After watching several clips and excluding the melt down I call malfeasance, not reading those secuirity cables was the fatal lynch pin.


Billy

Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 23, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
After watching several clips and excluding the melt down I call malfeasance, not reading those secuirity cables was the fatal lynch pin.


Billy

I'm interested as to what level of malfeasance you think took place by the Secretary of State. It was absolutely wrongdoing, but would you consider it criminal negligence sort of level, or a conspiracy to commit murder kind of level?

Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 23, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
After watching several clips and excluding the melt down I call malfeasance, not reading those secuirity cables was the fatal lynch pin.


Billy

Do we know they were given to her or that she had knowledge of their existence before the event?

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 09:53:28 PM
I'm interested as to what level of malfeasance you think took place by the Secretary of State. It was absolutely wrongdoing, but would you consider it criminal negligence sort of level, or a conspiracy to commit murder kind of level?

You were in the Military you well understand malfeasance, ala direlection of duty vs negligence... now some underling(s) may be guilty of that

I doubt it was any 'conspiracy', not even Madame LeFarge Le Hillary is THAT malicious.

Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 23, 2013, 10:10:54 PM

You were in the Military you well understand malfeasance, ala direlection of duty vs negligence... now some underling(s) may be guilty of that

I doubt it was any 'conspiracy', not even Madame LeFarge Le Hillary is THAT malicious.

Well, I wasn't in the military, my boyfriend was. However, I did in fact look up up the definition of the word, understood it as being wrongdoing or misconducts. I was just curious if you thought it was total incompetence, or something she should be arrested for negligence on?

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 10:24:54 PM
Well, I wasn't in the military, my boyfriend was. However, I did in fact look up up the definition of the word, understood it as being wrongdoing or misconducts. I was just curious if you thought it was total incompetence, or something she should be arrested for negligence on?

malfeasance is technically a failure to perform your appointed/sworn duty. After 4 years she should understand the need to read those cables aprticularly security related. Negligence would be some one under her not doing follow up directly after delivering an intelligence report and not hearing back from the chief decision maker in so vital an issue.

You can't arrest somebody with diplomatic immunity. I suppose the vicitim families could hold the State Dept responsible for damages due to overall gross negligence and might even get away with going after Hillary's deep pockets personally.... but good luck with that.

Sorry that I had to be away from the forum so long.  We've had our yearly physicals and it took some time but well worth the effort as we both got good reports.  My cancer has not come back on me after one year.  Four years to go.

According to the news clip i saw on the news Wednesday, Hillary was banging on the table in front of her and near yelling at McCain and saying that alot of time had passed and what did it matter about (I think) whether the reports came in and that she had not seen any of them and further that the Obama administration had nothing to do with any conspiracy or cover up.  I could have swallowed my false teeth.  It is total BS.  I missed most of the 5 hour travesty but from what I have heard, Hillary didn't surprise me with her answers.  I would like for someone to tell me if she was asked about the speech that she and Obama gave about the riot and subsequent killing of 4 Americans.  Was she asked about the film that she and Obama claimed started the whole mess?  How did they get this information?  Lord, I wish I hadn't missed it.  Hillary needs to get slap out of politics.  She has been reduced to what I refer to as a lackey.  I'm surprised that Obama doesn't have her polishing his shoes or doing the family's laundry. 

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 10:24:54 PM
Well, I wasn't in the military, my boyfriend was. However, I did in fact look up up the definition of the word, understood it as being wrongdoing or misconducts. I was just curious if you thought it was total incompetence, or something she should be arrested for negligence on?

Actually Billy's definition is correect.
Wrongful conduct by a public official.

Here's my take:

By ruling with an iron fist, and keeping radical islamists in check, Gaddafi had become an indirect ally of the US, (in the war on terrorism); same with Mubarak in Egypt.

Obama illegally entered a civil war in Libya, backed the terrorists, and it resulted in the destruction of the Gaddafi regime, as well as his death. So much for stability.

In an effort to extend an olive branch to his new radical islamic buddies, (and to try to show that he trusted them), a minimal security detail was assigned to Benghazi, and it was comprised mostly of locals.

Despite repeated warnings of an upcoming attack on the embassy, it was determined that ramping up security personnel, or worse, risking an armed conflict, was not worth the risk to Obama's reelection campaign. It would have put a serious damper on public opinion of his decision making skills. Therefore, the embassy staff was left as sitting ducks.

The next phase was finding an explanation, (beforehand), for the impending attack on 9-11.............Eureka! Staff member finds an anti-islamic youtube video. Perfect!

In typical Obama regime fashion; after the attack, (and with the help of the media), the youtube message was drummed into our heads, 24/7, for 2 solid weeks. When that narrative began to be questioned, it was hushed up, and we were told that everything was being thoroughly investigated.

Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track.

The really disgusting part..... They sat in Washington and watched the entire thing unfold in real time; telling reinforcements to stand down. To protect the campaign, they became complicit in murder.

End of story.

Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:17:51 AM
Here's my take:

By ruling with an iron fist, and keeping radical islamists in check, Gaddafi had become an indirect ally of the US, (in the war on terrorism); same with Mubarak in Egypt.

Obama illegally entered a civil war in Libya, backed the terrorists, and it resulted in the destruction of the Gaddafi regime, as well as his death. So much for stability.

In an effort to extend an olive branch to his new radical islamic buddies, (and to try to show that he trusted them), a minimal security detail was assigned to Benghazi, and it was comprised mostly of locals.

Despite repeated warnings of an upcoming attack on the embassy, it was determined that ramping up security personnel, or worse, risking an armed conflict, was not worth the risk to Obama's reelection campaign. It would have put a serious damper on public opinion of his decision making skills. Therefore, the embassy staff was left as sitting ducks.

The next phase was finding an explanation, (beforehand), for the impending attack on 9-11.............Eureka! Staff member finds an anti-islamic youtube video. Perfect!

In typical Obama regime fashion; after the attack, (and with the help of the media), the youtube message was drummed into our heads, 24/7, for 2 solid weeks. When that narrative began to be questioned, it was hushed up, and we were told that everything was being thoroughly investigated.

Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track.

End of story.

"Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track."

And that is exactly what this was/is all about to the Dems.   The loss of 4 lives was a secondary inconvenience.   Anyone who thinks Shrillary wasn't shedding crocodile tears is sadly mistaken.

Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:20:43 AM

"Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track."

And that is exactly what this was/is all about to the Dems.   The loss of 4 lives was a secondary inconvenience.   Anyone who thinks Shrillary wasn't shedding crocodile tears is sadly mistaken.

Hillary's indignation was the same defense mechanism that Bill used when he was lying about the Lewinski thing.

In their minds, the loss of those four lives was a necessary evil speed bump in the ongoing battle for the "greater good": which was the reelection of Obama, and democrat control of the white house.

Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:20:43 AM

"Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track."

And that is exactly what this was/is all about to the Dems.   The loss of 4 lives was a secondary inconvenience.   Anyone who thinks Shrillary wasn't shedding crocodile tears is sadly mistaken.

Even a blind child can see it if they want to, but we know how liberals view everything, with an emotional bent.
I have no idea how to get through the emotional barrier that a lib keeps up, only the Dim party has a lock on that, they play the emotion card on a daily basis.

Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2013, 06:35:21 AM
Even a blind child can see it if they want to, but we know how liberals view everything, with an emotional bent.
I have no idea how to get through the emotional barrier that a lib keeps up, only the Dim party has a lock on that, they play the emotion card on a daily basis.

If the republicans would get to work on exposing the complete moral bankruptcy of this administration, there are plenty of things that the entire country should be getting emotional about.

Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2013, 06:35:21 AM
Even a blind child can see it if they want to, but we know how liberals view everything, with an emotional bent.
I have no idea how to get through the emotional barrier that a lib keeps up, only the Dim party has a lock on that, they play the emotion card on a daily basis.

What's that saying? Something like, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see"

Hence the current so called moderate Dem who let his or her party be hijacked by the Libs and Progressives.

I have a close friend who is a DEM and refuses to vote anything but Dem no matter how many facts you throw at him.

His own wife calls him Jimmy Hoffa since he won't let her buy anything but a Ford. He doesn't even realize that Toyota is more of an American car than Ford is.   Ironic in a way since his own union, Local 3 screwed him so much that he retired early and now works for himself.


He's the perfect example of..."if only he would think outside the box".


This may sound extreme but I'm ready to dump him as a friend.  If he says, "we won get used to it" one more time after handing him facts for over an hour when we debate...he's gone.

Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:40:21 AM
If the republicans would get to work on exposing the complete moral bankruptcy of this administration, there are plenty of things that the entire country should be getting emotional about.

God knows I hate it, but maybe we need to stoop as low as the Dims and start playing the emotion card, obviously it works on the ignorant, look at Capt. Oblivious, he thinks the 2nd is outdated.
Only an emotional fool could come to that conclusion.