12:10 PM
"He (the late Ambassador Stevens) took his concerns where they had to go....he was trusted to do exactly that..."
The Congressman states political rhetoric.
"The Executive Summary didn't have a word about diplomatic security....There was no balance. There was 270 pages." Go figure why the Congressman doesn't get it. This is a Select Committee and the Congressman didn't do his homework. End of discussion. It is all rhetoric and hostile.
12:14 PM
I'd like to see the Congressmen that have nothing to say except political rhetoric re-designate their pay for this committee back to the USA Treasury.
"A man that was a friend of yours." It has nothing to do with anything.
Sydney Blumenthal. ???? There is a model citizen the Congressman can aspire to.
According to the genius at Briebart:
21 October 2015
by Patrick Howley
Breitbart News (click here) has learned that Blumenthal will factor heavily in the Committee’s questions for Clinton, who utilized the political adviser as her top source of Libya information despite the fact that Blumenthal did not seem to know much about the country.
Clinton, who pushed Blumenthal’s personal business interests in Libya, relied on intelligence that Blumenthal was getting from former CIA spy Tyler Drumheller. According to email releases, Blumenthal and Drumheller seemed to have been the main source of information, even as Clinton was actively intervening in the nation of Libya.
It is unclear what questions Clinton will be asked specifically, but she should be asked about the process by which the administration decided to blame the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims.” As Breitbart News reported, the White House initially sought to blame a different YouTube video for fomenting violence that led to deaths at the Benghazi consulate.
The Congressmen of their crony Brietbart is getting their money worth.
Mr. Blumental needs to be subpoena. The former Secretary can't be held responsible for the activities of Mr. Blumenthal. The former Secretary has right to haw an enthusiastic friend and not take his opinions seriously.
Let me clarify something.
There is different types of information. Anecdotal is one of them. Emails are primarily anecdotal information and carry far less weight than any other form of information. So, while the emails between friends might be interesting, they amount to nothing.
This Select Committee is of it's rails. Enough insult to the former Secretary and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I want an investigation of this committee! There are all kinds of ethical issues as well as legal issues. Any political advertisements resulting with the former Secretary as the subject is automatically an ethic issue and the Congress persons are guilty as sin. It is a shame they have to go through due process.
12:31 PM
Hillary cry already. She is too polished.
Everyone was looking for the late Ambassador when it was obvious he was missing and the body was removed by people unknown (and on camera) to the USA. That is known and documented in the news media.
We know the demonstration didn't happen. Therefore...."Mission under attack..." If there was a protest would have the Ambassador reported it?" Of course. Okay. Oh, this is about Susan Rice now. I thought this was a committee to find facts not already known.
The falsehoods started by you Madam Secretary. Hello? The official statement by Susan Rice IS KNOWN to have been written by the security department within the authority of the White House.
She has far more patience than I. She wants to settle this and have it over with.
She told her family? Is this for real? I would tell my family a lot of things and it would revolve around my safety and not to worry.
Congressman "Call it an attack was like calling the sky blue." Well, well have a hissy fit why don't you.?
The former Secretary was stating what she knew. That is not a crime. "Here is what I think is going on....Victoria Newland "Romney statement from Libya...27 minutes after the attack she was talking politics.....You picked the video narrative....The Libya attacks were suppose to be a huge success for the Obama Administration...Tell the world of leaders it was a terrorist attack but not your own people...."
Hillary Clinton states she will send the Congressman her book. Look, what goes on between countries leaders and what goes on with the public is different on many occasion. The intelligence department wrote the official public statement. The reason? Why drive the terrorists off?
Why didn't she just SPEAK PLAIN? Give me a break, this committee has no respect for her authority and discretion. The four dead were coming home and there would be plenty of time to sort things out. Enough.
The Secretary of State is an authority and that is never validated with any of these committees. I want ethic charges.
My, my there is report after report after report and that was all suppose to be in play on September 11, 2012.
Congressman "After seventeen months we have nothing new to tell the families." With all due respect, the right wing media that is exploiting a mother for her problems with Hillary Clinton should seek to provide counseling to her and potentially with the rest of the family.
12:52 PM
I want the funding and authority of this Select Committee pulled and negated based in an enormous number of ethic violations.
Congressman "What is the core theory? That you deliberately interfered in the security in Benghazi and caused the deaths....That is what they are aiming at."
It is painful to many in the country as well.
Family members of the four and the family members here. Now Gouti is going to have a hissy fit in rebuttal to the previous Congressman....twenty more witnesses. Amazing.
Who rejected Sydney Blumenthal? What does he do? He works in non-governmental organizations and many of them. Fine. What is the point? The former Secretary does not have to apologize for anyone else, yet alone a close friend and confidant. What did she find interesting in his unsolicited opinions.
Oh, here we go. Now the committee is going to pull her relationship apart with a PRIVATE CITIZEN. Does this improper behavior ever end?
1:03 PM
You know I received a recipe for chicken yesterday and passed it on. That is a very simple example of what occurs between people with common interests. Sydney Blumenthal is irrelevant except to perhaps the former Secretary. If his information was relevant the USA was lucky he sent them.
I waiting for something important. There is just more of Goudi's hissy fit. I can hear the House Republican Caucus meetings now. "Why did the Secretary in her darkest secrets erase the identifier of a good friend?" "Tyler" authored the emails from Sydney Blumenthal. Oh, really? There goes the idea she was more interested in making a date.
"Obama's lukewarm...blah, blah, blah..." What a small world Mr. Goudi lives in. That is a good point really. Mr. Gouti's world might be small because he becomes insulted with a simple sentence from anyone. Interestingly, the Republicans all share the same small world.
This is inappropriate. Completely. "Why did Sydney Blumenthal have unfettered access while the (late) Ambassador did not?"
Much to the credit of the former Secretary she valued a friend that might have unique information in regard to Libya. Therefore?
We have been here before. Mr. Blumenthal has a history of being irritating to the USA government. Anyone remember Kenneth Star?
Conservative target (click here)
Conservative opponents refer to the former writer as Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal.
In 1996, a year before he joined the White House staff, Republicans accused him of plotting a smear campaign against then presidential nominee Bob Dole. He denied the allegations.
Almost immediately after joining the White House team, he began drawing fire from conservatives. They said he fed the Washington rumour mill with dirt on political opponents...
Mr. Blumenthal has a history of insults and obnoxious behavior. Conservatives fall into this idea Mr. Blumenthal is nothing but trouble in a faux candy wrapper. This is gossip, not government information or anything that should be classified before it reaches his friends.
1:20 PM Break in questioning.
FOX thinks the email to the family and Blumenthal is important to FOX News Sunday. Typical.
CNN seems more equitable.
MSNBC is trying to carry on with a debate. Evidently the the unclassified emails is the most serious part of the testimony today by the right.
FOX here we go again with who knew it was a terrorist attack rather than telling the American people it was a reaction to the video. The family's email comes up again.
...But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been....
I doubt there is any information as to whether this was a premeditated attack of which should have been known by the CIA.
September 12, 2014
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
Obviously it wasn't known before hand and it is always hind sight is 20/20.
The capture of one of the terrorists occurred in 2014.
June 17, 2014
...Abu Khattala’s capture (click here) was a significant breakthrough for the administration in a case that has dragged on for nearly two years since Obama promised shortly after the attacks that the perpetrators would be brought to justice....
...“The administration’s policy is clear on this issue,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “We have not added a single person to the [Guantanamo] population since President Obama took office, and we have had substantial success delivering swift justice to terrorists throughout our federal court system.”...
That statement about Guantanamo is probably one of the issues that drives Republican politics, hence, this committee. The Republicans have never accepted the leadership of the President nor do they respect him. President Obama through this spokeswoman is stating the country's security is not compromised in relation to information gathering to bring about the capture of terrorists because of the detainees. The Republicans don't accept, even in the face of evidence, that leadership and it drives a lot of this stuff.
The family email is part of what makes this committee so ridiculous. The USA has protocols in issuing information to the public. I would think that is evident by now. The communication between the former Secretary and her family is not a protocol.
"The source" was the authority of the Secretary of State. It didn't require any other source. This is still yet an invalidation of the Secretary of State and her own authority.
Exploitation of families isn't going to change the facts. Count on this mess going on into Sunday. FOX is making talking points for their politics.
The Republicans have made heavy investments in their politics against the Democrats. They will hold onto crumbs if that is all they have. The family communication is not important or proper in any official information. The President made a statement about the attack on the day it occurred. The gossip stops there.
Protocols and proper avenues of information is not the forte to the right wing except when Bush made decisions and then it was, "...we don't know the information the President is looking at..." I think there is a notation of that type of propaganda known as "Bushism."
2:22 PM
"...email from Sydney Blumenthal raises alternative to security" (I guess) by a Deputy Secretary.
Secretary - Mr. Sullivan would have emailed "Chris Stevens" on a regular basis. When an Ambassador is at a post over seas, especially one as experienced as he... '
Victoria Nuland (click here) - experienced diplomat to NATO
Why was Chris Stevens reacting to an email regarding something from Blumenthal provided by Jake ... the point is what? PR was the alternate option and it was accepted in the face of lack of additional security. I think that is all discussed by the first non-partisan committee.
Secretary - Chris Stevens communicated regularly with the members of my staff, he did not raise security with my staff and he did not raise security issues with me when they spoke. He raised security issues with the proper security personnel.
Gouti - who Chris Stevens...blah, blah, blah" Basically, why didn't Hillary Clinton speak and wire and email with Chris Stevens? Here we go, now the Secretary of States is suppose to do what the US House states she has to do. She is not an autocrat.
Secretary- He did not raise any security issue with staff or Secretary. ditto, ditto, ditto....
If Sydney Blumenthal's information was helpful she forwarded it. Mr. Blumenthal was not an official delegation to the staff and neither there other friends that RELATED TO HER WORK. The late Ambassador stated it was helpful to her staff.
I am insulted Pinocchios have to enter into the BUSINESS of the committee to prove false information. Grateful for the news media (Wash.Post) that uses them, but, for real here. How did they make it into a hearing?
2:18 PM
Congresswoman: Why were we in Benghazi. ARB stated what particulars drove the presence of the late Ambassador. Points to the fact the late Ambassador was an authority in the understanding of the intelligence in Libya. She goes on about the expertise reflected by the late Ambassador that is part of the official record. She reflects the fact the late Ambassador was working toward a permanent platform in Libya. He never decided the risk out weighed the benefit. The total elimination of risk is a non-starter for the foreign service. The balancing of interests is a difficult decision.
Hillary Clinton: Start with best information across the government and correct in that Chris Stevens continued to advocate for a permanent presence in Benghazi. He showed no plans to close the facility. "He definitely knew the risks."
The State Department is always going to have people highly qualified for the decisions they make because of their length of service. Chris Stevens was one of those people.
2:46 PM
Congresswoman 2: Geography. Map in display. Summary of 2011. Hillary Clinton states the assessment sounds correct except for Chris Stevens time in Benghazi. Congresswoman Sanchez introduced an email in 2011. Transitional government was based in Benghazi.
Was there any doubt the late Ambassador had a dangerous position in Benghazi? Was there? Was there any doubt The West would respond to attacks by Gaddafi upon eastern Libya?
Congresswoman - Cheryl Mills "assumptions regarding Benghazi winding down...September 2011...no consulate in Benghazi."
Hillary Clinton - Eventually there would be a consulate in Benghazi, but, there was no plans for it. All this is discussed in the first assessment by the non-partisan committee. The LACK of official status was a sincere problem cited by that committee to the deaths that occurred there.
The decision by the late Ambassador to move to the hotel as a matter of his own safety and then travel to Benghazi was a poor assessment on his part. He was not safe and he should have left the country, but, hindsight is always 20/20.
Congresswoman - "...we do not have the universe yet of Chris Steven's emails yet...."
Everything I read and everything I hear only states the State Department did not have self contained authority for an larger armed contingent. Question: Had the contingency option existed with the late Ambassador, would it be dispatched to Benghazi as an unofficial consulate?
Jeff Feldman
Jeffrey Feltman (click here) of the United States assumed the post of Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs on 2 July 2012. He was appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon....
3:00 PM
Congressman - "Did he (the late Ambassador) discuss the safety issue in Benghazi?"
Hillary Clinton - "No, he did not."
So on and so forth.
Congressman - Committee decided to prioritize Hillary Clinton and Ms. Aberdeen's emails. "This is not a prosecution. But, it has the tone of same by the Republican members of the committee....We took the deaths of four Americans seriously and investigated it appropriately...So what is the purpose of this committee?...To prosecute you (Hillary Clinton)..."
The Congressman also points out there are other State Department facilities in other countries that have similar concerns for the safety of the staff.
"Significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel" (click here)
The inclusion of 2012 dictates the Benghazi attack was included. More recent attacks are not.
September 2012 was a very busy time. There were many, many attacks surrounding the date of September 11, 2012. How does a contingency force choose where to go first?
Hillary Clinton in testimony stated the health personnel involved in receiving the late Ambassador tried to revive him for two hours. She states this was "the fog or war" in Libya.
Gouti - there is an analogy between ISIS fighters and Benghazi? That escaped me...something about money.
3:15 PM
Congressman - Ambassador Stevens did not have her personal email, fax number of State Department, did he ever stop by your house? Hillary Clinton states no. YET, Sydney Blumenthal did.
Elections should be easier this time and require far less money to insure it.
My, my, my the Congressman didn't ask trick questions and only require yes or no. She should not seek to be helpful. Really now, Hillary, don't use his time so frivolously.
Senator Feinstein states the deaths were preventable. I am not so sure. I think that statement by Senator Feinstein is made with the idea the attacks in Benghazi happened in a vacuum. It did not. There were all kinds of problems across the world at the time the attacks occurred in Benghazi. How can anyone say the attacks in Benghazi was preventable? Benghazi has the focus of politics, but, honestly there is no way of telling.
The statement by Hillary Clinton in that the foreign service recognizes a degree of danger to carry out the country's business is accurate. Very. The State Department counts on the HOSTING COUNTRY to protect the embassy. She also stated there can only be enough contingency from the military for about ten embassies. Would there be room for an unofficial consulate? I think not.
People are saying dots are being connected. Where?
3:25 PM
Continued in next entry.
"He (the late Ambassador Stevens) took his concerns where they had to go....he was trusted to do exactly that..."
The Congressman states political rhetoric.
"The Executive Summary didn't have a word about diplomatic security....There was no balance. There was 270 pages." Go figure why the Congressman doesn't get it. This is a Select Committee and the Congressman didn't do his homework. End of discussion. It is all rhetoric and hostile.
12:14 PM
I'd like to see the Congressmen that have nothing to say except political rhetoric re-designate their pay for this committee back to the USA Treasury.
"A man that was a friend of yours." It has nothing to do with anything.
Sydney Blumenthal. ???? There is a model citizen the Congressman can aspire to.
According to the genius at Briebart:
21 October 2015
by Patrick Howley
Breitbart News (click here) has learned that Blumenthal will factor heavily in the Committee’s questions for Clinton, who utilized the political adviser as her top source of Libya information despite the fact that Blumenthal did not seem to know much about the country.
Clinton, who pushed Blumenthal’s personal business interests in Libya, relied on intelligence that Blumenthal was getting from former CIA spy Tyler Drumheller. According to email releases, Blumenthal and Drumheller seemed to have been the main source of information, even as Clinton was actively intervening in the nation of Libya.
It is unclear what questions Clinton will be asked specifically, but she should be asked about the process by which the administration decided to blame the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims.” As Breitbart News reported, the White House initially sought to blame a different YouTube video for fomenting violence that led to deaths at the Benghazi consulate.
The Congressmen of their crony Brietbart is getting their money worth.
Mr. Blumental needs to be subpoena. The former Secretary can't be held responsible for the activities of Mr. Blumenthal. The former Secretary has right to haw an enthusiastic friend and not take his opinions seriously.
Let me clarify something.
There is different types of information. Anecdotal is one of them. Emails are primarily anecdotal information and carry far less weight than any other form of information. So, while the emails between friends might be interesting, they amount to nothing.
This Select Committee is of it's rails. Enough insult to the former Secretary and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I want an investigation of this committee! There are all kinds of ethical issues as well as legal issues. Any political advertisements resulting with the former Secretary as the subject is automatically an ethic issue and the Congress persons are guilty as sin. It is a shame they have to go through due process.
12:31 PM
Hillary cry already. She is too polished.
Everyone was looking for the late Ambassador when it was obvious he was missing and the body was removed by people unknown (and on camera) to the USA. That is known and documented in the news media.
We know the demonstration didn't happen. Therefore...."Mission under attack..." If there was a protest would have the Ambassador reported it?" Of course. Okay. Oh, this is about Susan Rice now. I thought this was a committee to find facts not already known.
The falsehoods started by you Madam Secretary. Hello? The official statement by Susan Rice IS KNOWN to have been written by the security department within the authority of the White House.
She has far more patience than I. She wants to settle this and have it over with.
She told her family? Is this for real? I would tell my family a lot of things and it would revolve around my safety and not to worry.
Congressman "Call it an attack was like calling the sky blue." Well, well have a hissy fit why don't you.?
The former Secretary was stating what she knew. That is not a crime. "Here is what I think is going on....Victoria Newland "Romney statement from Libya...27 minutes after the attack she was talking politics.....You picked the video narrative....The Libya attacks were suppose to be a huge success for the Obama Administration...Tell the world of leaders it was a terrorist attack but not your own people...."
Hillary Clinton states she will send the Congressman her book. Look, what goes on between countries leaders and what goes on with the public is different on many occasion. The intelligence department wrote the official public statement. The reason? Why drive the terrorists off?
Why didn't she just SPEAK PLAIN? Give me a break, this committee has no respect for her authority and discretion. The four dead were coming home and there would be plenty of time to sort things out. Enough.
The Secretary of State is an authority and that is never validated with any of these committees. I want ethic charges.
My, my there is report after report after report and that was all suppose to be in play on September 11, 2012.
Congressman "After seventeen months we have nothing new to tell the families." With all due respect, the right wing media that is exploiting a mother for her problems with Hillary Clinton should seek to provide counseling to her and potentially with the rest of the family.
12:52 PM
I want the funding and authority of this Select Committee pulled and negated based in an enormous number of ethic violations.
Congressman "What is the core theory? That you deliberately interfered in the security in Benghazi and caused the deaths....That is what they are aiming at."
It is painful to many in the country as well.
Family members of the four and the family members here. Now Gouti is going to have a hissy fit in rebuttal to the previous Congressman....twenty more witnesses. Amazing.
Who rejected Sydney Blumenthal? What does he do? He works in non-governmental organizations and many of them. Fine. What is the point? The former Secretary does not have to apologize for anyone else, yet alone a close friend and confidant. What did she find interesting in his unsolicited opinions.
Oh, here we go. Now the committee is going to pull her relationship apart with a PRIVATE CITIZEN. Does this improper behavior ever end?
1:03 PM
You know I received a recipe for chicken yesterday and passed it on. That is a very simple example of what occurs between people with common interests. Sydney Blumenthal is irrelevant except to perhaps the former Secretary. If his information was relevant the USA was lucky he sent them.
I waiting for something important. There is just more of Goudi's hissy fit. I can hear the House Republican Caucus meetings now. "Why did the Secretary in her darkest secrets erase the identifier of a good friend?" "Tyler" authored the emails from Sydney Blumenthal. Oh, really? There goes the idea she was more interested in making a date.
"Obama's lukewarm...blah, blah, blah..." What a small world Mr. Goudi lives in. That is a good point really. Mr. Gouti's world might be small because he becomes insulted with a simple sentence from anyone. Interestingly, the Republicans all share the same small world.
This is inappropriate. Completely. "Why did Sydney Blumenthal have unfettered access while the (late) Ambassador did not?"
Much to the credit of the former Secretary she valued a friend that might have unique information in regard to Libya. Therefore?
We have been here before. Mr. Blumenthal has a history of being irritating to the USA government. Anyone remember Kenneth Star?
Conservative target (click here)
Conservative opponents refer to the former writer as Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal.
In 1996, a year before he joined the White House staff, Republicans accused him of plotting a smear campaign against then presidential nominee Bob Dole. He denied the allegations.
Almost immediately after joining the White House team, he began drawing fire from conservatives. They said he fed the Washington rumour mill with dirt on political opponents...
Mr. Blumenthal has a history of insults and obnoxious behavior. Conservatives fall into this idea Mr. Blumenthal is nothing but trouble in a faux candy wrapper. This is gossip, not government information or anything that should be classified before it reaches his friends.
1:20 PM Break in questioning.
FOX thinks the email to the family and Blumenthal is important to FOX News Sunday. Typical.
CNN seems more equitable.
MSNBC is trying to carry on with a debate. Evidently the the unclassified emails is the most serious part of the testimony today by the right.
FOX here we go again with who knew it was a terrorist attack rather than telling the American people it was a reaction to the video. The family's email comes up again.
...But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been....
I doubt there is any information as to whether this was a premeditated attack of which should have been known by the CIA.
September 12, 2014
Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi
I strongly condemn (click here) the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
Obviously it wasn't known before hand and it is always hind sight is 20/20.
The capture of one of the terrorists occurred in 2014.
June 17, 2014
...Abu Khattala’s capture (click here) was a significant breakthrough for the administration in a case that has dragged on for nearly two years since Obama promised shortly after the attacks that the perpetrators would be brought to justice....
...“The administration’s policy is clear on this issue,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “We have not added a single person to the [Guantanamo] population since President Obama took office, and we have had substantial success delivering swift justice to terrorists throughout our federal court system.”...
That statement about Guantanamo is probably one of the issues that drives Republican politics, hence, this committee. The Republicans have never accepted the leadership of the President nor do they respect him. President Obama through this spokeswoman is stating the country's security is not compromised in relation to information gathering to bring about the capture of terrorists because of the detainees. The Republicans don't accept, even in the face of evidence, that leadership and it drives a lot of this stuff.
The family email is part of what makes this committee so ridiculous. The USA has protocols in issuing information to the public. I would think that is evident by now. The communication between the former Secretary and her family is not a protocol.
"The source" was the authority of the Secretary of State. It didn't require any other source. This is still yet an invalidation of the Secretary of State and her own authority.
Exploitation of families isn't going to change the facts. Count on this mess going on into Sunday. FOX is making talking points for their politics.
The Republicans have made heavy investments in their politics against the Democrats. They will hold onto crumbs if that is all they have. The family communication is not important or proper in any official information. The President made a statement about the attack on the day it occurred. The gossip stops there.
Protocols and proper avenues of information is not the forte to the right wing except when Bush made decisions and then it was, "...we don't know the information the President is looking at..." I think there is a notation of that type of propaganda known as "Bushism."
2:22 PM
"...email from Sydney Blumenthal raises alternative to security" (I guess) by a Deputy Secretary.
Secretary - Mr. Sullivan would have emailed "Chris Stevens" on a regular basis. When an Ambassador is at a post over seas, especially one as experienced as he... '
Victoria Nuland (click here) - experienced diplomat to NATO
Why was Chris Stevens reacting to an email regarding something from Blumenthal provided by Jake ... the point is what? PR was the alternate option and it was accepted in the face of lack of additional security. I think that is all discussed by the first non-partisan committee.
Secretary - Chris Stevens communicated regularly with the members of my staff, he did not raise security with my staff and he did not raise security issues with me when they spoke. He raised security issues with the proper security personnel.
Gouti - who Chris Stevens...blah, blah, blah" Basically, why didn't Hillary Clinton speak and wire and email with Chris Stevens? Here we go, now the Secretary of States is suppose to do what the US House states she has to do. She is not an autocrat.
Secretary- He did not raise any security issue with staff or Secretary. ditto, ditto, ditto....
If Sydney Blumenthal's information was helpful she forwarded it. Mr. Blumenthal was not an official delegation to the staff and neither there other friends that RELATED TO HER WORK. The late Ambassador stated it was helpful to her staff.
I am insulted Pinocchios have to enter into the BUSINESS of the committee to prove false information. Grateful for the news media (Wash.Post) that uses them, but, for real here. How did they make it into a hearing?
2:18 PM
Congresswoman: Why were we in Benghazi. ARB stated what particulars drove the presence of the late Ambassador. Points to the fact the late Ambassador was an authority in the understanding of the intelligence in Libya. She goes on about the expertise reflected by the late Ambassador that is part of the official record. She reflects the fact the late Ambassador was working toward a permanent platform in Libya. He never decided the risk out weighed the benefit. The total elimination of risk is a non-starter for the foreign service. The balancing of interests is a difficult decision.
Hillary Clinton: Start with best information across the government and correct in that Chris Stevens continued to advocate for a permanent presence in Benghazi. He showed no plans to close the facility. "He definitely knew the risks."
The State Department is always going to have people highly qualified for the decisions they make because of their length of service. Chris Stevens was one of those people.
2:46 PM
Congresswoman 2: Geography. Map in display. Summary of 2011. Hillary Clinton states the assessment sounds correct except for Chris Stevens time in Benghazi. Congresswoman Sanchez introduced an email in 2011. Transitional government was based in Benghazi.
Was there any doubt the late Ambassador had a dangerous position in Benghazi? Was there? Was there any doubt The West would respond to attacks by Gaddafi upon eastern Libya?
Congresswoman - Cheryl Mills "assumptions regarding Benghazi winding down...September 2011...no consulate in Benghazi."
Hillary Clinton - Eventually there would be a consulate in Benghazi, but, there was no plans for it. All this is discussed in the first assessment by the non-partisan committee. The LACK of official status was a sincere problem cited by that committee to the deaths that occurred there.
The decision by the late Ambassador to move to the hotel as a matter of his own safety and then travel to Benghazi was a poor assessment on his part. He was not safe and he should have left the country, but, hindsight is always 20/20.
Congresswoman - "...we do not have the universe yet of Chris Steven's emails yet...."
Everything I read and everything I hear only states the State Department did not have self contained authority for an larger armed contingent. Question: Had the contingency option existed with the late Ambassador, would it be dispatched to Benghazi as an unofficial consulate?
Jeff Feldman
Jeffrey Feltman (click here) of the United States assumed the post of Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs on 2 July 2012. He was appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon....
3:00 PM
Congressman - "Did he (the late Ambassador) discuss the safety issue in Benghazi?"
Hillary Clinton - "No, he did not."
So on and so forth.
Congressman - Committee decided to prioritize Hillary Clinton and Ms. Aberdeen's emails. "This is not a prosecution. But, it has the tone of same by the Republican members of the committee....We took the deaths of four Americans seriously and investigated it appropriately...So what is the purpose of this committee?...To prosecute you (Hillary Clinton)..."
The Congressman also points out there are other State Department facilities in other countries that have similar concerns for the safety of the staff.
"Significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel" (click here)
The inclusion of 2012 dictates the Benghazi attack was included. More recent attacks are not.
September 2012 was a very busy time. There were many, many attacks surrounding the date of September 11, 2012. How does a contingency force choose where to go first?
Hillary Clinton in testimony stated the health personnel involved in receiving the late Ambassador tried to revive him for two hours. She states this was "the fog or war" in Libya.
Gouti - there is an analogy between ISIS fighters and Benghazi? That escaped me...something about money.
3:15 PM
Congressman - Ambassador Stevens did not have her personal email, fax number of State Department, did he ever stop by your house? Hillary Clinton states no. YET, Sydney Blumenthal did.
Elections should be easier this time and require far less money to insure it.
My, my, my the Congressman didn't ask trick questions and only require yes or no. She should not seek to be helpful. Really now, Hillary, don't use his time so frivolously.
Senator Feinstein states the deaths were preventable. I am not so sure. I think that statement by Senator Feinstein is made with the idea the attacks in Benghazi happened in a vacuum. It did not. There were all kinds of problems across the world at the time the attacks occurred in Benghazi. How can anyone say the attacks in Benghazi was preventable? Benghazi has the focus of politics, but, honestly there is no way of telling.
The statement by Hillary Clinton in that the foreign service recognizes a degree of danger to carry out the country's business is accurate. Very. The State Department counts on the HOSTING COUNTRY to protect the embassy. She also stated there can only be enough contingency from the military for about ten embassies. Would there be room for an unofficial consulate? I think not.
People are saying dots are being connected. Where?
3:25 PM
Continued in next entry.
