jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DocStrange
While I am not a big political person I do need to respond to this. The Clinton Foundation is a joke of a charity. Foreign officials and governments have been the biggest donars. And those donations went into the billions.
Is this really any different from Trump using funds from his charity foundation to pay off legal settlements?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DocStrange
Secondly, have people total forgotten about Benghazi? Hillary Clinton is directly responsible for the people who died there. Hillary Clinton was alerted many times to the increasing political unrest there. Yet her office denied the requests for increased security.
Actually, this is not exactly true.
As Secretary of state, her duties per the constitution:
quote:
Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
Administers the Department of State;
Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.
Now, you stated her office repeatedly denied requests for added security at the compound that was hit.
This is a point of contention even within Republicans who have repeatedly called for hearings due to one simple fact that absolutely no body wishes to consider.
The annex in question was primarily a CIA facility, operated under the auspices of the State Department.
Now as such, it no longer matters if the building was owned, leased or whatever by the State Department, it is the CIA's responsibility to assess and assign security, and not the state Departments. In point of fact, questions about the viability of securing the facility had been raised before the incident, by state department personnel.
However, again due to the nature of the operations at the annex, any and all inter agency memos (while acknowledged by the CIA) are in of themselves classified (another way of saying we screwed the pooch.)
Secondly, security at state department facilities abroad, come under the control of the US Marine Corps, so, additional security requests are technically routed through the department of the Navy, to the Marine Commandant, then to the commander of Embassy security forces.
At this point, the decision is made to either assign marines or hire independent contractors, or refuse the request.
While it is in the job description, the simple fact is that she probably never saw the requests, since that paperwork is handled by the director of security for the state department, a G6 or G7 career Bureaucrat who doesnt give a shit about anything other than his (or her paycheck.)
So to hold her directly responsible for the fuck up at Benghazi makes no sense, but holding the idiots who decided that using a facility far removed from the main compound so that security was always an issue would be more appropriate.
The phrase I find most intriguing as to the choice of the facility came out in one of the earlier hearings, "the facility was chosen as the most expedient for the accomplishment of the goals of the operation."
However, when asked what exactly the operation was, or were, the answer was always "it is in the best interests of national security to keep those details classified."
There are all too many examples of these types of operations in US history, and the most notable would start with the USS Pueblo, Air America.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DocStrange
While I do not like either candidate for president, I cannot vote for Clinton. Being politically corrupt is one thing but letting our own men and woman die is just horrific. There is a reason why she had her own private email server. It was to protect her when thing went wrong. And it did just that. She should be sitting in jail for manslaughter.
As for this, I would then contend that Oliver North should be in prison for drug trafficking, and Reagan should have been impeached for the same charges.
I would also submit, that if anyone really got seriously curious about the blanket term "training accidents" involving members of the US military they would get more than they bargained for.
You might also look into who was directly responsible for the 'civilian' paramilitary contractors used in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as any and all operations conducted by those contractors.
As I said, incidents such as Benghazi go way back in post WW2 US history, the difference is that in the age of the 24 hour news cycle and instant communications, they are more difficult to cover up, white wash or whatever term you wish to use.
Bottom line, they are both as crooked as Lombard Street in San Francisco.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: WHICH CRIMINAL LUNATIC ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread