Hillary Clinton Missing As G O P Refuses To Confirm Kerry As Secretary Of State

[chuckd]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

If Carter had tried to cover it up, as the Obama administration has done with Benghazi, it would have been a scandal.

What you people still don't understand is the scandal isn't the attack, the scandal is the lack of adequate protection at the Consulate and the lack of help provided the Ambassador and his group during the 7 hour attack, compounded by nearly two weeks of trying to blame it on some silly video none of the attackers had likely ever heard of.

That's the scandal.

[chuckd]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

The Tehran Embassy raid and the Beirut bombings were in a totally different atmosphere. That was all pre-9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I was in the Embassy in Tehran in late 1978 and it was protected and guarded about as well as Benghazi was in 2012. Nearly all Embassies had been hardened defensively around the world after 9/11 and the various attacks. The Central Bank of Iran had better protection than the US Embassy did back then.

In addition did anybody in the Reagan administration try to cover anything up?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Edited January 10, 2013 by chuckd

[F430murci]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

The Tehran Embassy raid and the Beirut bombings were in a totally different atmosphere. That was all pre-9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I was in the Embassy in Tehran in late 1978 and it was protected and guarded about as well as Benghazi was in 2012. Nearly all Embassies had been hardened defensively around the world after 9/11 and the various attacks. The Central Bank of Iran had better protection than the US Embassy did back then.

In addition did anybody in the Reagan administration try to cover anything up?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Iran-Contra and Ollie North hearings? I actually tried a class action case with Ollie's lawyer once.

[F430murci]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

The Tehran Embassy raid and the Beirut bombings were in a totally different atmosphere. That was all pre-9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I was in the Embassy in Tehran in late 1978 and it was protected and guarded about as well as Benghazi was in 2012. Nearly all Embassies had been hardened defensively around the world after 9/11 and the various attacks. The Central Bank of Iran had better protection than the US Embassy did back then.

In addition did anybody in the Reagan administration try to cover anything up?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

The funny part though is you would believe just because Reagan and his administration are or were a Republican he or they would not cover anything at all up. Haha. Speaks volumes.

Edited January 10, 2013 by F430murci

[Chicog]

I think Reagan developed selective memory well before he developed Alzheimers.

[Scott]

I think Reagan developed selective memory well before he developed Alzheimers.

As have quite a number of posters on both sides of the issue.

[chuckd]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

The Tehran Embassy raid and the Beirut bombings were in a totally different atmosphere. That was all pre-9/11 and Al Qaeda.

I was in the Embassy in Tehran in late 1978 and it was protected and guarded about as well as Benghazi was in 2012. Nearly all Embassies had been hardened defensively around the world after 9/11 and the various attacks. The Central Bank of Iran had better protection than the US Embassy did back then.

In addition did anybody in the Reagan administration try to cover anything up?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Iran-Contra and Ollie North hearings? I actually tried a class action case with Ollie's lawyer once.

Pardon me but weren't we were discussing the Beirut bombings when Reagan was mentioned?

And, since you mention it, wasn't the scandal on Ollie North more the cover-up than anything else? Just like Benghazi.

[SteeleJoe]

And, since you mention it, wasn't the scandal on Ollie North more the cover-up than anything else? Just like Benghazi.

I'd say that in addition to the cover-up, what was being covered up was extremely scandalous.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Scott]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...this is starting to get too far off topic.

The topic is about Hillary missing the hearing and the refusal to approve Kerry. Benghazi is probably off-topic, but is understandably relevant. Ollie North, Beirut, Regan and Carter are moving a little bit far afield.

Stay on topic please.

[Chicog]

What you people still don't understand is the scandal isn't the attack, the scandal is the lack of adequate protection at the Consulate and the lack of help provided the Ambassador and his group during the 7 hour attack, compounded by nearly two weeks of trying to blame it on some silly video none of the attackers had likely ever heard of.

That's the scandal.

What do you mean "understand"? If it was that simple, why would they need senate and congressional hearings?

As I said, too many people are trying to predetermine an outcome to suit their argument without waiting to hear exactly what happened.

One key fact is that "Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status."

I doubt an Information Office would merit the same security as a consulate or embassy.

"We people" understand your take on things, Chuck. I just don't agree with it. I think you're focusing on the Fox headlines and not on the facts, and I also think there is plenty of classified material that we may never hear that could change your view of events - other than the silly "was it the video or wasn't it" stuff to which you keep clinging as if it matters that much.

If the State Department got that wrong (and it appears they did), then it's an intelligence failure. And heads have already rolled in that department, conveniently enough.

If they fluffed around it because there was an election coming up, that's politics, and don't tell me the Democrats are the only ones who'd pull that stunt.

Oh, and what about:

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Chicog

[chuckd]

What you people still don't understand is the scandal isn't the attack, the scandal is the lack of adequate protection at the Consulate and the lack of help provided the Ambassador and his group during the 7 hour attack, compounded by nearly two weeks of trying to blame it on some silly video none of the attackers had likely ever heard of.

That's the scandal.

What do you mean "understand"? If it was that simple, why would they need senate and congressional hearings?

As I said, too many people are trying to predetermine an outcome to suit their argument without waiting to hear exactly what happened.

One key fact is that "Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status."

I doubt an Information Office would merit the same security as a consulate or embassy.

"We people" understand your take on things, Chuck. I just don't agree with it. I think you're focusing on the Fox headlines and not on the facts, and I also think there is plenty of classified material that we may never hear that could change your view of events - other than the silly "was it the video or wasn't it" stuff to which you keep clinging as if it matters that much.

If the State Department got that wrong (and it appears they did), then it's an intelligence failure. And heads have already rolled in that department, conveniently enough.

If they fluffed around it because there was an election coming up, that's politics, and don't tell me the Democrats are the only ones who'd pull that stunt.

Oh, and what about:

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.

Yet there is this, which is just now coming out. The State Department plan was an utter failure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libyan Gun Control Policies Left Guards Unarmed at U.S. Compound in Benghazi

By Terence P. Jeffrey

January 9, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - The gun control policies of the post-Gaddafi government in Libya delayed the arming of bodyguards for U.S. diplomats in that country and left the local guard force hired to watch over the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi unarmed, according to internal State Department memos and written testimony by the State Department officer who was in charge of the department’s security in Libya until six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks.

“Our long term security plan in Libya was to recruit and deploy an armed, locally hired Libyan bodyguard unit,” State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony.

“However, because of Libyan political sensitivities, armed private security companies were not allowed to operate in Libya,” Nordstrom said in his testimony submitted on Oct. 10. “Therefore, our existing, uniformed static local guard force, both in Tripoli and Benghazi were unarmed, similar to our static local guard forces at many posts around the world.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/libyan-gun-control-policies-left-guards-unarmed-us-compound-benghazi

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last sentence is rather telling..."Their job was to observe, report, and alert armed host nation security, and armed DS agents on-site.”

There was a grand total of exactly ONE armed DS (Diplomatic Service) agent on site when the Ambassador was in an unsecured location in a war zone in a Moslem country on the anniversary of 9/11.

Yep, that speaks of great management from the top down.

Look, you obviously worship the ground Obama and Hillary float across while I obviously do not. We need to agree to disagree.

I am certain the moderators would appreciate it and I am positive I will.

[Chicog]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to finally testify before Congress late this month regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a GOP senator claimed yesterday.

"I had some very good conversations with her chief of staff," Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview on MSNBC. "My sense is, her hearing probably will take place the morning of the 22nd."

Edited January 11, 2013 by Chicog

[Sing_Sling]

There's also a limit on how many military personnel one can station at an embassy or legation . . . in a war-zone it is best to get the people out until calm has been restored to avoid things like this happening.

There was NO US Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli. One had been requested by the Ambassador but it was denied somewhere in the State Department.

Wouldn't have done much good if there was one, considering the attack was in Benghazi.

If there had been a permanent Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli, it is highly likely some would have accompanied the Ambassador on his TDY assignment in Benghazi.

Absolutely incorrect . . . a military presence is there to guard the compound, it is not in their purview to leave the embassy/legation armed.

You should really read up on this if you're going to comment . . .

(I'm a Dip kid - spent my whole life until my twenties in that world)

[Sing_Sling]

There's also a limit on how many military personnel one can station at an embassy or legation . . . in a war-zone it is best to get the people out until calm has been restored to avoid things like this happening.

There was NO US Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli. One had been requested by the Ambassador but it was denied somewhere in the State Department.

Wouldn't have done much good if there was one, considering the attack was in Benghazi.

Benghazi, Triploi, Cairo, Egypt, Libya . . . it's all the same to these guys - anyway, your factual correction has impeded the debate . . . clearly

[theblether]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

It's not comparable. If we stick to facts, HC has accepted responsibility.

Maybe you and others can't accept that, but hey, that's the rough game that politics is at that level. Truman famously had "The buck stops here" sign on his desk........now it seems the modern sign should read "The buck only stops here when it makes me look good".

HC took the bullet, good for her, get over it.

[Jingthing]

...

HC took the bullet, good for her, get over it.

I'm over it big time!

Look the majority of Americans see this for what it is. Republican party partisan political games. Not a scandal.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Jingthing

[theblether]

...

HC took the bullet, good for her, get over it.

I'm over it big time!

Look the majority of Americans see this for what it is. Republican party partisan political games. Not a scandal.

I'll wait with interest to see what the final outcome is. The US usually gets to the truth in the end.

.

Edited January 11, 2013 by theblether

[Sing_Sling]

...

HC took the bullet, good for her, get over it.

I'm over it big time!

Look the majority of Americans see this for what it is. Republican party partisan political games. Not a scandal.

I'll wait with interest to see what the final outcome is. The US usually gets to the truth in the end.

.

[Scott]

Off-topic and baiting posts have been removed. Please stay on topic.

[Exsexyman]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

If Carter had tried to cover it up, as the Obama administration has done with Benghazi, it would have been a scandal.

What you people still don't understand is the scandal isn't the attack, the scandal is the lack of adequate protection at the Consulate and the lack of help provided the Ambassador and his group during the 7 hour attack, compounded by nearly two weeks of trying to blame it on some silly video none of the attackers had likely ever heard of.

That's the scandal.

When Hillary Clinton was taken ill, Fox News pundits were questioning whether she was really ill. Indeed John Bolton stated that it was common knowledge that she was feigning illness to avoid testifying. When it transpired that she was suffering from a blood clot near her brain, not one word of apology or acknowledgement that he was wrong.

That's a scandal!

Regarding the Benghazi killings, just because John Bolton and his fellow travellers, like you, desperately want there to be a scandal, doesn't mean that there is one!

[chuckd]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

If Carter had tried to cover it up, as the Obama administration has done with Benghazi, it would have been a scandal.

What you people still don't understand is the scandal isn't the attack, the scandal is the lack of adequate protection at the Consulate and the lack of help provided the Ambassador and his group during the 7 hour attack, compounded by nearly two weeks of trying to blame it on some silly video none of the attackers had likely ever heard of.

That's the scandal.

When Hillary Clinton was taken ill, Fox News pundits were questioning whether she was really ill. Indeed John Bolton stated that it was common knowledge that she was feigning illness to avoid testifying. When it transpired that she was suffering from a blood clot near her brain, not one word of apology or acknowledgement that he was wrong.

That's a scandal!

Regarding the Benghazi killings, just because John Bolton and his fellow travellers, like you, desperately want there to be a scandal, doesn't mean that there is one!

I don't WANT there to be a scandal, contrary to your somewhat biased opinion, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. It demeans you even further.

However, I do believe there already IS a scandal and it deserves looking into. Just my humble opinion, if you will still permit me to offer one.

[Jingthing]

Perhaps you don't, but the Fox News/Tea Party/Republican party crowd clearly DOES.

[Sing_Sling]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

If Carter had tried to cover it up, as the Obama administration has done with Benghazi, it would have been a scandal.

What you people still don't understand is the scandal isn't the attack, the scandal is the lack of adequate protection at the Consulate and the lack of help provided the Ambassador and his group during the 7 hour attack, compounded by nearly two weeks of trying to blame it on some silly video none of the attackers had likely ever heard of.

That's the scandal.

When Hillary Clinton was taken ill, Fox News pundits were questioning whether she was really ill. Indeed John Bolton stated that it was common knowledge that she was feigning illness to avoid testifying. When it transpired that she was suffering from a blood clot near her brain, not one word of apology or acknowledgement that he was wrong.

That's a scandal!

Regarding the Benghazi killings, just because John Bolton and his fellow travellers, like you, desperately want there to be a scandal, doesn't mean that there is one!

I don't WANT there to be a scandal, contrary to your somewhat biased opinion, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. It demeans you even further.

However, I do believe there already IS a scandal and it deserves looking into. Just my humble opinion, if you will still permit me to offer one.

It does seem as though you need there to be a scandal to justify your position vis-a-vis this discussion.

[maidu]

Can you explain how it's an artificial scandal?

It is. It's a desperate attempt by Republicans to try and get some tar to stick to one or more of the top people at the State Dept. It won't work. Do any Republicans think they can get Ms Clinton to do anything but act stately? Do they think she's going to break down like a patsy, and say, "OK ok, you're all right. We intentionally misled everyone. Burn me with the fire of indignation at the stake of Republican rightousness!"

from OP: “....other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

If that's the most damning quote the Reps can dig up on Ms Clinton, then they don't have a ratty little soapbox to stand on. Incedentally, it's doubtful that there's any legal imperative that she get called on the congressional carpet. When there have been such hearings in the past, has the prior Secretary been required to appear at a nomination hearing? I think not. Kerry is a fine man for the position, and the Reps know that. The Reps are just trying to make some political points, and they're trying to leverage a tragedy to do so. Shame on them.

[chuckd]

When Hillary Clinton was taken ill, Fox News pundits were questioning whether she was really ill. Indeed John Bolton stated that it was common knowledge that she was feigning illness to avoid testifying. When it transpired that she was suffering from a blood clot near her brain, not one word of apology or acknowledgement that he was wrong.

That's a scandal!

Regarding the Benghazi killings, just because John Bolton and his fellow travellers, like you, desperately want there to be a scandal, doesn't mean that there is one!

I don't WANT there to be a scandal, contrary to your somewhat biased opinion, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. It demeans you even further.

However, I do believe there already IS a scandal and it deserves looking into. Just my humble opinion, if you will still permit me to offer one.

It does seem as though you need there to be a scandal to justify your position vis-a-vis this discussion.

Well, let me get this right.

Exsexyman claims he knows what I want and now you say I need a scandal to justify my opinions. I don't need justifications for my opinions when it comes to the Clintons. They are the consummate political animals and have been known to stretch the truth when it became politically convenient.

Both of your statements are false (I never liked the word "lies").

For the record, in my opinion the only thing I think Hillary is guilty of is malfeasance in not protecting the Benghazi facilities properly and providing inadequate security details to protect the State Department personnel.

Higher up the food chain is where the main cover-up is being handled.

[theblether]

Can you explain how it's an artificial scandal?

It is. It's a desperate attempt by Republicans to try and get some tar to stick to one or more of the top people at the State Dept. It won't work. Do any Republicans think they can get Ms Clinton to do anything but act stately? Do they think she's going to break down like a patsy, and say, "OK ok, you're all right. We intentionally misled everyone. Burn me with the fire of indignation at the stake of Republican rightousness!"

from OP: “....other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

If that's the most damning quote the Reps can dig up on Ms Clinton, then they don't have a ratty little soapbox to stand on. Incedentally, it's doubtful that there's any legal imperative that she get called on the congressional carpet. When there have been such hearings in the past, has the prior Secretary been required to appear at a nomination hearing? I think not. Kerry is a fine man for the position, and the Reps know that. The Reps are just trying to make some political points, and they're trying to leverage a tragedy to do so. Shame on them.

Alternatively she may calmly state that she had been appraised of the security situation in Benghazi and didn't act upon it.

Do you think that's beyond the realms of possibility?

[FDog]

ChuckD, I've read through pretty much all the posts.lic

I don't agree with your view, but that doesn't matter.

Just thought I would let you know that YOU disagree with others but instead of being vitriolic, by and large, you do put up your own argument.

Good on you for adding to the debate/discusssion without relying on childish responses. Well not too much anyway.

[Sing_Sling]

When Hillary Clinton was taken ill, Fox News pundits were questioning whether she was really ill. Indeed John Bolton stated that it was common knowledge that she was feigning illness to avoid testifying. When it transpired that she was suffering from a blood clot near her brain, not one word of apology or acknowledgement that he was wrong.

That's a scandal!

Regarding the Benghazi killings, just because John Bolton and his fellow travellers, like you, desperately want there to be a scandal, doesn't mean that there is one!

I don't WANT there to be a scandal, contrary to your somewhat biased opinion, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. It demeans you even further.

However, I do believe there already IS a scandal and it deserves looking into. Just my humble opinion, if you will still permit me to offer one.

It does seem as though you need there to be a scandal to justify your position vis-a-vis this discussion.

Well, let me get this right.

Exsexyman claims he knows what I want and now you say I need a scandal to justify my opinions. I don't need justifications for my opinions when it comes to the Clintons. They are the consummate political animals and have been known to stretch the truth when it became politically convenient.

Both of your statements are false (I never liked the word "lies").

For the record, in my opinion the only thing I think Hillary is guilty of is malfeasance in not protecting the Benghazi facilities properly and providing inadequate security details to protect the State Department personnel.

Higher up the food chain is where the main cover-up is being handled.

So, you are admittedly a Clinton-Bigot and this, coupled with your conspiracy theories at the highest levels, makes you neutral . . . Please try again

Do you know what is involved in setting anything in another country? I'm sure you believe it would be a matter of flying in a platoon of marines to guard the compound . . . heck, a battalion! Add some tanks and APCs and all would have been well.

Now, you let me know which parts of the above are NOT possible.

[chuckd]

Well, let me get this right.

Exsexyman claims he knows what I want and now you say I need a scandal to justify my opinions. I don't need justifications for my opinions when it comes to the Clintons. They are the consummate political animals and have been known to stretch the truth when it became politically convenient.

Both of your statements are false (I never liked the word "lies").

For the record, in my opinion the only thing I think Hillary is guilty of is malfeasance in not protecting the Benghazi facilities properly and providing inadequate security details to protect the State Department personnel.

Higher up the food chain is where the main cover-up is being handled.

So, you are admittedly a Clinton-Bigot and this, coupled with your conspiracy theories at the highest levels, makes you neutral . . . Please try again

Do you know what is involved in setting anything in another country? I'm sure you believe it would be a matter of flying in a platoon of marines to guard the compound . . . heck, a battalion! Add some tanks and APCs and all would have been well.

Now, you let me know which parts of the above are NOT possible.

Why does anybody have to be neutral to voice an opinion? It hasn't stopped all you anti-Americans from voicing an opinion, now has it.

Sigh...Yes, I know what it is like to set things up in a foreign country. I set up three contracts in Saudi Arabia, set up security at two housing compounds after the Khobar bombings and worked in Saudi for over 30 years. Would that qualify me in your opinion?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FDog:

Thank you for your kind comments. I don't often hear them from the other side.

[Scott]

Stick to the topic. Not to the open-mindedness of other posters.