New Doll? Hide Me Hillary

[kantuckyII]

It is amazing, this woman is hiding out and to think even for one moment that some might think she could become the next president when a simple bump on the head keeps her from testifying two weeks later is ridiculous! This has to be the most corrupt administration since the Nixon administration or rather I'm afraid they surpass that

Beyond Benghazi: questions for Clinton
JOHN BOLTON
Last Updated: 3:37 AM, December 27, 2012
The State Department’s Accountability Review Board last week issued a devastating report on the events leading up to the Sept. 11 assassination of four Americans at our Benghazi consulate. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has still not faced questioning by Congress or the media more than three months after the tragedy.

A series of excuses has conveniently allowed her to escape cross examination until after the ARB report was released. Clinton sails right along, now preparing the first steps for what is widely expected to be her 2016 presidential campaign.


Clinton: Responsible for broad policy failures in the entire region.
Last week, however, Sen. Bob Corker asserted that no new secretary of state be confirmed until Clinton testifies. Corker, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee starting in January, was joined by Sen. Lindsey Graham. Their idea provides a strong incentive to committee Chairman John Kerry, now tapped as Clinton’s successor, to schedule her testimony.

The starting point for questioning Clinton is realizing that the Benghazi debacle embodies both policy and management failures. The administration’s utterly wrong-headed view of the Middle East created an atmosphere that fostered tragically erroneous management decisions. Clinton’s blithe disregard of the actual political reality in Libya and four years of not attending to seemingly mundane management issues represented a palpable failure of leadership directly contributing to the Benghazi tragedy.

The ARB did not blame specific individuals, citing instead “systemic” failures. Clinton’s deputies, testifying in her absence on Dec. 20, conceded that State had not “connected the dots” as security deteriorated in Libya and the Middle East generally.

But in any organization, there is only one “first chair,” and Clinton must answer why she (and President Obama) was so convinced that the war on terror was over and al Qaeda defeated; that “leading from behind” in overthrowing Khadafy had succeeded, and that the Arab Spring was bringing stability and democracy to Libya and the region more broadly.

The Benghazi tragedy disproved all these assertions, and Clinton is accountable for the broad policy failures, not just the deadly specifics. Congressional hearings should go well beyond the ARB report. The basic questions Clinton now must answer are straightforward: What did she know; when did she know it — and what did she do about it, before, during and after the Sept. 11 attacks? Here are some elaborations:

* Before the attack, was Clinton aware of the security threats to our consulate and other international presences in Benghazi? Did she know about repeated Tripoli embassy requests for enhanced security? If not, why not?

Libya was a centerpiece of supposed success in Obama’s foreign policy, not some country of small significance and low threat levels. It is important to establish not only the actual paper trail in this case, but even more importantly why, on such a critical foreign-policy issue, it did not automatically come to Clinton’s seventh-floor office.

* On Sept. 11, what were Clinton and Obama doing? We need a minute-by-minute chronology. When was she first told of the attack, and what was said? When and how many times did she speak with the president? What help did she ask for? Was it denied, and by whom? When did she retire for the evening?

* And in the tragedy’s aftermath, Clinton must explain how the administration came up with its story that the Benghazi attack grew out of a demonstration against the now-famous Mohammed video trailer. Clinton herself referred to the video at the Sept. 14 ceremony when the remains of the four murdered Americans returned home. On this point, the ARB was crystal clear that “no protest took place” before the attacks.

Obama will hold office for four more years, and Clinton apparently aspires to succeed him. Their worldview and its policy consequences must not be allowed to escape scrutiny as they did in the just-concluded presidential campaign. Most of the media have certainly shown little interest in exposing administration failures. Clinton’s testimony may be the last chance to do so for a long time.

[Kentucky Trojan]

[kantuckyII]

Lol!

[Kentucky Trojan]

[dazed&confused]

[TRENCHFOOT]

:122245

[kantuckyII]

Now, you see why you're being labeled as a poster of dumb post? it's stuff like this. You're increasingly reminding me of Abuck

[dazed&confused]

Now, you see why you're being labeled as a poster of dumb post? it's stuff like this. You're increasingly reminding me of Abuck

[mister b]

Have we not forgotten that the 2 years leading up to this that Embassy security funding was cut by $371 million dollars?

The GOP controlled House currently wants to cut this funding by another 20% from 2012 funding levels.

Both sides of the aisle are to blame for the Embassy raid and lack of protection.

[kantuckyII]

That's a bogus cop out by this administration. The attackers and this administration are the only ones at fault. They DID HAVE HIRED LOCAL SECURITY - who ran as soon as trouble started. What is at issue is that there were clear warning signs this administration ignored. We need Hillary to testify so blame for the failure can be put on the right persons.

By the way, we have 15,000 contractors in Iraq presently, sure a couple dozen marines could have been inserted there. Also, for eight hours the state dept watched the attack in real time. One of the Navy Seals who died by setting out on his own to try and save those in the embassy had painted or targeted the mortar that was coming down on the embassy but this administration refused to launch a single missile which probably would have ended this right then. Heck, we have drones flying all over that are taking out targets to this day, why wouldn't they do it here?

Clinton, you need to big your big girl granny panties on and answer for yourself

[mister b]

Thats good, fire a missile on our own embassy compound and maybe kill our own people.

No, both sides of the aisle are to blame on this one, not just 1 side or 1 person.

Security was not properly staffed and rent a cops are not the way. Local security, especially in these Muslim countries will not fight their own people to protect Americans.

As I said before, both sides of the aisle are to blame.

[Kentucky Trojan]

Thats good, fire a missile on our own embassy compound and maybe kill our own people.

No, both sides of the aisle are to blame on this one, not just 1 side or 1 person.

Security was not properly staffed and rent a cops are not the way. Local security, especially in these Muslim countries will not fight their own people to protect Americans.

As I said before, both sides of the aisle are to blame.

The federal government gives unfunded mandates for education all of the time.

Since this would be considered a mandate (protection) and it is at least underfunded, then it is the job of the CEO to make due with whatever resources are available.

Therefore, the CEO (or in this case the Commander-in-Chief) is to blame.

He is the head of the State Department since he is Hillary's boss.

Therefore, Obama is to blame.

[mister b]

Funding for this comes through the House and Senate.

The President can request funding but what he requests doesn't always get funded.

Nearly $500 million was cut for Embassy funding in the House. Through negotiations, $88 million was added back in the Senate for a net loss of $371 million from the previous funding bill.

Both sides are to blame.

[Kentucky Trojan]

Funding for this comes through the House and Senate.

The President can request funding but what he requests doesn't always get funded.

Nearly $500 million was cut for Embassy funding in the House. Through negotiations, $88 million was added back in the Senate for a net loss of $371 million from the previous funding bill.

Both sides are to blame.

No...

.....security must be maintained with or without the appropriate funding...

Obama and Clinton, et al are to blame...

Period!

[mister b]

Funding must be approved by both Houses in Washington.

Period.

Even Bush had to ask for additional money to keep fighting the war on terror.

[Kentucky Trojan]

Funding must be approved by both Houses in Washington.

Period.

Even Bush had to ask for additional money to keep fighting the war on terror.

This isn't about funding...it is about leadership...

...this is most definitely lacking in the Executive Branch...

[mister b]

I think it is lacking in the vast majority of our national and state governments. That includes both sides of the aisle.

[Kentucky Trojan]

I think it is lacking in the vast majority of our national and state governments. That includes both sides of the aisle.

But in the case of Benghazi, it is about Obama and Hillary...

[mister b]

No, they are not solely to blame.

Funding for all parts of the government, including Embassy protection, must be approved in the funding bill which was decreased from previous levels.

Local security is not the answer but it was used. Wrongly. And this was due to decreased funding for security.

Their blood is on all the hands in Washington.

However, can we truely make our Embassies completely safe in some countrys?

No, that is why some of our Embassies need to be closed. Because we cannot proved the security needed to protect our civil servants.

[Kentucky Trojan]

No, they are not solely to blame.

Funding for all parts of the government, including Embassy protection, must be approved in the funding bill which was decreased from previous levels.

Local security is not the answer but it was used. Wrongly. And this was due to decreased funding for security.

Their blood is on all the hands in Washington.

However, can we truely make our Embassies completely safe in some countrys?

No, that is why some of our Embassies need to be closed. Because we cannot proved the security needed to protect our civil servants.

Obama is not the most effective international leader that we could have...neither is Hillary...

Excuses, excuses, excuses for a lack of leadership in the executive office...