Republicans, who, or what entity, could investigate the Benghazi incident to your satisfaction?
Who, or what entity, could investigate the Benghazi incident that Republicans would accept the findings/conclusions from?
Republicans refuse to accept the findings of 8 different official government investigations conducted over several years by the very people they themselves elected in most cases. Whose findings would they accept? Or will they only be happy if Hillary Clinton is destroyed to sate their irrational disdain for her, and their contempt for Democrats in general?
your last sentence is the correct answer. they could care less about the 4 dead, as they never made a peep about the dead under bush. its all political. their values, their feelings, their attitudes, the way they view and judge the world. POLITICS is the only game in town for that motley crew.
chaffetts has vowed to never let it go. we have got to get rid of them!!! unfortunately, with redistricting that is impossible. maybe there is a second amendment solution...sometimes we have to water that tree. (thats not a threat in any way, is it?)
This question just jumped out at me for one straight forward reason: "incident". An attack on US soil, and murder of US citizens, possibly caused by negligent to say the least handling of classified material is an "incident"? Son's death incident?
its usually called "collateral damage".
Is that from the TV/Press/Movies -- Politicians? I may be naive but I have never heard a "soldier" civilian or otherwise even come close to suggesting a fellow countryman could ever be referenced "collateral". CNN?
thats what they call innocent civilians who die in conflicts. "sorry, cant be helped". little babies, grandmothers, etc.
An odd thing to bring up now. What exactly brought this topic back up?
Look I can't speak for others, but I put this to bed years ago, did my own research (one of the few issues in the past decade that I actually did do extensive research on, even talked to a few people I hadn't spoken to in years to garner some inkling into it).
I wrote a hub or two about it... but in summary what was occurring was a secret transfer of weapons from Libya (the deposed Gaddafi's stash of goodies) to Syrian rebels.
The Obama administration has decided to launch a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels. SEE: Report by Christina Lamb - The Sunday Times of London
Diplomatic sources told the Sunday Times that the U.S. "bought weapons from the stockpiles of Libya's former dictator Muammar Gaddafi."
Mortars, rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft heat-seeking SA-7 missiles, which were integral to countering Bashar Al-Assad's bombing campaign.
U.S. agents, particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens, were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi" who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.
Stevens' last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, Stevens was in Benghazi "to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists."
Years ago the Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the now-exposed CIA annex. It follows that the "weapons transfer" that Stevens negotiated involved sending weapons recovered by the CIA to the revolutionaries in Syria.
I don’t have an issue with any of that, that is how things work, how they have always worked. Nothing is what it seems when it comes to international negotiations, foreign conflicts, etc. when reported by the news… let me assure you, whether it is Benghazi, or the Iran Nuclear Deal, or anything else, you are not being told the real deal when you hear about it in the news.
Especially when you hear something as absurd as that being the result of a “youtube video”... what malarkey that was.
so you would agree they are only doing it to gaslight hillary? and we pay millions. paid millions for lewinsky, watergate, foster...but it was like pulling teeth to investigate 3,000 americans murdered at work. one reason: republicans in charge.
Now contrast that with the Iran Contra, and why doesn't it play the same?
Something fishy here. You state that we do not get anything reliable from the press yet the cited sources for this answer are from the press. And you might want to answer how the Americans were left so ill protected -- isn't that the real issue?
Erik I noted a news source which is not American, I was not specific in regards to that so let me be so now, American news is untrustworthy, whatever propaganda the White House tells it to put out is usually put out. IE- a youtube video causing riot
I see your point. In a long ago life I worked for a newspaper called La Prensa in a country seemingly fond of shooting journalists. Truth seemed to mean something -- yet it came with a price. I guess we now refuse to pay it.
No shooting them here, just ruin their careers, use the IRS against them, etc. as for your other question about the lack of protection, could that be because it was an 'un-official' 'black-ops' type of deal? One no one in Washington wanted public?
Ken, in my personal view -- this is why this is so important. Coming from next to "Fightertown USA". We see the lack of support for our people in harm's way everyday. From low pay, bad medical to "decaying" material. Miramar Air Show today.
Indeed, its treasonous how we treat those that serve our country, yet we are so willing to bring in immigrants by the millions and offer them better care, and social supports than those who sacrificed and served. Washington needs a major overhaul.
those who dont serve deserve better as well. we deserve a livable wage, medical care and a decent retirement. biz needs to pay better wages, take less for the ceo.
Yes one diverts from the point at hand to raise the flag of their own cause. Consistently diverting attention to an issue to raise their issue. Shouldn't we be talking about baby whales and BLM and pipelines here? Please lover of Chris -- join us.
were all treated badly. why single out veterans? are they more american than anyone else? a person out here working full deserves better, too. its all related.
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
Over recent years both Britain and America invited Libyan leader Colonel Gadafy into their respective democratic processes, and even turned a blind eye to the many murders committed by Gadafy and his terrorist regimes...
by Grace Marguerite Williams18 months ago
What is the president evading regarding the Benghazi incident which took many Americanlives?
by Alternative Prime23 months ago
So, who didn’t realize this pathetic republican scheme from day one? Are you upset? Angry at BACKWARD conservative republicans for the total waste of your TAX money? Republican Kevin McCarthy seemed to inadvertently...
by Shyron E Shenko20 months ago
Why do you Hate Hillary? Can you tell us? I would guess, most people will say Benghazi & not know whI would bet that most people don't even know that the Republican Congress denied funding for additional security in...
by TSAD3 years ago
If Hillary runs for President in 2016 will her Benghazi scandal affect your vote? Why or why not?The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods,...
by Useful Knowledge8 years ago
North Korea is threatening to "wipe the Us off the map." Do they have the weapons to do this? Do you think we can intercept thier missiles?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.