08-29-2015, 07:11 PM
The posts here are on-topic as it stands, pappy.
You did in fact make direct claims that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people in regards to Benghazi, and you compared the Ambassador's and CIA actions in Libya to Iran-Contra (inspiring my question about Qatar - which is not a straw-man argument by any reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't matter). Moving on....
You brought up Benghazi and it is a relevant current topic in relation to Clinton since she'll be appearing before Gowdy and the House Committee again in October, and due to the related email/server investigation.
I've followed Benghazi in the aftermath of the tragic attacks. After 2 years of investigation by multiple agencies and grilling by congresspersons, here are the top level results from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee Report released in Nov. 2014.
- The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. The CIA operatives were heroes.
- The allegations that a CIA response team was ordered to “stand down” after the State Department compound came under attack were determined to be false.
- The allegations that a military rescue was quashed were determined to be false.
- The speculation that that Ambassador Stevens and the CIA (for which Doherty was contracting) were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels were determined to be false.
- The State Department, under Hillary Clinton's leadership, was aware of security concerns in the months leading up to the attacks and did not respond adequately or quickly enough to address those concerns (which I personally hold as a mark against her).
- There were conflicting reports regarding the attackers, activity/protests outside of the complex before the attacks, and many other factors. The possibility of an advance-planned terror attack was not released to the public quickly and Susan Rice continued to push the "Muslim video protest" to the public without mentioning other reported scenarios. However, no intentional deception was proven by anyone in the Obama administration. (I personally think Rice is inept and Obama was wrong in not dumping her.)
I don't believe that the GOP-led Committee would try to cover for wrong-doing by President Obama or Hillary Clinton -- not by a long shot. But, I can imagine many reasons why they might withhold or strategically position findings for other reasons.
If new or incriminating information comes out during the hearings in October, is discovered in the course of the email investigation, or is proven and made available by any other credible means, it may well affect my assessment (and many others') in regards to Hillary Clinton's viability as a presidential candidate.
I consider myself sufficiently informed to develop my own opinions on the topics you threw out, and I have no basis or motivation to compare my level of knowledge or enlightenment to anyone else.
But, perhaps your posts here have inspired some readers to search for information for the first time, and perhaps that will inspire them not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not personally concerned about swaying other people's votes, but I understand that you are and that's certainly not a problem, pappy.
You did in fact make direct claims that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people in regards to Benghazi, and you compared the Ambassador's and CIA actions in Libya to Iran-Contra (inspiring my question about Qatar - which is not a straw-man argument by any reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't matter). Moving on....
You brought up Benghazi and it is a relevant current topic in relation to Clinton since she'll be appearing before Gowdy and the House Committee again in October, and due to the related email/server investigation.
I've followed Benghazi in the aftermath of the tragic attacks. After 2 years of investigation by multiple agencies and grilling by congresspersons, here are the top level results from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee Report released in Nov. 2014.
- The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. The CIA operatives were heroes.
- The allegations that a CIA response team was ordered to “stand down” after the State Department compound came under attack were determined to be false.
- The allegations that a military rescue was quashed were determined to be false.
- The speculation that that Ambassador Stevens and the CIA (for which Doherty was contracting) were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels were determined to be false.
- The State Department, under Hillary Clinton's leadership, was aware of security concerns in the months leading up to the attacks and did not respond adequately or quickly enough to address those concerns (which I personally hold as a mark against her).
- There were conflicting reports regarding the attackers, activity/protests outside of the complex before the attacks, and many other factors. The possibility of an advance-planned terror attack was not released to the public quickly and Susan Rice continued to push the "Muslim video protest" to the public without mentioning other reported scenarios. However, no intentional deception was proven by anyone in the Obama administration. (I personally think Rice is inept and Obama was wrong in not dumping her.)
I don't believe that the GOP-led Committee would try to cover for wrong-doing by President Obama or Hillary Clinton -- not by a long shot. But, I can imagine many reasons why they might withhold or strategically position findings for other reasons.
If new or incriminating information comes out during the hearings in October, is discovered in the course of the email investigation, or is proven and made available by any other credible means, it may well affect my assessment (and many others') in regards to Hillary Clinton's viability as a presidential candidate.
I consider myself sufficiently informed to develop my own opinions on the topics you threw out, and I have no basis or motivation to compare my level of knowledge or enlightenment to anyone else.
But, perhaps your posts here have inspired some readers to search for information for the first time, and perhaps that will inspire them not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not personally concerned about swaying other people's votes, but I understand that you are and that's certainly not a problem, pappy.