Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SJackson

The answer from Clinton will be:

1. This is a movie.
2. She was SOS, she did not command any military assets
3. The people making the decisions were trying to get the full picture, you could never know how it was.

I think she is an animal, but this can be “dismissed” with a wave of the royal hand.


11 posted on 01/13/2016 4:59:28 AM PST by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Vermont Lt

Hillary is confused as the emails say. She didn’t care is another angle. She was not qualified to be SOS would be another reason. She used it for prestige and her own personal business. Or she was drunk or told by Obama to stand down.


13 posted on 01/13/2016 5:44:15 AM PST by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Vermont Lt

“2. She was SOS, she did not command any military assets
3. The people making the decisions were trying to get the full picture, you could never know how it was.”

Military presence, sponsorship and support of Embassies is not a new phenomenon. The relationship, procedures and protocols have been in place for decades.

As SOS she was absolutely the senior decision maker for commitment of military assets and actions at State Department facilities. Use of military forces at the Benghazi embassy annex, or any embassy complex, required her specific authorization. Your use of the term “command” is a canard in this respect.

The “people making decisions” is also inaccurate as no one could act without the SOS authorizing commitment of military forces. Until that moment the SOS is the acting “commander” of military assets committed to State Department facilities. Those forces are not authorized to act without specific SOS approval.

If you want to defend her you’d do better saying that she was passed-out drunk and unavailable.


19 posted on 01/13/2016 6:00:21 AM PST by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Vermont Lt

In politics, as in dating, the cover-up is always far worse than the crime. What could and should tear her down is the fact that she lied about the entire event (”caused by a youTube movie”), she dismissed the four deaths (”what difference does it make?”), and she was the one who had the authority to send protective forces to protect those working at the consular office. She chose to watch them die.... and finding out why she chose to do that is very important... if we ever get that far.


25 posted on 01/13/2016 6:30:54 AM PST by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson