Hillary

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you.

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Yes. I don't like it when anyone (regardless of party) sends people to harm's way, rejects requests for extra security, refuses to send them aid when under attack, and then lies about what happened to protect their political careers.

I cannot believe I have ever posted anything that would make anyone think I am so blinded by ideology, that I wouldn't be critical of something like this. Unlike someone else here, I have been critical of those in my party when they earn it. and justplugit is even more level-headed than I am.

Rockhound, have you ever seen me thoughtlessly defending a conservative, despite substantial evidence? I doubt it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Fair also, but I would like to see Spence's answer to my question before commenting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

I've never claimed Bush lied. I'd place Rice in the same boat as Powell, trying to do the right thing but surrounded by others who had an agenda. I'd note they've both been publicly ostracized by the Admin insiders.

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.
I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.

Well, in that case it was political. The Senate Dems couldn't get the Repubs to do anything unless they agrees to push off the Admin use of intel into a future phase. And then, the Repubs dragged their heels until the Dems took the Senate.

I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

That's a presumption of guilt.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

The Mullen investigation was pretty substantial and from everything I've read they had good cooperation by the Administration. They interviewed over 100 people and apparently made public attempts to solicit information. Why didn't these people come forth earlier? Because they were intimidated? Come on...

I'd also note (as I assume nobody here has taken a second to bother and read up about it) it lays plenty of blame on the State Department for not having better contingency plans on the table or responding to escalating threats.

This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This is the rub, all this whistle blower flack appears to just be some ticked off insiders stating things that have already been investigated.

-spence

Really? Just some ticked-off insiders on a political witch hunt?

Spence, tell that to Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Ruppersberger probably knows almost as much about this story as you do, and he sees the need for further investigation, in light of recent revelations. He welcomes the upcoming House Oversight hearings on what happened in Libya, saying "That's what an investigation is about,” Ruppersberger told CBS. “Let's get the facts.”

Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence | Fox News

I have no doubt that to you, these new revelations appear to be insignificant. Fortunately, for the sake of the families of the dead, that's not how it appears to some honest Democrats in the House.

I await your snappy comeback...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by justplugit

There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Spence- [/Quote] "that is an assumption of guilt."

No Spence ,it's just a red flag going up in an inquiring mind.