting to draw a black and white narrative for obvious political reasons is a hypocrite. Sadly, that seems to include almost everyone on both sides.

The willingness to allow your politics to determine your reality is frightening and pathetic.

Obama claimed - and believes - he personally owns the White House!

Exactly the sort of inane, insane, and stupid thinking to which I am referring. It does seem to be popular and bipartisan though.

[homersapien 11,352]

Anyone attempting to draw a black and white narrative for obvious political reasons is a hypocrite. Sadly, that seems to include almost everyone on both sides.

The willingness to allow your politics to determine your reality is frightening and pathetic.

Obama claimed - and believes - he personally owns the White House!

Exactly the sort of inane, insane, and stupid thinking to which I am referring. It does seem to be popular and bipartisan though.

Not on this forum.

The only delusional beliefs I see come from the same old crowd of radical reactionaries. (I won't abuse the term "conservative" by calling them that.)

I know that itself sounds a little delusional, but show me an example of delusional thought from any liberal, progressive or moderate poster on this forum.

And let's keep that challenge in mind as we proceed.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Anyone attempting to draw a black and white narrative for obvious political reasons is a hypocrite. Sadly, that seems to include almost everyone on both sides.

The willingness to allow your politics to determine your reality is frightening and pathetic.

Obama claimed - and believes - he personally owns the White House!

Exactly the sort of inane, insane, and stupid thinking to which I am referring. It does seem to be popular and bipartisan though.

Not on this forum.

The only delusional beliefs I see come from the same old crowd of radical reactionaries. (I won't abuse the term "conservative" by calling them that.)

I know that itself sounds a little delusional, but show me an example of delusional thought from any liberal, progressive or moderate poster on this forum.

And let's keep that challenge in mind as we proceed.

Okay but, this forum has it's own uniqueness. It isn't exactly a perfect cross section or, an unbiased sample. Here, anything left of far right center is labeled as "extreme liberal". The only extreme liberal we ever had was laughed at by the "liberals" as much, or more, than the "conservatives".

I am not much in favor of the labels anyway. I hate ideologues and, anything that may give them a foundation or, imply they have credibility. Why can we not focus on the right answers? Why does the "right" answer have to fit a disingenuous, ideological narrative?

There is NO such thing as a perfect ideology.

[homersapien 11,352]

Anyone attempting to draw a black and white narrative for obvious political reasons is a hypocrite. Sadly, that seems to include almost everyone on both sides.

The willingness to allow your politics to determine your reality is frightening and pathetic.

Obama claimed - and believes - he personally owns the White House!

Exactly the sort of inane, insane, and stupid thinking to which I am referring. It does seem to be popular and bipartisan though.

Not on this forum.

The only delusional beliefs I see come from the same old crowd of radical reactionaries. (I won't abuse the term "conservative" by calling them that.)

I know that itself sounds a little delusional, but show me an example of delusional thought from any liberal, progressive or moderate poster on this forum.

And let's keep that challenge in mind as we proceed.

Okay but, this forum has it's own uniqueness. It isn't exactly a perfect cross section or, an unbiased sample. Here, anything left of far right center is labeled as "extreme liberal". The only extreme liberal we ever had was laughed at by the "liberals" as much, or more, than the "conservatives".

I am not much in favor of the labels anyway. I hate ideologues and, anything that may give them a foundation or, imply they have credibility. Why can we not focus on the right answers? Why does the "right" answer have to fit a disingenuous, ideological narrative?

There is NO such thing as a perfect ideology.

Because that requires effort and self-examination and many, if not most, people on this forum are here to affirm their political biases, not examine them. For some reason, this seems more important - or at least more gratifying - to ultra conservatives than it does liberals. How else do you explain the popularity of conservative talk radio?

Having said that, I will confess my own primary motivation on this forum is to provide a counterpoint or challenge to conservative statements which - unlike talk radio - is actually possible on a written forum. Frankly, I don't want these conservative radicals to become the 'face' of Auburn University.

Living in a sea of right wing conservatism, I feel it's my duty to fight back.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

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

I would add....if anyone votes for this lady.......

never mind.

Anyone who voted for Bush should keep their opinions to ...

Never mind.

[autigeremt 6,569]

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

I would add....if anyone votes for this lady.......

never mind.

Anyone who voted for Bush should keep their opinions to ...

Never mind.

I didn't vote for Bush. Nice try, though.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Anyone who voted for Bush should keep their opinions to ...

Never mind.

Bush isn't a pathological liar. Swing and miss.

[homersapien 11,352]

Anyone who voted for Bush should keep their opinions to ...

Never mind.

Bush isn't a pathological liar. Swing and miss.

I agree. He just lied when it was really important.

But then, no one claimed he was a pathological liar in the first place.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Hillary lied, and it was proven.

Bush didn't lie about Iraq. That too was proven.

[homersapien 11,352]

Hillary lied, and it was proven.

Bush didn't lie about Iraq. That too was proven.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Hillary lied, and it was proven.

Bush didn't lie about Iraq. That too was proven.

Bob Woodward makes you and your emoticon look silly.