Her supporters, like Obama's (since they're the same people) don't care about any of the points you raised. Or any others. None of Hilary's supporters know about her family's bloody history. They don't care about ACA's damage to our insurance and healthcare industries. They wouldn't care if she assassinated US personnel in Libya herself.

They vote for her because they're intellectually lazy debt slaves and the huge monoparty political establishment in Amerika tells them she's the candidate who cares about the middle class. Some are the bleeding hearts who think the Tea Party wants Africans enslaved and women in the kitchen by law. Many vote for whoever offers the most handouts, regardless of anything else.

Your points offer no insight as to Hilary's chances in the upcoming election. Most are obviously intentionally nonsensical. And the ones with legitimate substance are irrelevant; her supporters are absolutely unaware of and unconcerned with them.

What happens when the Republican throws a blue handball into her crotch at the first debate and she goes down screaming "MY BALLS"

http://conservativefiringline.com/bombs … zi-attack/

So Delta Force happened to be nearby, and were kept away from saving an Ambassador. Did she want him dead?

Date of Behngazi attack: September 11, 2012.  Aproximate battle time four hours.

CIA director during time of attack, David H. Patraeus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

David Patraeus stepped down in November, due to an "ongoing investigation" which delt with an "extramarital affair."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/pet … d=17706615

In which the story relates that David, believes that he shouldn't be allowed to testify, because it would be a "media circus". 

My bet?  That during the attack, the CIA chain of command were attempting to contact the CIA director of this problem, but were unable to reach him.  Reasonings for being unable to reach the acting director of the CIA...everything from being "unavailable" to "getting  a blow job".  As Bill Clinton would say, everything comes to head.   Unfortunately from past reading material, and public disclosure of members within the CIA, there is a culture of "cover your ass", within the CIA ranks.  The joke is, a DEPUTY CIA director can not take a piss without permission from the head Director of the CIA.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/petraeus-te … zi-attack/

In which the story shows, that instead of attacking Hillary Clinton, the republican members attacked Rice.  Who would have been up for Hillary's job.  Showing the attack was meant to pin embarresment, or a floozy excuse to stop her nomination appointment to the State Department head.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/politics/ … index.html

Shows that there was discrepencies about the contracted security forces and civilians on location during the attack, and the CIA attempting to curtail the involvment of those people to properly testify before a closed congressional hearing.

I've did about 36 seperate searches, unfortunately during those searches, no CIA operative has been named, IN PERSON, to have communicated directly with the radio operations at the base in question that came under attack.  The person who ordered the "Wait" directive...has never been named.  On one hand, we do know that a radio for help was made from the base.  What is not given in the story, is the CIA agent that responded to the call for help over the radio.  In fact, I can find no mention of this one man, or woman in any news story, or congressional release, under the Freedom of Information act.

In fact, the only thing that can be confirmed is that the call for help was sent.  The call was then received.  We had mobilized forces ready to go.  But, it does not state any name of who told the troops to wait.  No name is given.

We have an acting CIA director who resigned, not due to the attack on Benghazi, but an extra-marital affair, in less than two months.  By his own admission, didn't really want to testify at the hearing, but did so.  That the talking points used by both the CIA and Congress were "changed" during the proceedings, to name officials which were not appraised of the attack when it occured on the date in question.

If anything, the trail fully begins and stops with the CIA operatives who were in control of operations.  No known names of those operatives have been publically disclosed on the radio receiving, and in fact were never questioned, since the information has not been publically disclosed.  For all intent and purposes, it looks like the CIA dropped the ball.  In fact the public speakings points were not directed towards "Who was in command, in order to help facilitate rescue", but more of, who attacked.

Even after a fully year, the speaking points did not choose a path of who ordered the, "Wait."

No, I didn't switch from Rice to Hillary.

Everybody involved sucks rhino.  From Obama on down to theater command. 

I read WW2 history about how Fitzroy MacClean was sending radio messages from Dalmatia to Cairo for air support from Italy to bomb Germans he discovered, and getting the raid off that same day.  Those were guys who wanted to fight.

Obama & Co. don't. 

Key I had heard nine hours not four.  Not that it matters, cause nobody knows how long the firefight will last once it starts.  If they launched and got there hours too late, we'd bitch about it, but not as much as not lifting a fricking finger because we can't react 4 air hours from NATO anymore.

You wank, he had retired from the armed services, when he held the post of CIA director.  Active military personal are not allowed to serve on an executive security branch.  The picture only shows him in army uniform you freak.

And it's the CIA.  Come on.

Don't deter the question.

A man on a radio called for help.  He is not named.

A man received the radio call for help, and then advised his superiors.

There's a CHAIN of men who have not been named, on who sent the call, who received the call, and all the people that were "advised" of the situation.  And the situation, said by all, was most chaotic.

So what is the name of the jerk off that received the radio call.  Who is the jerk off that was advised by the person that received the radio call.  And who said, "Wait for further instructions."  AT NO TIME, during this congressional hearing were names given.  Even if I WAS PUT IN CHARGE, there is a SMALL chain of people that you could follow AND back track, in order to find out who gave the order.  And at the final destination, THEN, get the final answer as for what the reasoning was for withholding immediate help.

Were their more enemy forces, waiting to ambush additional forces?  Unknown.

Was there an ulterior motive by CIA deputy directors, WITHIN THAT REGION, to withhold ground forces?  Unknown.

Your all not even asking the important questions.

This whole thing is just political bullshit, aimed at screwing political opponents that the republicans would rather NOT see in office.