Veek gets an A in statute regurgitation and an F in analysis and understanding. Anyone can list out statutes. Proving a violation is kind of the key right?
Benghazi? Read the House report Veek links. No one could have stopped that attack (right there in the exec summary).
Not sure why Veek is talking about a guy from the 60s. But this appears to be the guy he is going to vote for in 2016, the one who thinks it appropriate to talk about the size of his dick at a Presidential debate.
Rest of the world: is this the guy you want with his big hands on the nuke button? On the levers of the world economy?
___________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your scripted analysis. Tell us, do you still have no concerns about the fellows you referred to as "yahoos running around the desert with AK47s".
But I can certainly see your world view in your response as you've previously described the Clinton/Obama Mideast policy as "moderately successful".
1. Did you actually read the Intelligence Committee report??? You seem to have backed off your previous contention the Intelligence Committee report "exonerated her" (Mrs. Clinton) as it certainly did nothing of the kind. The focus of the report was the intelligence activities. It states, "Any U.S. official had sufficient warning of the deteriorating security situation". Yet Ms. Clinton refused to provide the pre-assault security that Ambassador Stevens was pleading for in spite of ample intelligence identifying the risk. After her willful negligence and blatant disregard of the CIA and State Dept. risk assessments, the geopolitical disaster she created betting on the wrong side in the "Arab Spring", and last but not least the lives of her staff, you are absolutely right - by the time of the attack it was too late.
Perhaps you remember it was enabled by the fear for the safety of the Arab Spring “rebels” within Benghazi that Mr. Obama claimed under his "Responsibility To Protect" doctrine to take us to war to defend them. (How did that work out?).
Maybe you've forgotten the current leader of al-Qaeda, Mr. al-Zawahiri, then called for an attack on Americans in Libya in a tape released on the eve of the assault on the U.S. compound. His specific call in a 9/11 anniversary video for Libyan jihadists to avenge the death in a drone strike in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region of senior Libyan al Qaeda operative Abu Yahya al-Libi in June. The warning was circulating at least 18 hours before the attack on the compound. Ray Charles could have seen this one coming but it didn't fit the political narrative and was apparently ignored by Ms. Clinton.
To reiterate, nobody could have stopped the inevitable outcome of her terrible decisions once the assault began. However, if she had heeded the intelligence and the repeated security requests, the bloodshed of four lives would probably have been avoided.
But then, she had to protect the Obama campaign narrative that Bin Laden was dead and the terrorists were on the run.
In addition, it would appear from released emails that her longtime associate Mr. Blumenthal had assembled a cabal of investors betting that they could make a buck once Mr. Qaddafi was ousted in what was Mrs. Clinton's eight month assassination program of a foreign leader. His counsel to her is disturbing.
But wait, it was all because of a movie right, not the preservation of a campaign slogan or the counsel of a Clinton Foundation employee who (along with his associates) stands to profit from the endeavor???
2. I don't plan to vote for Mr. Johnson this time around. He's not running. But I do find that there are a frightening number of similarities he shares with Mr. Trump. And you have obviously no clue as to where my vote is going. Mr. Trump is nothing more than another political opportunistic Democrat in Republican clothing with better name recognition taking advantage of the circular firing squad that was the Republican primaries.
3. As for my statutory analysis, we'll just have to see what the FBI has to say. Perhaps they'll agree, perhaps they won't. Either way, it would be truly shocking if Mrs. Clinton was prosecuted by the administration of a President that has already declared “I don’t think it posed a national security problem”. He went on to say “There’s classified, and then there’s classified”. I guess that means one set of rules for those of us that were actually accountable for classified information and another set for the Clintons - nothing new about that. It's up there with "if you like your doctor/insurance you can keep them", accused deserter SGT Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and the Clintons were "dead broke when they left the White House".
You have three people running. An honest, somewhat likeable socialist who appears to be economically illiterate and choice between two identically vengeful megalomaniacs, who will do just about anything for power, wealth and notoriety.
