Forum Thread

The Inquisition of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 55 of 55 Prev 1 2 3 4
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    For those that watched the Benghazi hearings, we learned from Hillary a lot about the status of the Benghazi proposed consulate, it's risk (which was well understood), and how all the events unfolded. To further edify for those interested, all of these offices in foreign cities are called diplomatic missions. A country that has an ambassador has embassy status, with the embassy located in the capital city. The embassy is where the ambassador conducts his/her primary business and in some cases lives there. Where additional diplomatic missions are needed in other cities in the country (or in small countries without an ambassador), these smaller offices are called consulates, and the head person in that office is the consul (as opposed to ambassador for an embassy type office). All media personnel that referred to the Benghazi office as an embassy are ill informed. As Hillary educated us, the Benghazi diplomatic mission was very small temporary facility...just a very few people. It was near a CIA compound. Ambassador Stevens was killed when he visited the office. He was not stationed there. No Americans diplomats were stationed there at all.

    The Yemen embassy was evacuated in early February and that included the Marine guards. We have not returned.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    For those that watched the Benghazi hearings, we learned from Hillary a lot about the status of the Benghazi proposed consulate, it's risk (which was well understood), and how all the events unfolded. To further edify for those interested, all of these offices in foreign cities are called diplomatic missions. A country that has an ambassador has embassy status, with the embassy located in the capital city. The embassy is where the ambassador conducts his/her primary business and in some cases lives there. Where additional diplomatic missions are needed in other cities in the country (or in small countries without an ambassador), these smaller offices are called consulates, and the head person in that office is the consul (as opposed to ambassador for an embassy type office). All media personnel that referred to the Benghazi office as an embassy are ill informed. As Hillary educated us, the Benghazi diplomatic mission was very small temporary facility...just a very few people. It was near a CIA compound. Ambassador Stevens was killed when he visited the office. He was not stationed there. No Americans diplomats were stationed there at all.

    The Yemen embassy was evacuated in early February and that included the Marine guards. We have not returned.

    Schmidt thanks to clarify this; but no wonder there is confusion because of the killing of AMBASSADOR Stevens being killed at an Consulate. So who was the Consul? Yes I remember when they evacuated the Embassy in Tripoli also in Yemen.

    But I'll stick to my conclusion that "someone" made a huge mistake even contemplating to have a "Consulate" there. Amen

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There was no consul or consulate in Benghazi. There were no American diplomats stationed there...only a small Libyan staff and guards for a "diplomatic compound". Ambassador Stevens was making a trip there to visit with the locals. He was pushing the idea to set up a true consulate there, but it was nothing more than a proposal. No action had been taken by the Obama administration to set up a consulate in Benghazi.

    As you know, ambassadors do not spend their time 100 percent in safety of the confines of embassies. It is a common practice for ambassadors and consuls to travel within the countries that they are assigned to meet people and promote diplomacy. They are accompanied by the ambassador's own security personnel, and in the case of America, they do not require preclearance from the Secretary of State to make these trips. They rely on their own judgment in making these calls. It is a trip that Ambassador Stevens did on his own volition.

    This was all explained fully by Hillary in her marathon testimony.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    There was no consul or consulate in Benghazi. There were no American diplomats stationed there...only a small Libyan staff and guards for a "diplomatic compound". Ambassador Stevens was making a trip there to visit with the locals. He was pushing the idea to set up a true consulate there, but it was nothing more than a proposal. No action had been taken by the Obama administration to set up a consulate in Benghazi.

    As you know, ambassadors do not spend their time 100 percent in safety of the confines of embassies. It is a common practice for ambassadors and consuls to travel within the countries that they are assigned to meet people and promote diplomacy. They are accompanied by the ambassador's own security personnel, and in the case of America, they do not require preclearance from the Secretary of State to make these trips. They rely on their own judgment in making these calls. It is a trip that Ambassador Stevens did on his own volition.

    This was all explained fully by Hillary in her marathon testimony.

    Schmidt, I don't know who or what you are defending. Sorry if there was nothing there; what did they attack/ Empty air? There was a "consulate office/building" as well an CIA compound, so who are you kidding? I say again "someone" screwed up. This ambassador was an "typical" government individual who thought he was safe because who would dare to touch an American?, Wow.; he should have known better. Thus again Schmidt stop defending this stupidity. Hillary is typical politician, who knows via all kind of laws/documents like any lawyer to weasel her way out of it. Lawyer types never accept any responsibility ever; you should know that by now. That is why I certainly will not vote for her.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Is Hillary responsible? As the boss, yes. But naturally things are not black and white despite people's attempts to paint them as such. There foreign consulates in various cities around the u.s. Do they have the same level of security as their embassies? I don't know. I do agree that hubris plays a large role in the way Americans on any level conduct themselves. Why, we're Americans, they wouldn't dare do that to us...yeah, right. I guess I do not care what the definition of the facility in Benghazi was, in the face of the uncertainty in various places the facility should have been closed and the congress should have passed sufficient funds for security. Neither of those happened and the end result was what it was. A lot of blame to pass around. While I do not like Hillary especially from a dynastic standpoint I do not think full-scale blame can be assigned to her and this so-called investigation is no different that the previous republican led investigations. There is nothing new to learn that will make a damn bit of difference to the families of those who were killed. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt is correct. The whole subject on Benghazi was clearly explained (multiple times) to the Benghazi investigation committee, but like the a Republican, they refuse to understand what a diplomatic mission is that Stevens was performing. Diplomat's are continually traveling around their responsible country. They are not required to be in constant contact with the Secretary of State. They have a job similar to anybody that travels and do not always report to their MAIN Office and in the Benghazi case, Stevens chose not to report. If Stevens did report, he apparently did to the security people, which gave him a detail for his travel. Stevens set up a small contingent of diplomacy in Benghazi. Stevens was interested in establishing interests with the people and governing authority in Benghazi. Thus he was doing his job. Although, security is at the most problem for Stevens and I believe Stevens did not correctly calculate the intensity of a threat as he should have. Did Stevens have to go to Benghazi? NO! Was Stevens ordered to go to Benghazi? NO! Stevens did his job, which could have been planned differently if the terrorist threat was correctly calculated. Maybe Stevens took a chance or maybe someone in Libya planned for this to happen in getting Stevens in Benghazi. Stevens saw the strategic importance of Benghazi and planned for building diplomacy in the area. He was doing his job! Did Hillary know Stevens was in Benghazi before all hell broke loose? Hillary knew Stevens was in Libya that is all. Did Hilary knew of the threat level for Stevens? Maybe, but as Hillary explained, Stevens knew how to ask for security to match the threat levels. Did he ask Hillary for security? NO! As Hillary explained all the US Diplomats know who to ask for security through the appropriate channels. If anything needs to be examined it is the acts conducted by those arranging for security and WE all know where that is going. As mentioned on previous post, GOP lead Congress denied appropriate funding for security in diplomacy. So, what's a contracting officer going to do with little funding for security. A contract officer will go after the lowest bid. What do you hear most of the time, "You get what you paid for." Lowly paid security people as providing your security.......this is a GOP-lead Congress fault. I believe the GOP-lead Congress should be setting in that front seat during the Benghazi investigation answering questions to why they denied appropriate funding for activities to the Secretary of State.

    Diplomatic mission personnel are the "boots-on-the-ground" for creating Democracy, business relations, trade, vital host nation interests and establish contacts for additional diplomatic missions. Stevens was that entity of first contact diplomacy. Several times during the GOP-lead Benghazi circus, it was reported Stevens was highly charged with an avid interest in the continuity of Libya. Benghazi was just one of those areas Stevens placed into his planning for a goal in a diplomatic mission.

    I do not understand people who refuse to understand the truth and the jobs of Secretary of State, Ambassadors, Consulates and all the people that diplomatic careers in the United States. There are hundreds of diplomatic missions going on and Benghazi is not different. Diplomacy is required around the world for trade, business, and security of free-nations. However, I understand that there are some who just believe America should just leave the rest of the world alone, like a hermit stays in his cave and rots. The world is a great experience and should be free to travel and conduct global business without fear of war and conflict. Our Diplomats are blessed to be part of this endeavor to make a global pact of nations interested in working together.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Is Hillary responsible? As the boss, yes. But naturally things are not black and white despite people's attempts to paint them as such. There foreign consulates in various cities around the u.s. Do they have the same level of security as their embassies? I don't know. I do agree that hubris plays a large role in the way Americans on any level conduct themselves. Why, we're Americans, they wouldn't dare do that to us...yeah, right. I guess I do not care what the definition of the facility in Benghazi was, in the face of the uncertainty in various places the facility should have been closed and the congress should have passed sufficient funds for security. Neither of those happened and the end result was what it was. A lot of blame to pass around. While I do not like Hillary especially from a dynastic standpoint I do not think full-scale blame can be assigned to her and this so-called investigation is no different that the previous republican led investigations. There is nothing new to learn that will make a damn bit of difference to the families of those who were killed. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
    Again Lonely exactly my position; indeed only grandstanding, pure and simple; like any lawyer's tactics etc. Like I said I'm not blaming Hillary directly, but since she had the job of oversight so she should have known better. It is the same as the police killings the police protects itself from prosecution.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:

    Schmidt is correct. The whole subject on Benghazi was clearly explained (multiple times) to the Benghazi investigation committee, but like the a Republican, they refuse to understand what a diplomatic mission is that Stevens was performing. Diplomat's are continually traveling around their responsible country. They are not required to be in constant contact with the Secretary of State. They have a job similar to anybody that travels and do not always report to their MAIN Office and in the Benghazi case, Stevens chose not to report. If Stevens did report, he apparently did to the security people, which gave him a detail for his travel. Stevens set up a small contingent of diplomacy in Benghazi. Stevens was interested in establishing interests with the people and governing authority in Benghazi. Thus he was doing his job. Although, security is at the most problem for Stevens and I believe Stevens did not correctly calculate the intensity of a threat as he should have. Did Stevens have to go to Benghazi? NO! Was Stevens ordered to go to Benghazi? NO! Stevens did his job, which could have been planned differently if the terrorist threat was correctly calculated. Maybe Stevens took a chance or maybe someone in Libya planned for this to happen in getting Stevens in Benghazi. Stevens saw the strategic importance of Benghazi and planned for building diplomacy in the area. He was doing his job! Did Hillary know Stevens was in Benghazi before all hell broke loose? Hillary knew Stevens was in Libya that is all. Did Hilary knew of the threat level for Stevens? Maybe, but as Hillary explained, Stevens knew how to ask for security to match the threat levels. Did he ask Hillary for security? NO! As Hillary explained all the US Diplomats know who to ask for security through the appropriate channels. If anything needs to be examined it is the acts conducted by those arranging for security and WE all know where that is going. As mentioned on previous post, GOP lead Congress denied appropriate funding for security in diplomacy. So, what's a contracting officer going to do with little funding for security. A contract officer will go after the lowest bid. What do you hear most of the time, "You get what you paid for." Lowly paid security people as providing your security.......this is a GOP-lead Congress fault. I believe the GOP-lead Congress should be setting in that front seat during the Benghazi investigation answering questions to why they denied appropriate funding for activities to the Secretary of State.

    Diplomatic mission personnel are the "boots-on-the-ground" for creating Democracy, business relations, trade, vital host nation interests and establish contacts for additional diplomatic missions. Stevens was that entity of first contact diplomacy. Several times during the GOP-lead Benghazi circus, it was reported Stevens was highly charged with an avid interest in the continuity of Libya. Benghazi was just one of those areas Stevens placed into his planning for a goal in a diplomatic mission.

    I do not understand people who refuse to understand the truth and the jobs of Secretary of State, Ambassadors, Consulates and all the people that diplomatic careers in the United States. There are hundreds of diplomatic missions going on and Benghazi is not different. Diplomacy is required around the world for trade, business, and security of free-nations. However, I understand that there are some who just believe America should just leave the rest of the world alone, like a hermit stays in his cave and rots. The world is a great experience and should be free to travel and conduct global business without fear of war and conflict. Our Diplomats are blessed to be part of this endeavor to make a global pact of nations interested in working together.

    AMC -- I agree with you. Diplomatic missions in some parts of the world have high risks and rewards. The very capable professional and dedicated diplomatic staff (as opposed to ambassadorships awarded for party loyalty) work tirelessly and without any public accolades in very difficult circumstances. As Hillary said, 99.9 percent of the time they make the quiet right decisions. They are not allowed to make one mistake, any more than a fighter pilot is allowed one mistake, without catching headlines, and depending on under who's watch an event occurred, the baseless political propaganda of tiny minds.

    I believe Ambassador Stevens, a highly experienced diplomat and savvy to all the risks, made this one mistake. Hillary doesn't want to impinge his reputation, but from everything that I learned about the incident leading up to the attack, Ambassador Stevens shares the largest part of the responsibility for his own death. That is not something that anyone can openly say...it's just not patriotic to even think in those terms with catching the political ire of those that want to capitalize on his death.

    This was not just an attack by a few gunmen. It was well orchestrated and even if Stevens had a small army of security it might not have been enough. These are the risks that our diplomats face all over the world. We do not want to become isolationists and Monday morning quarterbacking by those with little knowledge of the circumstances serves no useful purpose.

    Trey Gowdy's panel should be disbanded.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The GOP wouldn't pay then. Looks like they may be paying a lot more now.

    Want to blame somebody for the Benghazi , start here:

    House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

    Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

    Mother Jones

    GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security ...

    thinkprogress.org/security/.../chaffetz-absolutely-funding-embassy-security/

    Oct 10, 2012 - Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for ... When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“: ... for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program ...

    www.usnews.com/opinion/.../the-gop-will-see-a-big-benghazi-backfire

    Oct 7, 2015 - The American people finally got a glimpse into what the GOP's Benghazihullabaloo is really all about.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    The GOP wouldn't pay then. Looks like they may be paying a lot more now.

    Want to blame somebody for the Benghazi , start here:

    House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

    Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

    Mother Jones

    GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security ...

    thinkprogress.org/security/.../chaffetz-absolutely-funding-embassy-security/

    Oct 10, 2012 - Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for ... When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“: ... for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program ...

    www.usnews.com/opinion/.../the-gop-will-see-a-big-benghazi-backfire

    Oct 7, 2015 - The American people finally got a glimpse into what the GOP's Benghazihullabaloo is really all about.
    Chet, yes that is how it works; they rather spent it on 13 billion dollar warships or 400 million dollar a piece F35's; but yeah in case something goes wrong then the lawyer types like Hillary will safe the day but indirectly we are loosing another 5 million for nothing; so no problem. What a country.