Hillary's Testimony Emotional.

Brooks · Feb 11, 2013

tecoyah said:
Yes, she not only deserves blame she has accepted it and is paying for it.

When asked why the administration would mislead the public with the offensive video scenario, she replied “What difference does it make?”

Those are definitely NOT the words of someone accepting blame.

There are issues and purposes to these hearings other than an investigation of a past incident. In theory anyway, we are supposed to learn what we did wrong, acknowledge it, do what we can to correct it, then improve our procedures in the future. Maybe even save lives as a result.

Her infamous response is a glimpse into the administration's priorities. They are still in CYA /coverup mode rather than maintaining a true and open-minded reflection on these events.

It is only through a more honest approach that the state department and the administration could achieve the improvements they claim to desire.
What they are doing instead is an insight into how they really feel.

tecoyah · Feb 11, 2013

Brooks said:
When asked why the administration would mislead the public with the offensive video scenario, she replied “What difference does it make?”

Those are definitely NOT the words of someone accepting blame.

There are issues and purposes to these hearings other than an investigation of a past incident. In theory anyway, we are supposed to learn what we did wrong, acknowledge it, do what we can to correct it, then improve our procedures in the future. Maybe even save lives as a result.

Her infamous response is a glimpse into the administration's priorities. They are still in CYA /coverup mode rather than maintaining a true and open-minded reflection on these events.

It is only through a more honest approach that the state department and the administration could achieve the improvements they claim to desire.
What they are doing instead is an insight into how they really feel.

I can only assume you did not watch the televised hearing in full, or that you did but somehow managed to remove all context from your mind when mentally reviewing it to form opinion. From my perspective (also somewhat biased), she was replying to a continuous onslaught focused on the talking points released, which had nothing to do with an honest evaluation meant to improve future response or address the issues that led to Benghazi.

[YOUTUBE]NrEz3_zVEgg[/YOUTUBE]

I understand your intent with this thread, as it is now one of many trying to do the same thing. I simply wish to point out the other 98% of what came out of this investigation and hearings.

Aeonpax · Feb 11, 2013

My personal opinions about this;

a) The GOP/Conservatives way over-reacted to this.

b) While I like Hillary, I'm sure she's lying about something. Everyone in government lies regardless of party or ideology.

Brooks · Feb 11, 2013

I disagree the administration's inaccurate talking points are quite so irrelevant. How they chose to present this story to us conveys their priorities.
The more of their limited energies and resources they put into the CYA and spin, the less they had available for true contemplation and possible solutions to future incidents.
They knew very early on what happened there and even went so far as to put this hapless video maker in jail. Was it to quell the Arab masses? No, they weren't angry about the video in the first place. It was to give more cred to their distraction.

So go back and look at the timeline as to what they said and when. That's only the public presentation. We can only imagine the hours of scrambling, finger pointing and spin tweaking that went on behind the scene. That time could have been better spent. And her continued reluctance during the hearing, I feel, shows that the PR is more important than the lessons learned.

Brooks · Feb 11, 2013

Aeonpax said:
My personal opinions about this;

a) The GOP/Conservatives way over-reacted to this.

b) Everyone in government lies regardless of party or ideology.

a) A Navy seal single-handedly held off a mob for several hours and was effectively left to die. He repeatedly asked for assistance, that could have arrived to help him, but was not given any. His sacrifice will never be given the public acknowledgement it deserves.
. The Ambassador repeatedly asked for more security and was not given what he needed. Secretary Clinton claims she was never told.
. The administration put out information they knew to be false.
I strongly disagree that the GOP over-reacted.

b) Your acknowledgement has the whiff of acceptance. Please don't let that happen.

David · Feb 11, 2013

Brooks said:
a) A Navy seal single-handedly held off a mob for several hours and was effectively left to die. He repeatedly asked for assistance, that could have arrived to help him, but was not given any. His sacrifice will never be given the public acknowledgement it deserves.
. The Ambassador repeatedly asked for more security and was not given what he needed. Secretary Clinton claims she was never told.
. The administration put out information they knew to be false.
I strongly disagree that the GOP over-reacted.

Actually the local CIA unit (and pro-West militias) was in the field fighting their way to the consulate. It's not that help wasn't sent but rather the enemy was able to hold them off. For some strang reason people keep forgetting we never invaded Libya, we didn't have an army that could rescue them.

Brooks · Feb 11, 2013

David said:
For some strang reason people keep forgetting we never invaded Libya, we didn't have an army that could rescue them.

I read multi-sourced that this particular SEaL was able to paint a target with a laser and was requesting assistance from, I believe, a base in Italy. It would have arrived in plenty of time for him. An "army" wouldn't have been necessary.

Also, although there's no official acknowledgement, the administration was able to view the attack in real time, so there is no excuse for the lack of assistance.

tecoyah · Feb 11, 2013

Brooks said:
I read multi-sourced that this particular SEaL was able to paint a target with a laser and was requesting assistance from, I believe, a base in Italy. It would have arrived in plenty of time for him. An "army" wouldn't have been necessary.

Also, although there's no official acknowledgement, the administration was able to view the attack in real time, so there is no excuse for the lack of assistance.

It would seem you are privy to information I have not seen. If possible please place this data here that we can all learn from it.

Laser targeting is a somewhat complex and intricate operative technique involving multiple units coordinating as one, unless the unit in Italy was monitoring closely, had knowledge of the operation, and happened to be in range laser targeting is just a pretty light show. Also, I was unaware we had something stationed in Italy capable of eliminating individual targets this accurately, and the real time video coverage you refer to would be very powerful to your case if it existed.

But please....elucidate.

David · Feb 11, 2013

Brooks said:
I read multi-sourced that this particular SEaL was able to paint a target with a laser and was requesting assistance from, I believe, a base in Italy. It would have arrived in plenty of time for him. An "army" wouldn't have been necessary.

Also, although there's no official acknowledgement, the administration was able to view the attack in real time, so there is no excuse for the lack of assistance.

Sending a missile would have probably killed that Seal... It's not like he was some sniper calling in a strike on a convoy 3 miles away, he was probably 50 feet or less from the horde at the gate.

misterveritis · Feb 11, 2013

David said:
Sending a missile would have probably killed that Seal... It's not like he was some sniper calling in a strike on a convoy 3 miles away, he was probably 50 feet or less from the horde at the gate.

We have all sorts of means to deal with those in close combat with us. This is not the first time in the history of US warfare that the enemy have been close to us.

Why do you feel the need to be an apologist for this base, corrupt administration. The One paid attention for fifteen minutes and then went missing for 8 hours. He did nothing. And you make excuses for inaction.

misterveritis · Feb 11, 2013

tecoyah said:
It would seem you are privy to information I have not seen. If possible please place this data here that we can all learn from it.

Laser targeting is a somewhat complex and intricate operative technique involving multiple units coordinating as one, unless the unit in Italy was monitoring closely, had knowledge of the operation, and happened to be in range laser targeting is just a pretty light show. Also, I was unaware we had something stationed in Italy capable of eliminating individual targets this accurately, and the real time video coverage you refer to would be very powerful to your case if it existed.

But please....elucidate.

It is actually pretty simple. Once the inbounds are near enough to pick up the laser reflections you point and lase. The inbounds take care of the rest. This is a call for fire with precision. With the right equipment he ccould have lased target after target sequentially and the inbounds would have serviced his targets until they ran out of stores.

David · Feb 11, 2013

misterveritis said:
We have all sorts of means to deal with those in close combat with us. This is not the first time in the history of US warfare that the enemy have been close to us.

Why do you feel the need to be an apologist for this base, corrupt administration. The One paid attention for fifteen minutes and then went missing for 8 hours. He did nothing. And you make excuses for inaction.

A CIA team and pro-West militias fighting there way to the consulate isn't doing nothing. Believe it or not but it's possible for our guys to lose a battle.

tecoyah · Feb 12, 2013

misterveritis said:
It is actually pretty simple. Once the inbounds are near enough to pick up the laser reflections you point and lase. The inbounds take care of the rest. This is a call for fire with precision. With the right equipment he ccould have lased target after target sequentially and the inbounds would have serviced his targets until they ran out of stores.

Actually, it is anything but simple. These air craft do not fire a gun toward a laser, they fire missiles with the electronics requires to hone in on said laser. This type of ordinance does not just impact the individual, it impacts the building, block, or depending on size, the area.
Aircraft are not meant to shoot a man, rather destroy vehicles and property. A close quarters combat situation is not the place to use such weapons....this is likely why we tried to use people.

Stonewall · Feb 12, 2013

Aeonpax said:
My personal opinions about this;

a) The GOP/Conservatives way over-reacted to this.

My, what a difference having an R or D in front of your name makes.

b) While I like Hillary, I'm sure she's lying about something. Everyone in government lies regardless of party or ideology.

"Sure, she's lying...but everyone does" so hey...let's just leave it be. Four US officials murdered, their killers free and untouched, the situation in Egypt even more chaotic, our Secretary of State lying to the entire nation, the Administration telling us for weeks it was some response to a movie, a demonstration gone awry.....but "everyone" in government lies so hey...

No worries.

For the love of God

misterveritis · Feb 12, 2013

David said:
A CIA team and pro-West militias fighting there way to the consulate isn't doing nothing. Believe it or not but it's possible for our guys to lose a battle.

Why are you an apoligist for the thoroughly disgusting and corrupt Obama? He did NOTHING! he went to sleep to get ready for a fund raiser.

Believe it or not it is also possible to destroy enough of the enemy that they disengage.

I cannot understand the need to defend Obama's passivity and inaction. He is a liar. And you support him.

misterveritis · Feb 12, 2013

tecoyah said:
Actually, it is anything but simple. These air craft do not fire a gun toward a laser, they fire missiles with the electronics requires to hone in on said laser. This type of ordinance does not just impact the individual, it impacts the building, block, or depending on size, the area.
Aircraft are not meant to shoot a man, rather destroy vehicles and property. A close quarters combat situation is not the place to use such weapons....this is likely why we tried to use people.

No. Despite your willingness to support the corrupt administration currently occupying the White house lasing a target is very simple.

The missiles will home on whatever is being lased. The missile really doesn't care. So lase the pavement under their feet. Or them. Or their trucks.

Do you think every bomb in our inventory is a 2,000 pounder? LOL. 250 lbs will clear the street just fine.

But the president, the One, the Marxist, was getting his beauty sleep while the Abandoned Four were being murdered. he had a propaganda event to prepare for.

misterveritis · Feb 12, 2013

tecoyah said:
Actually, it is anything but simple. These air craft do not fire a gun toward a laser, they fire missiles with the electronics requires to hone in on said laser. This type of ordinance does not just impact the individual, it impacts the building, block, or depending on size, the area.
Aircraft are not meant to shoot a man, rather destroy vehicles and property. A close quarters combat situation is not the place to use such weapons....this is likely why we tried to use people.

Just for run...what is your military experience?

David · Feb 12, 2013

misterveritis said:
Why are you an apoligist for the thoroughly disgusting and corrupt Obama? He did NOTHING! he went to sleep to get ready for a fund raiser.

Believe it or not it is also possible to destroy enough of the enemy that they disengage.

I cannot understand the need to defend Obama's passivity and inaction. He is a liar. And you support him.

You said we did nothing. I gave you an example of an attempted rescue. You go, "No u!" I think you lose this debate.

tecoyah · Feb 13, 2013

misterveritis said:
Just for run...what is your military experience?

None...yet my ability to read is obviously superior to your ability to attack an argument rather than a person.

Aeonpax · Feb 13, 2013

Brooks said:
a) A Navy seal single-handedly held off a mob for several hours and was effectively left to die. He repeatedly asked for assistance, that could have arrived to help him, but was not given any. His sacrifice will never be given the public acknowledgement it deserves.
. The Ambassador repeatedly asked for more security and was not given what he needed. Secretary Clinton claims she was never told.
. The administration put out information they knew to be false.
I strongly disagree that the GOP over-reacted. b) Your acknowledgement has the whiff of acceptance. Please don't let that happen.

While your story about a single handed effort of a navy seal holding down the fort (so to speak) has the stench of the right-wing propaganda network (faux, et al) and Mitt Romney using that same canard himself ( http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mother-slain-navy-seal-benghazi-tells-r ) the point is the incident was unfortunate and I have read no unbiased proof that the culpability worked its way up to the Secretary Of State.

I do not trust our government nor the corporate controlled media, regardless of ideology. Just as I am sure that the Obama administration would lie about it, so too would the GOP machine and its thralls.

Hillary's Testimony Emotional.

Similar threads