Really is amateur hour here.
Republicans are looking awful.
Really is amateur hour here.
Republicans are looking awful.
Forever Fredi
We already have a thread for this.
It's about Dennis Hastert.
Julio3000 (10-23-2015)
Steven Metz @steven_metz 21m21 minutes ago
@speechboy71 You'd think they'd at least take a break to vote on repealing Obamacare.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
They raise some very valid points and concerns, but the motive here is clearly to try to damage her campaign. They may very well have done the opposite and made people more sympathetic toward her. It's unbelievable how stupid some of these people can be.
The Iron Lady 2.0 seems a fair moniker. Not many people could have weathered an entire day of that song and dance routine.
Give that woman 60 seconds and a damn lozenge!
It's funny how everyone sees and hears what they want. I haven't watched any of it, but just reading comments from libs and conservative friends on Facebook, you'd think their team just won. We are a predictable lot.
Garmel (10-22-2015)
I didn't follow the hearings that closely, but reading the re-caps, I think the committee has "Secretary of State" and "high school principal" mixed up. "You mean you didn't sign off on the new band uniforms? Bueller!!!!!!!!"
It's kinda sad the republicans on this committee are so incompetent. She has been caught in lie after lie but she in the end will escape anything bad happening to her.Originally Posted by Hawk
Why does it stink? What's the putrid greenish liquid? Why isn't it a garden-variety ****up?
Runnin asked a question which was not answered. It's a variation of the question I've been asking for the last couple of years every time this crops up.
I'm open-minded and willing to listen.
What malfeasance is being specifically alleged, and on whose part?
It isn't a garden-variety ****-up because garden-variety ****-ups generally don't result in executed diplomats.
It reeks, as I analogized before, because that slimy, festering, vile trail of stank leads directly to failed decision making in Washington (the decision to go from Tripoli back to Benghazi, the decision to provide inadequate and unlicensed security personnel, the decision to go public with incorrect details regarding the attacks [for political protection during a re-election campaign]) - not on the ground in Libya.
At best, Clinton is guilty of having failed to do her job. At worst, there have been allegations of a cover-up or worse. That's the entire point of an investigation. Not to be confused with a trial, mind you.
Garmel (10-23-2015)
There are emails now proving that she knew Benghazi was a well organized terrorist attack from the beginning, but for some weird reason she told a flat out lie about it being about a video. If you want to vote for someone who does something like that then that is your right. She wanted it covered up. So damn shady.
thank you weso1!
Garmel (10-23-2015)
She's under no obligation to speak honestly to the press about what she and U.S. knew about the perpetrators of the attack, especially directly after the attack. If fact, her obligation is to follow orders from the White House, which is always some form of information misdirection.
The Sec. of State not admitting it was "a well organized" attack is not different from a police detective refusing to tell the press everything they know about a crime.
I'm trying to remember all of this story. I think she and the administration are at best guilty of stupidity (calculated bending of the rules - having the private server - but something they'll call being unwise not illegal; and getting enmeshed in Libya), naivety (hawkish, virtual Neo-con support of the Arab Spring in Libya), and negligence (why were we in Benghazi with so little security in the first place?) - at least open to those critiques. Madame Secretary is also open to the critique of being a liar (I suppose all politicians are) and a money-grubber (I suppose most politicians are). But a politician at her level - from either party - probably will never take a real hit for such.
There certainly is an obligation to tell the truth. We accept a certain level of 'truth blandification' for operational security, above all else, but we should - under no circumstance - readily accept out and out mistruths.
It's amazing that the same people who still grouse about the Iraq War and Iran Contra (which, like that Benghazi attack, were investigated by their own Select Committees and [justly or not] vindicated) are more than willing to turn a hypocritical blind-eye in this instance of supposed misconduct.
BedellBrave (10-24-2015)
This is kinda sweet coming from an Iraq War bitter ender. I guess that was just a garden-variety ****up.
How much more investigation to we need to determine if there was a cover-up? The previous seven congressional inquests have not, nor has this one, to date. Did ANYTHING pertaining to that end come out of her 11 hours of testimony?
Poking her about her Libya policy, Sidney Blumenthal, the Clinton Foundation, or her email server may very well be damaging to candidate Hillary. It will not, however, prove a cover-up or any wrongdoing by HRC on the actual substance of the investigation.
allegations of a cover-up or worse
How are those allegations shaping up? What are they, specifically, and what evidence supports them?
Well, this all certainly might have been resolved much sooner had the Clinton camp a) not kept high-level government correspondence on a private e-mail server b) provided all of those e-mails when requested by one of the earlier committees c) been able to say, even now, that all discovery requests had been freely, accurately, and totally produced.
Why stop snooping when there's a lemon out there still worth squeezing? All of the e-mails haven't been recovered.
Clinton's candidacy has hurt the investigation from the beginning. Understandably she's going to want to protect her brand, her legacy, her decisions. But it's also impeded the free and honest exchange of evidence (whether that be factual or material in nature [read: Blumenthal]).
And again, those allegations aren't coming from the committee. They are simply tasked with reviewing with the facts and presenting their findings to Congress.
Do you honestly feel like all the facts have been presented in a manner which the American people should accept? It doesn't bother you that candidate Clinton has gone to great lengths to paint her involvement in Benghazi as purely functionary?
Last edited by Hawk; 10-23-2015 at 02:16 PM.
If I understood better what the specific allegations were, I would feel better about saying that we should proceed with an investigation to the end of the earth, 'til every stone is turned and every email is read. What "facts" are you talking about? I'm not clear on what pertinent questions are still extant at this point.
Rather than your lemon analogy, I'd suggest that you're saying "if you're on a fishing expedition, better cast 'til you run out of bait." Until something comes to light that proves otherwise, this deal looks like a solution in search of a problem.
No matter ones morals or values things change once they get into a position of power. You may think Carson will stand up against Big Business, but he won't once realizes he needs big business in his pocket just as much as they need him.
Same for Bernie. Bernie can't stop or change things so anyone who votes for him thinking that he can are stupid.
We'd all be on the take if we were in that position. It's human nature.
AerchAngel (10-24-2015), Runnin (10-24-2015)
Good post.
Thank you for not trashing me unlike others. You know were I stand on morality and big business.
And of course you are right if the Doc makes it, he will need big business to keep him there.
But sadly he is not.
The Head Bitch in Charge will be president because we have a lot of immoral corrupt ignorant stupid ass and ignorant Dummicrats who craves lying, deceitfulness, deflections, kill you if you are in the way president.
I am not saying I advocate for Repubs but Trump and Carson is what should be done, but Democrats are the most stupid people on this planet to go along with what I said above.
At least the Pubs will tell you like it is...Cheney notwithstanding.
Dude, you know it scares me when we agree on stuff, right?
I agree at least in principal to what you're saying, I believe most people go to Washington with noble intentions but once they're up there they just get bogged down in the BS and the deal making. At this point I don't believe Dr. Carson is ready to be president, much like Rubio. If any of what I've heard and read is true the Rubio has already sold out to the Kochs, like most of the other Repub field. I have my doubts about Dr. Carson's "readiness" but if he's dirty or trying to get that way I haven't heard it. I also don't think Bernie would sell out like that, he might be a total flop as president but if he was all about the money he'd have a super PAC like the rest of them, even Trump has one, though sometimes he says he doesn't.
While you may be right on "all of us selling out if we were in that position" in fact you probably are quite right, but this is one I just can't accept or maybe better said I won't accept. It's hard enough to find anyone to believe in these days, and if I can't believe in those of us on this board, though we disagree often, then it might be the last straw so to speak.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote