My argument on this subject is that there was a huge failure of leadership, and an attempt to cover up said failure. This cover up and failure occurred during our current administration, and the "apparent" candidate of the Democrat party was involved in this.
How anybody can support a candidate that made so many mistakes when it comes to this issue, and then clearly lied about it is beyond me.
Who says it's not important? Benghazi alone, specifically Hillary Clinton's handling of it, is more than enough for me to discount her as a candidate.
It is important. But sadly too many people (women) see her as their chance to be heard in Washington and they will vote for her because of it.
Quote:Who says it's not important? Benghazi alone, specifically Hillary Clinton's handling of it, is more than enough for me to discount her as a candidate.
Here are Hilliary Clinton's own words for those who haven't heard them or seen them.
Hillary Clinton at Benghazi Hearing: 'What Difference, Does It Make?'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM
I've recently read a couple of books and did some research regarding what happened. The deliberate lies that came out of and are still coming out of the White House and the State Department are truly stunning.
This is one of the many reasons why I could never support Hillary for President. What really saddens me is the amount of people that just don't care, and parrot the "right wing made up story" talking points coming from the far left.
Quote: What really saddens me is the amount of people that just don't care, and parrot the "right wing made up story" talking points coming from the far left.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
This is the very troubling part of our American Democracy. Giant masses of voters, particularly during presidential election years:
1. have no idea what policies a candidate will introduce, or how they will be implemented
2. have no idea of a candidates past record
3. just plain don't care about policies or records
This problem exists for people voting for either party.
I guarantee huge swaths of voters won't even know what Benghazi is, and could care less.
Quote:Massachusetts kept re-electing a murderer for the Senate. Do you really think a few lies and leaving a diplomat with no protection is going to matter to the voters?
Sadly, no.
It's going to be a "popularity contest" once again.
I remain unconvinced that the Democrats will actually push Hillary Clinton as their nominee, because I'm not sure that they're convinced she could win. I wouldn't be shocked at all if a dark horse came out of the woodwork to take the nomination--sort of like her husband did in 1992.
Quote:My argument on this subject is that there was a huge failure of leadership, and an attempt to cover up said failure. This cover up and failure occurred during our current administration, and the "apparent" candidate of the Democrat party was involved in this.
How anybody can support a candidate that made so many mistakes when it comes to this issue, and then clearly lied about it is beyond me.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_rights_benghazi_farce_rages_on_trey_gowdy_burns_taxpayer_money_on_anti_hillary_witch_hunt/'>http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_rights_benghazi_farce_rages_on_trey_gowdy_burns_taxpayer_money_on_anti_hillary_witch_hunt/</a>
Sounds like a typical republican comedy to me.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_rights_benghazi_farce_rages_on_trey_gowdy_burns_taxpayer_money_on_anti_hillary_witch_hunt/'>http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_rights_benghazi_farce_rages_on_trey_gowdy_burns_taxpayer_money_on_anti_hillary_witch_hunt/</a>
Sounds like a typical republican comedy to me.
So something posted on Solon.com is "legitimate"? You really need to find real news sources.
I'll give you a starter search. Look at CBS news reports regarding what happened and the aftermath. I would hardly call CBS News a "right wing media" source.
Look at the hard news and the facts, not the channel that they come on or specific reporters. Just look at the actual facts regarding what happened.
The truth is not really told by bloggers, it's actually told by real journalists.
Quote:So something posted on Solon.com is "legitimate"? You really need to find real news sources.
I'll give you a starter search. Look at CBS news reports regarding what happened and the aftermath. I would hardly call CBS News a "right wing media" source.
Look at the hard news and the facts, not the channel that they come on or specific reporters. Just look at the actual facts regarding what happened.
The truth is not really told by bloggers, it's actually told by real journalists.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-...ontrolled/
I'm all for looking into any event that happens such as this one. Should this not have ended it for the most part?
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled/'>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled/</a>
I'm all for looking into any event that happens such as this one. Should this not have ended it for the most part?
I'm amazed foxnews would host that article. Editor must not have been paying attention that day.
Can't wait for the debates..
Hillary was fired in 1974 for being unethical during the Watergate fiasco....... She hasn't changed a bit
Quote:Hillary was fired in 1974 for being unethical during the Watergate fiasco....... She hasn't changed a bit
And what career politician ever really does?
Quote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-...ontrolled/
I'm all for looking into any event that happens such as this one. Should this not have ended it for the most part?
Not really. The report by the AP is misleading at the very least. Why not
read the actual report cited in the article and draw your own conclusion?
Just a few examples.
AP reports that the CIA acted properly.
Fact from the report summary.
"...the CIA ensured sufficient security for
CIA facilities in Benghazi and, without requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of their attacks." (
Emphasis Mine
)
The embassy is not a CIA facility.
"The Committee, however, received evidence that the State Department security personnel, resources, and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required CIA assistance."
So it seems that the State Department had insufficient security personnel, resources and equipment to provide sufficient security to an embassy. I wonder who exactly was the head of the State Department at the time?
AP reports that there was no intelligence failure
Fact from the report summary
"In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about
previous attacks and the
increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have
specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks."
Regarding the bold parts, I'll address the first two after my next quote from the report. The third bold part means that they did not "know" that the attack would take place on a specific date. That is the justification of the "no intelligence failure".
Fact from the report
"In the months prior to the attacks, the IC provided intelligence about
previous attacks and the increased threat in Benghazi..."
In an online posting, al-Qaeda had stated it's intent to attack the Red Cross, the British, and then the Americans in Benghazi. On April 10th there was an attack on a convoy traveling to Benghazi carrying United Nations envoy Ian Martin (British). On may 22nd a rocket-propelled grenade hits the Benghazi offices of the International Red Cross. A military member that was in Benghazi prior to the attacks described seeing the flag of al-Qaeda raised in Benghazi, and an open al-Qaeda demonstration in the city prior to the attack on September 11th.
I could go on and list how the story is misleading with actual facts, but I really encourage you to read the report yourself and seek the truth.
Quote:I'm amazed foxnews would host that article. Editor must not have been paying attention that day.
FOX news regularly posts articles from the AP. Contrary to what your liberal bloggers tell you, they are in fact a professional news organization. Also keep in mind that the article was published in November of 2014. Much more has come out since then.
Quote: FOX news regularly posts articles from the AP. Contrary to what your liberal bloggers tell you, they are in fact a professional news organization. Also keep in mind that the article was published in November of 2014. Much more has come out since then.
Well, no, they're not, but neither are MSNBC, CNN, or the vast majority of the online political news outlets. They all get the same information from the same people, then parrot it out with their own spin. Now that NBC's credibility is hopelessly shot (despite Lester Holt's best efforts) and ABC's evening news has shifted to a tabloid format, true journalism in this country is just short of dead.
Some folks died tragically and the right wants to go on a witch hunt for political reasons. It's pretty disgusting if you ask me.
Quote:Well, no, they're not, but neither are MSNBC, CNN, or the vast majority of the online political news outlets. They all get the same information from the same people, then parrot it out with their own spin. Now that NBC's credibility is hopelessly shot (despite Lester Holt's best efforts) and ABC's evening news has shifted to a tabloid format, true journalism in this country is just short of dead.
I beg to differ regarding that. One of the things that most journalists do, especially when it comes to investigative journalism is to get a story that is really "breaking news". FOX News has been and still is attacked by not only the far left, but the current administration. Here's something to think about. Who broke the news regarding Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, etc.? Was this all brought up by FOX News?
Is it possible that there are actually
real journalists that pursue the truth and report it?
Here is another question. Are all FOX News reporters "right wing" or conservative? The answer might surprise you. I'm talking about actual "hard news" reporters, anchors and contributors, not those that appear on the editorial or opinion shows.
Sure every media outlet gets "common stories", that's the job and the function of the AP (Associated Press). It used to be called "the wire" back before the internet was around.
Can you cite anything to back up your position that FOX or any other news organization is not a professional news organization?