It is for certain, something went wrong. Four good men lost there life.

You say there have been many hearings.
Your right of course, so why is it no one has come up with the reason it went wrong? Why is it no one has been found to be responsible for what happened?
Is it your answer, the bad guys?

Who was supposed to keep that Embassy safe? Who’s job was it to make sure our Embassy Had sufficient protection?

Who gave the order to stand down when some of our troops wanted to go to the aid of the Embassy? Because we now all know, there was an order to stand down.

If all the questions have been answered, then way hasn’t some one been found to be the blame for this disaster?


Who ignored the suggestions of the Innman Commission, that sets clear goals on how to, and what to do, to protect our Embassy’s ?

The same Commission that flatly states. It is the direct responsibility of the Secretary Of State that has the full and
complete responsibility to protect and defend our Embassy’s around the world.

That would be your girl Clinton.



Have any of these questions been answered? (( NOPE ))

And than there is you. Talking points in hand, following along with the sheep.

So tell me. If you believe all has been answered, who was responsible for this
Disaster?

RETW 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

It is for certain, something went wrong. Four good men lost there life.

You say there have been many hearings.
Your right of course, so why is it no one has come up with the reason it went wrong? Why is it no one has been found to be responsible for what happened?
Is it your answer, the bad guys?

Who was supposed to keep that Embassy safe? Who’s job was it to make sure our Embassy Had sufficient protection?

Who gave the order to stand down when some of our troops wanted to go to the aid of the Embassy? Because we now all know, there was an order to stand down.

If all the questions have been answered, then way hasn’t some one been found to be the blame for this disaster?


Who ignored the suggestions of the Innman Commission, that sets clear goals on how to, and what to do, to protect our Embassy’s ?

The same Commission that flatly states. It is the direct responsibility of the Secretary Of State that has the full and
complete responsibility to protect and defend our Embassy’s around the world.

That would be your girl Clinton.



Have any of these questions been answered? (( NOPE ))

And than there is you. Talking points in hand, following along with the sheep.

So tell me. If you believe all has been answered, who was responsible for this
Disaster?

RETW 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Good information, thanks.

It is interesting that you consider NASA to be your credible source.

Would this be the same NASA that Obama has crippled? I wonder how far they would go to please him considering. ....

Now about "fringe scientists". There were more than 1,000 geoscientists canvassed by Gore regarding g****l w*****g-c*****e c****e, whichever is your preferred buzz word. Slightly more than 70 said anything that could even remotely agree with him and even then they used the word "could". 70+ out of 1,000+. So much for "fringe".

As for CO2 emission......as stated, 95% comes from ocean water vapor.

Allow me a question. According to NASA CO2 has risen 25%. They show dry ground. Arid cracked parched ground. Nothing growing.
Maybe you aren't aware but plants eat CO2 and give off O2. It woukd seem to me that more CO2
would mean more planrs, less dry arid ground, and more O2.
NASA is by far one of the most credible sources of climate info in the world. Thats a fact Jack.

As to your point about CO2, the ocean is a great sink for CO2 but inc in temp drives it out. Gases dissolve better in cold fluids and less in warm. Plants do "eat" CO2, so to speak, to build their tissues and also make glucuse and other carbs in what is called the Calvin cycle. It increases biomass on the surface but any gain is negligable compared to atmospheric increases. The CO2 cyvles, if you will, are very compleX. You can dismiss the NASA data if you wish, but you join the fringe. Its simply the way it is. You might as well be arguing the "science of creation".

What do you think?

The problem here is that you cannot say the climate has never changed at this fast a rate. I don't think you get that.

You can say that the climate has not changed at this fast a rate during the past 134 years. That would be a fair statement because we have only been keeping track for that long. Fair, but wrong.

In reality, the global temperature rise has actually slowed during the past 25 years. It's a matter of record.

134 years of record keeping just isn't close to enough time of record keeping and analysis to predict weather on a global scale. Several thousands of years perhaps. 134, no. We just do not have enough raw data and in fact there are now data coming in that indicates we may be approaching a mini ice age which totally destroys the g****l w*****g theory.

The fact is that the weather is powerfully controlled by how much energy the earth's surface is being exposed to.

If you need to fret about a real potential catyclism look into the results of a super volcanoes eruption involving the Yellowstone cauldera.

Hottest ever? So weather only started in 1880? Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

So, from your comment I deduce that the claims from 40 years ago were based on inexact temperature calculations, but now they are totally accurate. If the temperature determinations from 40 years ago were flawed, what could we say about the reliability of figures from 134 yrs. ago?

My point was that since recorded temperature variations have only been recorded for 134 years, we really don't know what a true average temperature is... only the average of the 134 years. The 20th Century could have been a "cold" period... and the current warming is only bringing the long term numbers back to the true average. Maybe they are higher - but we don't know that from the limited accumulation of data that we have available.

You do know that Trey will get to use his tough questions on Hillary Clinton, sooner or later, don't you? Yep, he has the power of subpoena and she can't avoid that when it comes up. She didn't appear on but one committee hearing, and that was with the Senate where the Dems determined what could be asked and about all she said there was, "At this point, what difference does it make". She tried to hide behind those words and got by with it but Gowdy won't allow crap like that.

You really don't realize the difference in this hearing and the ones that have taken place prior to it, do you?