Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Ambassador Stevens Was in Benghazi on 9/11/12, on Budget Deadline, So Clinton Could Announce in Dec. that it had Become Permanent U.S. Post

Posted by   + Show Post


Note: Ambassador Chris Stevens was a Democrat.


May 9, 2013


By Terrence P. Jeffrey 

Ambassador Christopher Stevens--murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks—was at the poorly secured State Department facility in that city that day because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted to convert the department compound there into a permanent outpost and department officials wanted her to be able to announce this was the case when she made a planned visit to Libya in December 2012.

Stevens’ top deputy in Libya, Greg Hicks, made this point in congressional testimony on Wednesday, but it was omitted from the State Department's Accountability Review Board report published in December.

This was despite the fact that Hicks specifically told the ARB that Clinton wanted the Benghazi mission converted into a permanent post.


At a January 26, 2012 town hall meeting with State Department employees, Clinton had indicated she would not remain as secretary of state in a second Obama term. "I think I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur," she said. Given that she was planning to leave the State Department after 2012, a trip to Libya in December of last year to announce that the U.S. had established a permanent diplomatic presence in Benghazi--the city in which the Obama administration had anchored its support for anti-Qaddafi Libyan revolutionaries--could have been a triumphant capstone to Clinton's own diplomatic career.

Amb. Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, the co-chairs of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack--and that omitted from its  public report any mention of Stevens traveling to Benghazi because Clinton wanted to make it a permanent post—have refused requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify in the committee or even speak informally with it.

Hicks, who was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli on Sept. 11, 2012 (and thus was second in command to Amb. Chris Stevens), told multiple members at the Wednesday hearing that Clinton’s desire to make Benghazi a permanent State Department facility was one of the motivations for Amb. Stevens' trip there last September.

“Did you tell the Accountability Review Board about Secretary Clinton's interest in establishing a permanent presence in Benghazi?” Rep. Thomas Massie (R.-Ky.) asked Hicks. “Because, ostensibly, wasn't that the reason that the ambassador was going to Benghazi?”

“Yes, I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent,” said Hicks. “Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways on the--to the members of the board, saying, ‘Does the 7th floor know about this?’ (The secretary of state and other top State Department officials have their offices on the seventh floor of the department's headquarters.)

“And another factor,” Hicks continued in his sworn testimony, “was our understanding that Secretary Clinton intended to visit Tripoli in December.”

“So Pickering was surprised that this was his [Amb. Stevens’] mission was to establish a permanent facility there?” asked Rep. Massie.

“Yes,” testified Hicks.

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa followed up on this exchange to clarify the point.

“I just want you to say it unambiguously--if that's the correct way to say it--without a flaw, one more time,” said Issa. “The reason the ambassador was in Benghazi, at least one of the reasons was x?”

“At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary's wish that, that post become a permanent constituent post, and also there, because we understood that the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” said Hicks. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people our establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”

The State Department Accountability Review Board chaired by Pickering and Mullen omitted any mention of this purpose for Amb. Stevens’ Sept. 11 presence in Benghazi. The report said the ambassador had dinner with the Benghazi city council on the night of Sept. 10, 2012, and had a briefing that day at the Annex, a facility operated by the CIA.

“Ambassador Stevens was scheduled to remain in Benghazi until September 14, and his visit was timed in part to fill the staffing gaps between TDY [temporary duty] principal officers as well as to open an American Corner at a local school and to reconnect with local contacts,” the report also said.

"The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice," said the report. "Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi."

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa noted at the beginning of the hearing that Accountability Review Board co-chairman Pickering and Mullen refused to testify to the committee or even informally talk to it.

“On February 22nd, this committee wrote to Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen, who, as required by law, were appointed by Secretary Clinton and co-chair the accountability review board investigation,” said Chairman Issa. “We asked them to testify about their investigation and findings. They refused, and our minority said nothing.

“When we asked Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen to speak with us and our committee informally,” said Issa, “they again refused, and again there was silence by the minority.”

Hicks—who appeared before the committee as a “whistleblower” as opposed to a witness officially sanctioned to appear before Congress by the State Department—repeated to several members questioning him in the committee that one of the reasons Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11 was because Secretary Clinton was pushing to convert it into a permanent State Department facility.

“Mr. Hicks, why was ambassador Stevens headed to Benghazi? There were a lot of concerns about him,” asked Rep. James Lankford (R.-Okla.). “There were a lot of security issues that Mr. Nordstrom had listed in numerous reports leading up to his trip there. Why was the ambassador headed there?”

“According to [Amb.] Chris [Stevens], Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post,” said Hicks. “Timing for this decision was important. Chris needed to report before September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical---the political and security environment in Benghazi to support an action memo to convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.

“In addition, Chris wanted to make a symbolic gesture to the people of Benghazi that the United States stood behind their dream of establishing a new democracy.”

Lankford asked: “What was the time line on trying to make this a permanent facility or was there anything pending that had to be accomplished by a certain deadline?”

“We had funds available that we could, that could be transferred from an account set aside for Iraq and could be dedicated to this purpose,” said Hicks. “They had to be obligated by September 30th.”

“OK. And where did those instructions come from?” asked Lankford.

“This came from the executive office of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs,” said Hicks, referring to a division of the main State Department in Washington.

Hicks reiterated his testimony that Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 to work toward making it a permanent State Department post—a mandate he had received from Secretary of State Clinton.

“He went there to do his job,” Hicks told Rep. Tony Cardenas (D.-N.M.). “He felt that he had a political imperative to go to Benghazi and represent the United States there in order to move the project forward to make the Benghazi consulate a permanent constituent post.”

Hicks told Rep. Doug Collins (R.-Ga.) that Secretary Clinton had personally told Amb. Stevens that she wanted him to make Benghazi a permanent State Department post in the discussion she had with him when he departed Washington, D.C., for Tripoli to become ambassador.

“Mr. Hicks I have a question,” said Collins. “It has been asked before, in discussion about a permanent presence in Benghazi give me sort of a quick flavor of what was those discussions like. Would they say, ‘You do this?’ How was that going out?”

Said Hicks: “Chris told me that in his exit interview with the secretary after he was sworn in, the secretary said, ‘We need to make Benghazi a permanent post,’ and Chris said, ‘I'll make it happen.’”

“OK. Was Washington informed of the ambassador's plan to travel to Benghazi?” asked Collins.

“Yes,” said Hicks. “Washington was fully informed that the ambassador was going to Benghazi. We advised them August 22nd or there abouts.”

“Were there concerns raised from that?” asked Collins.

“No, in fact—,” said Hicks.

“Given the timing and everything?” asked Collins.

“None,” said Hicks.

At the same hearing, Republican members asked Hicks and Eric Nordstrom, who had been the regional security officer (the State Department’s top onsite security official) at the U.S. Embassy in Libya until July 26, 2012, whether the State Department;s Benghazi compound, where Amb. Stevens was killed on Sept. 1, 2012, met the department’s Overseas Security Policy Board (OSBP) standards. Nordstrom noted that they did not meet those standards or the standards of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA)—and that only Secretary Clinton had the authority to send diplomats to a facility that did not meet the SECCA standards.

“Mr. Hicks, when you arrived in July, did the facilities of Benghazi meet the minimum OSPB security standards set by the State Department?” asked Rep. Lankford.

“According to the Regional Security Officer at the time in Tripoli, John Martinec, they did not,” said Hicks.

“Do you think they were close to meeting the standards?” Rep. Lankford asked Hicks about both the Tripoli embassy and the Benghazi facility.

“No, sir,” said Hicks.

“Now, Mr. Nordstrom, same thing to you,” said Rep. Gowdy. “And if I'm unfair in my characterization, you need to correct me. I thought I understood your testimony to be that Secretary Clinton alone was able to approve facilities that were below specs.”

“That's correct--part of the specs; certain, certain, there's two categories, SECCA and OSPB. She can--is the only one that can authorize waivers for SECCA. In this case, both apply because we didn't meet either.”

Rep. Gowdy said: “So, we are able to show that in part he went to Benghazi because of Secretary Clinton. In part, Benghazi was still open despite the fact it was below specs because of Secretary Clinton.”

When Clinton visited Libya in October 2011, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the U.S. Defense Department prepositioned assets off the coast of Libya in case it needed to rescue her.



by on May. 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Replies (11-20):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM

BUMP!

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 12, 2013 at 7:48 PM

You don't think the murder of four Americans - including the first Ambassador in 35 years! - is not a big deal?

Please tell me what you think after you read the testimony of Obama official Charlene Lamb below:


From the Oct. 10, 2012 House Committee Hearing, Investigation of 9/11 Attack in Benghazi: 

"[Whistleblower Eric Nordstrom] stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency. Eric Nordstrom told Rep. Chaffetz that the compound did not meet minimum safety requirements and there were no plans to meet those requirements.   

"Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: "It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for the lack of security in Benghazi. “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

"Charlene Lamb: No, sir. "    

Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who oversees safety and security for U.S. embassies and consulates around the world, told Congress on Wednesday that “we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon.”       

"House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked Lamb about a request for temporary security for Benghazi that had been made by Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

“Ms. Lamb, yesterday you told us in testimony that you received from Mr. Nordstrom a recommendation, but not a request, for more security and you admitted that, in fact, you had previously said that if you submitted a request you would not support it,” Issa said.  “Is that correct?”

“Sir, after our meeting last night I went back and at the time—” Lamb said.

“First answer the question, then I’ll let you expand,” Issa replied.  “Did you say that yesterday, that you would not support if he gave you the request?”

“Under the current conditions, yes,” she said.      


http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/house-committee-hearing-investigation-of-911-attack-in-benghazi/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGV1e8ab3nI

Quoting Citygirlk:

No she's saying that there are worse things happening and congress has done nothing about them, (our gun violence problem is a good example) But when I comes to anything that can make the other side look bad they jump on it. 

Oh and didn't mostly republicans vote for that budget cut.

Quoting SallyMJ:

The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other four in Benghazi were political theater?

That's pretty sick.

BTW, what do you think about the poem?


Quoting -Celestial-:

Pure political theater. 10,000 or so die each year from guns and Congress does nothing. Tens of millions have no access to affordable healthcare and Congress does nothing. More people are slipping into poverty and the middle class is disappearing and Congress does nothing. Students are a trillion dollars in debt and Congress does nothing. Hundreds of thousands die on a war built upon lies in Iraq and Congress does nothing. Carbon dioxide is killing our planet and Congress does nothing. The list goes on and on. This may have been a tragedy, but if the Republicans were not obsessed with scoring political points, Congress would do nothing.







Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on May. 13, 2013 at 8:17 AM

 

It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 13, 2013 at 4:29 PM

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.


Quoting Billiejeens:


It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad





Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on May. 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM

 

To be clear, your postion is that we weren't arming militants, or that Stevens wasn't personally doing it?

Quoting SallyMJ:

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad

 

 

 

 


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 13, 2013 at 4:42 PM

We were definitely among militants, all over the place. Benghazi and Tripolli were some of the hottest hot spots in the Middle East. Stevens reported the existence of terrorist groups in the area for months - even on 9/11/12, the date he was killed. 

Did you watch the testimony? It's on Youtube.

It's like anywhere: Terrorists and criminals will obtain weapons. They don't obey laws. It's not surprising that they had those weapons. Hell, they have them in Afghanistan and in Iran.

Just use your common sense. 


Quoting Billiejeens:


To be clear, your postion is that we weren't arming militants, or that Stevens wasn't personally doing it?

Quoting SallyMJ:

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.


Quoting Billiejeens:


It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad









Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on May. 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM

 

Note to self - move this one to Obamabot category.

Quoting SallyMJ:

We were definitely among militants, all over the place. Benghazi and Tripolli were some of the hottest hot spots in the Middle East. Stevens reported the existence of terrorist groups in the area for months - even on 9/11/12, the date he was killed. 

Did you watch the testimony? It's on Youtube.

It's like anywhere: Terrorists and criminals will obtain weapons. They don't obey laws. It's not surprising that they had those weapons. Hell, they have them in Afghanistan and in Iran.

Just use your common sense. 

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

To be clear, your postion is that we weren't arming militants, or that Stevens wasn't personally doing it?

Quoting SallyMJ:

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 13, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Huh?

Saying Ambassador Stevens was carrying out an Obama/Clinton directive when he was murdered, and that the Obama administration let him die and told lies over his coffin, makes me an Obama acolyte?

When both of those positions are against what the administration stands for?

How could you possibly reach that conclusion? Is gun running REALLY one of your most important litmus tests for conservatives? The 0.001% of the difference between us?

Have you watched the Benghazi hearings from May 8, 2013? 


Quoting Billiejeens:


Note to self - move this one to Obamabot category.

Quoting SallyMJ:

We were definitely among militants, all over the place. Benghazi and Tripolli were some of the hottest hot spots in the Middle East. Stevens reported the existence of terrorist groups in the area for months - even on 9/11/12, the date he was killed. 

Did you watch the testimony? It's on Youtube.

It's like anywhere: Terrorists and criminals will obtain weapons. They don't obey laws. It's not surprising that they had those weapons. Hell, they have them in Afghanistan and in Iran.

Just use your common sense. 


Quoting Billiejeens:


To be clear, your postion is that we weren't arming militants, or that Stevens wasn't personally doing it?

Quoting SallyMJ:

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.


Quoting Billiejeens:


It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad













Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2013 at 7:20 AM

 

I watched them live, on a network that didn't cut out of them for other nonsense.

You think those three (3) had firsthand testimony to offer on every subject and got it in in one day?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Huh?

Saying Ambassador Stevens was carrying out an Obama/Clinton directive when he was murdered, and that the Obama administration let him die and told lies over his coffin, makes me an Obama acolyte?

When both of those positions are against what the administration stands for?

How could you possibly reach that conclusion? Is gun running REALLY one of your most important litmus tests for conservatives? The 0.001% of the difference between us?

Have you watched the Benghazi hearings from May 8, 2013? 

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

Note to self - move this one to Obamabot category.

Quoting SallyMJ:

We were definitely among militants, all over the place. Benghazi and Tripolli were some of the hottest hot spots in the Middle East. Stevens reported the existence of terrorist groups in the area for months - even on 9/11/12, the date he was killed. 

Did you watch the testimony? It's on Youtube.

It's like anywhere: Terrorists and criminals will obtain weapons. They don't obey laws. It's not surprising that they had those weapons. Hell, they have them in Afghanistan and in Iran.

Just use your common sense. 

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

To be clear, your postion is that we weren't arming militants, or that Stevens wasn't personally doing it?

Quoting SallyMJ:

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Sorry, I'm confused - not sure what you are trying to say.

Quoting Billiejeens:


I watched them live, on a network that didn't cut out of them for other nonsense.

You think those three (3) had firsthand testimony to offer on every subject and got it in in one day?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Huh?

Saying Ambassador Stevens was carrying out an Obama/Clinton directive when he was murdered, and that the Obama administration let him die and told lies over his coffin, makes me an Obama acolyte?

When both of those positions are against what the administration stands for?

How could you possibly reach that conclusion? Is gun running REALLY one of your most important litmus tests for conservatives? The 0.001% of the difference between us?

Have you watched the Benghazi hearings from May 8, 2013? 


Quoting Billiejeens:


Note to self - move this one to Obamabot category.

Quoting SallyMJ:

We were definitely among militants, all over the place. Benghazi and Tripolli were some of the hottest hot spots in the Middle East. Stevens reported the existence of terrorist groups in the area for months - even on 9/11/12, the date he was killed. 

Did you watch the testimony? It's on Youtube.

It's like anywhere: Terrorists and criminals will obtain weapons. They don't obey laws. It's not surprising that they had those weapons. Hell, they have them in Afghanistan and in Iran.

Just use your common sense. 


Quoting Billiejeens:


To be clear, your postion is that we weren't arming militants, or that Stevens wasn't personally doing it?

Quoting SallyMJ:

I came to this conclusion from watching Greg Hicks testify in the the Banghazi hearing numerous times. This article only confirms that. 

The explanation is simple and completely logical, coming from the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, the #2 official behind the Ambassador, who became #1 when the Ambassador was killed. Stevens was well liked among the people of Benghazi, but not wise in choosing the date to work in the consulate/post.

This is as opposed to rumors of gun running from Libya to Syria - a rumor, essentially an urban legend with no shred of proof.  The hearings never asked about the question of gun running - which in effect, is like Charlie Sheen's assertion the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were brought down and blown apart by incendiary bombs, not commercial jets, and that Flight 93 was shot down by fighter jets, and didn't crash in passengers' attempt to take back the airplane. My pilot brother with a military background thought at the time that Flight 93 was shot down, but realized the truth when more evidence came in. It takes more faith to believe those urban legends than to acknowledge the truth. 

Stevens usually worked out of Tripoli. He was very pressed for time in Benghazi, with only about 2-1/2 weeks to complete the project in Benghazi before the budget funds expired on 9/30/12 and the 2013 budget kicked in on 10/1/12. Secretary Clinton was to come out in December to do the "ribbon cutting" ceremony of presenting Benghazi as the permanent US diplomatic post, before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe Hicks' clear explanation - as it does to believe the Ambassador to Libya committed felonies in transporting arms in a dangerous country, where we didn't really know for certainty who was the good guy, if any. Stevens had only been Ambassador since April 2011, only 1-1/2 years.

Occam's Razor says: When you have two hypotheses, you must choose the one that has the fewest assumptions. That hypothesis would be that Stevens was there to complete a work project: to get the Benghazi consulate ready to be a permanent post, before 9/30/12, when the budget funds ran out.


Quoting Billiejeens:


It was the weekend, so I get out of the loop sometimes too.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Not smuggling in arms - per the urban legend.

According to Occam's Razor:  When you have competing hypotheses, you should select the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

Definitely fits that principle. He was there because of his job, and to use for his project the funds in the budget that would expire on Sept. 30. 

If not for those two things, he probably wouldn't have been in Benghazi.

sad

















Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN