What difference does it make?

I don't see Hilary making a respectable run at prez after she orginally "took the blame" for the attacks in order to save Obama some heat during the election. Then once again refused to take responsibility AFTER the election, After she pretty much blew it off with the "what difference would it make?" and then her amazingly coincidental illness that befell her right when she was to be questioned.

Democrats on the five committees fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely, and that the end result was biased.

“You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship,” the ranking Democrats on each committee said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the report goes over old ground and that some of the conclusions conflict with the State Department’s internal review.

“The State Department’s Accountability Review Board — the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response — released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing,” she said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/house-gop-administration-blew-benghazi-response/?page=1#ixzz2RlZPeYTA
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

KingsOwn19 wrote:

I don't see Hilary making a respectable run at prez after she orginally "took the blame" for the attacks in order to save Obama some heat during the election. Then once again refused to take responsibility AFTER the election, After she pretty much blew it off with the "what difference would it make?" and then her amazingly coincidental illness that befell her right when she was to be questioned.

Obama survived it during the middle of the race. This will be a complete nonfactor 4 years from now.

captain organic wrote:

KingsOwn19 wrote:

I don't see Hilary making a respectable run at prez after she orginally "took the blame" for the attacks in order to save Obama some heat during the election. Then once again refused to take responsibility AFTER the election, After she pretty much blew it off with the "what difference would it make?" and then her amazingly coincidental illness that befell her right when she was to be questioned.

Obama survived it during the middle of the race. This will be a complete nonfactor 4 years from now.

is it being a non issue a good thing in your point of view?

Cu Bu wrote:

captain organic wrote:

KingsOwn19 wrote:

I don't see Hilary making a respectable run at prez after she orginally "took the blame" for the attacks in order to save Obama some heat during the election. Then once again refused to take responsibility AFTER the election, After she pretty much blew it off with the "what difference would it make?" and then her amazingly coincidental illness that befell her right when she was to be questioned.

Obama survived it during the middle of the race. This will be a complete nonfactor 4 years from now.

is it being a non issue a good thing in your point of view?

Not to be cold, and I understand a diplomat is not a soldier, and an embassy is not an army base, but given how many people die in the middle east I just see this as a totally overblown story. Which has certainly been pushed by republican interests.

Everyone in the world thinks this was under reported and you think it isn't a big deal.

captain organic wrote:

KingsOwn19 wrote:

I don't see Hilary making a respectable run at prez after she orginally "took the blame" for the attacks in order to save Obama some heat during the election. Then once again refused to take responsibility AFTER the election, After she pretty much blew it off with the "what difference would it make?" and then her amazingly coincidental illness that befell her right when she was to be questioned.

Obama survived it during the middle of the race. This will be a complete nonfactor 4 years from now.

Because all the facts hadnt come out. Remember, they LIED successfully for a few weeks before the truth started coming out. They blamed some poor sap and his youtube video for the attack when they knew it had nothing to do with that and they knew full well what happened. Then when the truth started coming out Hilary laid on the grenade for Obama. The truth was so blurred at that point and conveniently the moderators in debates either didnt make it a big talking point or flat tried to deny that the Admin had any responsibility for it. Like that fat cunt who fact checked Romney when he was telling the truth. Romney didnt do a good job with it himself.

In four years this story will be completely solid. Notice how liberals now just pretty much say "Whats the big deal?" now that the fact the administration knew what would happen, what did happen, and then lied about it is not negotiable? It wasnt during the 2012 election because the story had been twisted so many different way..and obviously Hilary has covered herself in gas when it comes to this particular subject and the match will be lit in 2016 should she attempt to run. With her quotes on the subject, her elusive behavior and the fact that it was HER job..this will be pretty brutal. Even if she hired Obama's grade A spin doctors, it will be hard to wash the blood off her hands.It wasnt definitive that there was any blood on Obama's hands during the election..not saying he would have lost if there was...but Hilary isnt as beloved and it's not the only example of incompetence on her record.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Everyone in the world thinks this was under reported and you think it isn't a big deal.

If by everyone u mean hard right leaning americans, then I think u are correct.

I don't think it's clear what the White house or state department knew in the early stages.

Were they covering their heads? Sure. Politics, middle of an election. It's certainly part of the reason civilians hate politics but that shit is to be expected.

So whatever level of coverup is not the issue imo.

Issue would be, that diplomat was left out in a very precarious position. But I think that can be said of any American in the middle east.

I don't know if Hillary plans to run in 4 years, she'll be getting pretty old, but this will be a non factor amongst anyone not on the hard right.

captain organic wrote:

I don't think it's clear what the White house or state department knew in the early stages.

Were they covering their heads? Sure. Politics, middle of an election. It's certainly part of the reason civilians hate politics but that shit is to be expected.

So whatever level of coverup is not the issue imo.

Issue would be, that diplomat was left out in a very precarious position. But I think that can be said of any American in the middle east.

I don't know if Hillary plans to run in 4 years, she'll be getting pretty old, but this will be a non factor amongst anyone not on the hard right.

Thats interesting because she would have to get through a primary and i guarantee her democratic opponents who "don't care" will be sure to shove this "non-issue" up her ass.

if it's in a race vs. a republican..if by anyone, you mean average voters on the hard left only..sure. Obviously a cover up is not a big deal if it's done by a democrat. Obviously right leaning, independents, and moderates on any side will take issue with leaving a diplomat and many others with bare asses when they knew what was coming and then lying about it, especially when TV ads start beating people over the head with it..it's an issue. If it was Dubbya, you would call him Hitler.