very specific. we basically allege that this woman and the man she was working for, barack obama, stood by idly when these four people were murdered, did nothing which was a lie. we never apologized to her for that. the lie is the video. we would still love to hear from general hamm. so jedediah, these e-mails will likely be released into these primaries. is this time thing that eventually she says enough is enough? i think the democrats are most worried about the way she s handled the issue. that the way she s handled it. this is not an apology. this is not taking responsibility. once again he s horrifically unlikable a. and b, she s not coming out and saying i shouldn t have done this. [ overlapping speakers ] look at her numbers. her performance unlikable.
i don t agree with that. they said the intelligence was good and the cia reacted to it, but the state didn t. they had some intelligence. carter hamm said there was no evidence of an imminent threat there, attack there. i think they said the intelligence, especially the intelligence assessment given to the president was given to secretary rice was consistent with what secretary rice said here. i think there is a big effort and that s what we see in the appendix of the report by republicans to pull hillary clinton in because hillary clinton is a leading candidate among the democrats and the president in 2016. they want to damage her politically. i don t see this advances it at all. you are talking two different kinds of intelligence. the intelligence warnings that were out there and inspired the cia to bolster their own security. secretary stevens says, no, i don t want additional security.
General hamm who was the head of the u.s. command in africa at this time, which had military control over u.s. forces in that region, and he testified back in the summer before congress and that testimony was released this week. he testified that within minutes of the attack, quote, to me it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. again, that s directly contradicting the narrative that came out of the white house in the days right after the attack, the narrative i heard and she was sitting right here from susan rice, then the u.n. ambassador on september 16th. i mean, you got the general in charge of africon saying it was terror. that s why this report does not end anything, it actually opens up a whole new question and guarantees the story will keep going. because what we found out in this report, i mean, it was a
i don t agree with that. they said the intelligence was good and the cia reacted to it, but the state didn t. they had some intelligence. carter hamm said there was no evidence of an imminent threat there, attack there. i think they said the intelligence, especially the intelligence assessment given to the president was given to secretary rice was consistent with what secretary rice said here. i think there is a big effort and that s what we see in the appendix of the report by republicans to pull hillary clinton in because hillary clinton is a leading candidate among the democrats and the president in 2016. they want to damage her politically. i don t see this advances it at all. you are talking two different kinds of intelligence. the intelligence warnings that were out there and inspired the cia to bolster their own security. secretary stevens says, no, i don t want additional security.
General hamm who was the head of the u.s. command in africa at this time, which had military control over u.s. forces in that region, and he testified back in the summer before congress and that testimony was released this week. he testified that within minutes of the attack, quote, to me it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. again, that s directly contradicting the narrative that came out of the white house in the days right after the attack, the narrative i heard and she was sitting right here from susan rice, then the u.n. ambassador on september 16th. i mean, you got the general in charge of africon saying it was terror. that s why this report does not end anything, it actually opens up a whole new question and guarantees the story will keep going. because what we found out in
General hamm who was the head of the u.s. command in africa at this time, which had military control over u.s. forces in that region, and he testified back in the summer before congress and that testimony was released this week. he testified that within minutes of the attack, quote, to me it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. again, that s directly contradicting the narrative that came out of the white house in the days right after the attack, the narrative i heard and she was sitting right here from susan rice, then the u.n. ambassador on september 16th. i mean, you got the general in charge of africon saying it was terror. that s why this report does not end anything, it actually opens up a whole new question and guarantees the story will keep going. because what we found out in this report, i mean, it was a
Department couldn t find people who were adequate. a month later, he asked the 13 temporarily u.s. personnel but the state department never fulfilled that request and never responded to those requests with a table. then in august, stevens report dlalg a growing militia presence and a looming threat of daily violence. another officer in libya, quote, expressed concerns about the ability to defend posts in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities own post nation support. stevens reportedly declined two offers from general hamm for more security and the state department concluded that the security on hand was sufficient. mike, you know, very quickly, people left on this story to make political points. actually, i think the one thing we have learned is that in the fog of war like this, it is
You praise hillary clinton, she was obviously a partner of yours and both of you felt con strained and resentment of some of the interference by the national security team from the white house. but looking at the benghazi experience, which happened, of course, after you left, and the harsh criticism of her role in not better managing the state department and not responding to repeated request for the field for better security, and then ambassador stevens twice rejecting suggestions from general hamm that the general provide more security for benghazi. many republicans certainly are saying and critics of hillary clinton are saying, that this really is disqualifying for someone who wants to be commander in chief if she chooses to run. it seems to me, that the critical questions are what was offered to the ambassador?
The nature of those requests and who denied them. and there he s talking specifically about those requests from stevens back to headquarters in washington saying, hey, you know, i do need this and that. but when offered directly by the senior pentagon official in charge of that region, do you want an extension of this separate security force, now, mind you, that was in tripoli, not benghazi, he said, no i don t. in fact, hamm went back to him and he still said no, i don t want it. so i think the real question of whether hillary clinton is to blame falls on is that the sort of thing that should have come to her attention, should she should have been asking more questions about, hey, we ve got some really bad stuff going on here in eastern libya, is chris