400 SAMS LOOTED FROM BENGHAZI....

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Psst, Ekim the Inbred Chimp! It wasn't the CIA that blatantly lied and blamed the attack on a video: that was Hildabeast and Odumbo.

If first you don't succeed just keep sucking till you do suck seed.

[CJ7]

Officials have publicly referred to Ham’s phone call before. In his Feb. 7 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military was aware of the Aug. 16 cable and that someone had turned down Ham’s offer.
Referring to the cable, Dempsey said: “I was aware of it, because it came in, in Gen. Ham’s report. Gen. Ham actually called the embassy to, to see if they wanted to extend the special security team there and was said – and was told no.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...#storylink=cpy

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

They ware providing a cover for a CUA op. You can shuck and Jive all you want but facts are facts. How about the point Stevens declined more security.

You do raise some good questions here. We do not know exactly why Ambassador Stevens declined offers of additional security twice from Gen Ham, who was the senior military official in the area. But we do know that Amb Stevens requested additional security thru the State Dept 4 times before the attack and was turned down by the State Dept every time. There were also discussions between the military and State Dept about security in the area. And we know that the State Dept said No to the 18 person security force headed by LTC Wood.

"One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy."

So I suspect that even though Stevens wanted additional security and was frustrated by not getting it, he knew that he could not accept an offer of additional security directly from the military unless it was authorized by the State Dept. And we know for a fact that the State Dept did not want additional security in Benghazi. In fact, they pulled LTC Wood's 18 person security force out of Libya in May, several months before the attack.

We also know for a fact that Amb Stevens wanted LTC Wood's security team to stay in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August.

The bottom line here is that it was still the responsibility of the State Dept to provide adequate security for the diplomatic facilities in Libya.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...#storylink=cpy

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...past-august-2/

[JD Barleycorn]

We will never know what personal instructions Stevens recieved from Hillary.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

You do raise some good questions here. We do not know exactly why Ambassador Stevens declined offers of additional security twice from Gen Ham, who was the senior military official in the area. But we do know that Amb Stevens requested additional security thru the State Dept 4 times before the attack and was turned down by the State Dept every time. There were also discussions between the military and State Dept about security in the area. And we know that the State Dept said No to the 18 person security force headed by LTC Wood.

"One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy."

So I suspect that even though Stevens wanted additional security and was frustrated by not getting it, he knew that he could not accept an offer of additional security directly from the military unless it was authorized by the State Dept. And we know for a fact that the State Dept did not want additional security in Benghazi. In fact, they pulled LTC Wood's 18 person security force out of Libya in May, several months before the attack.

We also know for a fact that Amb Stevens wanted LTC Wood's security team to stay in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August.

The bottom line here is that it was still the responsibility of the State Dept to provide adequate security for the diplomatic facilities in Libya.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/1...#storylink=cpy

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...past-august-2/

"If you were waiting for tactical warning sitting out there in the consulate in Benghazi, you weren't waiting for intelligence, John, you were waiting to die." General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, CNN interview (The Truth About Benghazi, 6 Aug 2013)

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If first you don't succeed just keep sucking till you do suck seed.

Your key to suck-sex, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, is precisely that: YOURS!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"If you were waiting for tactical warning sitting out there in the consulate in Benghazi, you weren't waiting for intelligence, John, you were waiting to die." General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, CNN interview (The Truth About Benghazi, 6 Aug 2013)






Your key to suck-sex, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, is precisely that: YOURS!

You are the deep dick diver here chimp chump just reminding you of your day job.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We will never know what personal instructions Stevens recieved from Hillary.

Yes we will.

[i'va biggen]

When????

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

When????

If I were going to venture a guess, if not by March of 2016, by around the first of October 2016.

If you are not familiar with the "work history" of Hellacious, when you brush up on it you will discover that she has a tendency to piss off subordinates .. and her mouth when she is doing it makes any body posting on here sound like the Sunday School teacher for the pre-schoolers.

You've seen and heard her "public persona" ....


extrapolate to the "private persona" ... and if you think it gets "kinder and gentler" then you are either "wanting to believe that" or naïve....and I don't think you are "naïve" for a moment.