The NY Times Spinning Hillary

I was watching Chris Mathews yesterday, and it is quite humorous to watch his local Obama ass kissers explain that yes, Benghazi was a major failure of our State Department, they underestimated the meaning of the anniversary of 9-11, and should have beefed up security or at least had some type of plan in the newest hot spots, Lybia being one.

But, Hillary had nothing to do with this. After all, she was just Secretary of State. It was up to lower echelon officials to take care of this type of thing.

They even went so far as to blame the sitting ambassador, Chris Stevens, because he did not want too much of a military presence because he was trying to win the hearts and souls of the Lybians by being a man of the people. Too much American Military would reek of "occupation"

Every Democrat on the planet has their marching orders. Yes, admitt that we royally fucked up in the whole Benghazi affair. We should have known that the Rag Heads had something planned. Our response was a cluster fuck from minute one, and continued on through with that ridiculous "video" crap.

Admit all of this, but remind people that in no way should Hillary be at fault.
After all, she is first and foremost, "Mrs Bill Clinton".

And in Democrat politics, that trumps everything.

September 11, 2001 was not G W Bush's fault according to his supporters and September 11, 2012 was not Mrs. Clinton's fault according to her supporters.

The voters will decide, they reelected GW Bush and we do not know if Hillary will even put it up to the voters by running. Time will tell.

I was watching Chris Mathews yesterday, and it is quite humorous to watch his local Obama ass kissers explain that yes, Benghazi was a major failure of our State Department, they underestimated the meaning of the anniversary of 9-11, and should have beefed up security or at least had some type of plan in the newest hot spots, Lybia being one.

But, Hillary had nothing to do with this. After all, she was just Secretary of State. It was up to lower echelon officials to take care of this type of thing.

They even went so far as to blame the sitting ambassador, Chris Stevens, because he did not want too much of a military presence because he was trying to win the hearts and souls of the Lybians by being a man of the people. Too much American Military would reek of "occupation"

Every Democrat on the planet has their marching orders. Yes, admitt that we royally fucked up in the whole Benghazi affair. We should have known that the Rag Heads had something planned. Our response was a cluster fuck from minute one, and continued on through with that ridiculous "video" crap.

Admit all of this, but remind people that in no way should Hillary be at fault.
After all, she is first and foremost, "Mrs Bill Clinton".

And in Democrat politics, that trumps everything. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Steven's requests for additional security were denied by the State Department, and he was directed not to ask for additional security. So the lib-retards' attempt to blame Stevens for Hildabeast's failures is disgustingly fraudulent.




July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military Site Security Team (SST) and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.

Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.

August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benghazi...tack-unfolded/



One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy [Stevens] was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...-military.html



“Despite the denial of Ambassador Stevens’ request, Embassy Tripoli officials persisted in their requests for additional security. In July 2012, for example, RSO Eric Nordstrom alerted DS officials in Washington that he intended to submit a formal cable request for an extension of the SST and MSD teams. DS personnel in Washington alerted Mr. Nordstrom that Ms. Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, was “reluctant to ask for an SST extension, apparently out of concern that it would be embarrassing to the [State Department] to continue to have to rely on [Defense Department] assets to protect our Mission.” Moreover, in response to Mr. Nordstrom’s intent to request an MSD extension, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb responded, “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the MSD [Mobile Security Deployments] team to stay!”http://www.examiner.com/article/it-does-make-a-difference-hillary-benghazi-revisited-politics-as-usual-1



Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer posted in Libya, told the Congressional committee in an interview that the State Department extended the Special Security Team’s tour from February, and then informed the embassy, “We do not want to see you make another request for an extension of the SST.” Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/0...#storylink=cpy

[QUOTE=WTF;1054859700]September 11, 2001 was not G W Bush's fault according to his supporters (nor the bipartisan committee of Congress investigating the event) ...

and September 11, 2012 was not Mrs. Clinton's fault according to her supporters (the bipartisan committee of Congress investigating the event didn't "call it specifically" but laid some of the blame on the DOS .. OF WHICH SHE WAS THE BOSS AT THE TIME).

The voters will decide, they reelected GW Bush (SEE ABOVE) and we do not know if Hillary will even put it up to the voters by running. Time will tell (SEE ABOVE) .[/QUOTE]

Folks who want to be "trendy" will want to believe her shit don't stink.

But it does, some o! old, and some fresh.

In an effort to make the cut in 2008, she provided some great bullshit (ammo) for her opposition. And it will stick.

September 11, 2001 was not G W Bush's fault according to his supporters and September 11, 2012 was not Mrs. Clinton's fault according to her supporters.

The voters will decide, they reelected GW Bush and we do not know if Hillary will even put it up to the voters by running. Time will tell. Originally Posted by WTF

9-11 was planed long before Bush was even elected,
They started planning in 1996..and who was President then? and they bombed the WTC in 1993, who was President then? just some fyi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3128802.stm

At some point the RWWs and LWWs will comprehend that the Al Qaeda really doesn't distinguish between Dems and Reps. And until the two sides here start realizing that combatting AQ needs to be more important than using AQ as a way to garner votes we will remain unsuccessful. So far both parties are more concerned about "winning" against the other party.

>>"And until the two sides here start realizing that combatting AQ needs to be more important than using AQ as a way to garner votes we will remain unsuccessful."

Old-T, would that be the SAME AQ that President Obama said was "back on their heels" and "decimated" in the lead up to Nov 2012?

That AQ?

Dems defend Dems and Repub defend Repub nothing new here same old same old.

Dems AND THE NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA defend Dems and Repub defend Repub nothing new here same old same old. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Better

Better Originally Posted by Jackie S

Not really, but if you have no idea of your own?

Dems defend Dems and Repub defend Repub nothing new here same old same old. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

here's something we should defend. How about some American integrity. The Dems, Republicans, Tea Party whatever. None of these people truly deserve our praise. No one gains anything by kissing their ass believe me. Nothing just simply happens beyond their control it's always planned, or they turn a deaf ear or blame someone or something else. That's not leadership, and for us to defend one piece of shit over another, that's not integrity. No country can survive if it's tradition don't survive with it. We need to be more critical of their blunders and cover-ups or we're going to crumble.

Jim

I was watching Chris Mathews yesterday, and it is quite humorous to watch his local Obama ass kissers explain that yes, Benghazi was a major failure of our State Department, they underestimated the meaning of the anniversary of 9-11, and should have beefed up security or at least had some type of plan in the newest hot spots, Lybia being one.

But, Hillary had nothing to do with this. After all, she was just Secretary of State. It was up to lower echelon officials to take care of this type of thing.

They even went so far as to blame the sitting ambassador, Chris Stevens, because he did not want too much of a military presence because he was trying to win the hearts and souls of the Lybians by being a man of the people. Too much American Military would reek of "occupation"

Every Democrat on the planet has their marching orders. Yes, admitt that we royally fucked up in the whole Benghazi affair. We should have known that the Rag Heads had something planned. Our response was a cluster fuck from minute one, and continued on through with that ridiculous "video" crap.

Admit all of this, but remind people that in no way should Hillary be at fault.
After all, she is first and foremost, "Mrs Bill Clinton".

And in Democrat politics, that trumps everything. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That really is some funny stuff... I watch it every now & then and LMAO...

Even David Brooks said the secretary of state was not responsible for security and anyone claiming otherwise was just spewing political BS.

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans to the Islamist extremists, is which one will give them money.

Dems defend Dems and Repub defend Repub nothing new here same old AQ. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Fixed it for you.....

EXCEPT: ..... now they are taking over Iraq ("when they weren't there before???)!!!

JUST LIKE ...the Taliban (their landlords) are taking back Afghanistan.

Our "CIC" (pronounced? with a "soft" C) is doing a "fantastic" job, isn't he.