Hillary Benghazi Hearing

Hawk said:
I'd be curious to learn the names (and not a protracted conspiracy/social manipulation theory) of the individuals you believe were directly part and parcel to the death of a diplomat.

Or is this just a creative way of pointing at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc.?
Click to expand...

First of all thank you for calling me creative. As for the other question, no you wouldn't like to see any list like the one you mentioned, unless it was from a source you could easily discredit, therefore, true or not you could just let it go in your mind as something "not worth pursuing". Are you saying those other embassy attacks didn't happen, those people didn't die, their lives weren't as important because either a Repub was president at the time or that good political points could not be made from their deaths?

Here's what I think, all Presidents first, and any others under them who were active in the ruling process, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and yes Hillary and Obama should ALL be held responsible for bad decisions, leaving our people unprotected, under protected, etc., everybody responsible, all of them, each and every one of them, regardless of political affiliation.

Does this help?
 
AerchAngel said:
Only thing Hillary was guilty of is INCOMPETENCE and lives were lost.

In that vein, she is not competent enough to be president, especially when it happens when she had that job title.

That circus yesterday had an undercurrent theme, incompetence, and it showed she has that. Dems are hoping their idiot base does not see that and more importantly because they are idiots will not.
Click to expand...

So what do you get when you have an obviously incompetent presidential candidate basically being put on trial by a kangaroo court made up of other incompetent morons? Find anywhere I said that Hillary was good, was doing her job, wasn't at least partially at fault, etc.,? To be fair isn't this sort of policy more on the doorstep of the president than the Secretary of State? If a hearing is necessary shouldn't the president be the one being grilled by Moe, Larry, and Curly?
 
AerchAngel said:
Only thing Hillary was guilty of is INCOMPETENCE and lives were lost.

In that vein, she is not competent enough to be president, especially when it happens when she had that job title.

That circus yesterday had an undercurrent theme, incompetence, and it showed she has that. Dems are hoping their idiot base does not see that and more importantly because they are idiots will not.
Click to expand...

I guess we should have impeached Reagan for Iran/Contra then or the attack on the barracks in Lebanon. OKHawk is right. If the public views this as disqualifying Hillary to be President, so be it, but the incessant digging to find a smoking gun (which may or may not be there) has to include the incompetence of those below her in formulating the decision not to bolster security at the embassy, including the incompetent (for the most part) folks at the CIA (on the ground and at Langley). Everyone acts as though this was a unilateral decision by Hillary to have Chris Stevens executed.

PS--Since when does competence have anything to do with elective office?
 
50PoundHead said:
I guess we should have impeached Reagan for Iran/Contra then or the attack on the barracks in Lebanon.

Ooooohhh dude, you'd better be careful, you can't talk about Lord Reagan like that around here. Gestapo spank.

PS--Since when does competence have anything to do with elective office? ROTFL, probably the truest statement this week.
Click to expand...
.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
First of all thank you for calling me creative. As for the other question, no you wouldn't like to see any list like the one you mentioned, unless it was from a source you could easily discredit, therefore, true or not you could just let it go in your mind as something "not worth pursuing". Are you saying those other embassy attacks didn't happen, those people didn't die, their lives weren't as important because either a Repub was president at the time or that good political points could not be made from their deaths?

Here's what I think, all Presidents first, and any others under them who were active in the ruling process, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and yes Hillary and Obama should ALL be held responsible for bad decisions, leaving our people unprotected, under protected, etc., everybody responsible, all of them, each and every one of them, regardless of political affiliation.

Does this help?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that at all ... I just don't believe you could construct a series of events in any of those other attacks which would end up so directly at someone's doorstep without taking some pretty broad and overreaching liberties.

Does your bag ever tear a little bit when you are taking out food trash? And then suddenly you realize that this trail of noxious smelling putrid greenish liquid is all through your house? That's what I see Benghazi as.

I mean, we could go through all the embassy attacks one by one, but most of them are explicable. This one stinks to high heaven and it's baffling to me why so many Americans are willing to dismiss it as a consequence of foreign policy.
 
The Don said:
What's there to find that hasn't already been found? Are we going to be here again a year from now with another hearing?
Click to expand...

I think about the only thing that will be found is how much the Clintons are after the buckets to be made selling influence.

That and how idiotic it was for us to get into the Libyan mess and how she was the hawk pushing the administration.
 
50PoundHead said:
I guess we should have impeached Reagan for Iran/Contra then or the attack on the barracks in Lebanon. OKHawk is right. If the public views this as disqualifying Hillary to be President, so be it, but the incessant digging to find a smoking gun (which may or may not be there) has to include the incompetence of those below her in formulating the decision not to bolster security at the embassy, including the incompetent (for the most part) folks at the CIA (on the ground and at Langley). Everyone acts as though this was a unilateral decision by Hillary to have Chris Stevens executed.

PS--Since when does competence have anything to do with elective office?
Click to expand...

Then they should have.

I just find it irresponsible in our day in age to have someone as president when a person has a power to prevent deaths but just simply ignore it.

I guess those four lives meant nothing to her. Considering their past, I don't think she care to be honest, it has been by her family in the past. I know you don't like Hillary, I can't stand her, but her blaming others is what a president should not do. But Democrats being Democrats don't care, if it is a (D) in their, they can be Joseph Stalin and still vote for him. I find Republicans would jump Independent before they put themselves in the vein of a candidate like that.

Since Biden left, there is only one I would vote for and if he leaves, I am not voting. It is my right, because all the others are not worthy for me to praise them on anything.
 
Hawk said:
No, I'm not saying that at all ... I just don't believe you could construct a series of events in any of those other attacks which would end up so directly at someone's doorstep without taking some pretty broad and overreaching liberties.

Does your bag ever tear a little bit when you are taking out food trash? And then suddenly you realize that this trail of noxious smelling putrid greenish liquid is all through your house? That's what I see Benghazi as.

I mean, we could go through all the embassy attacks one by one, but most of them are explicable. This one stinks to high heaven and it's baffling to me why so many Americans are willing to dismiss it as a consequence of foreign policy.
Click to expand...

But you see I'm doing the exact opposite, I'm not dismissing this one at all, I'm saying if you're in charge you have the responsibility to protect American lives, and if you don't do that something should happen to you, that's what responsibility means, at least to me. We had a terrible, inexcusable thing happen to use back in 1979, and as bad as that was, we still don't seem to have learned anything from it.

Historians make fun Hitler (for Operation Barbarossa) for not learning the lessons of Napoleon when he invaded Russia in 1812 and his men froze and died of disease BUT:
Why don't they also make fun of Charles XII and the Swedes who invaded a century before Napoleon and had a lot of the same stuff happen to them? How many examples of stupidity and poor leadership do we need to actually stop having hearings and start making positive changes?

You don't find it odd that all those embassy attacks took place and all those people, including Americans were killed, and the same party who cares so much about 1 attack and 4 lost lives didn't give a rat's arse back then? And of course this isn't just because Obama and Hillary are involved and there's political hay to be made, right? That's why the American people seem to not care or to dismiss it so easily, some because they really Hillary (damned if I can figure out why) but many, most IMO because they see these hearings for the political dog and pony show they are, hell even the one numbnut who wanted to be Speaker of the House all but admitted that.

If you want the American people to believe you aren't hypocrites, (and yes this goes for both parties) then make as big a deal about these sorts of things when your party is involved as you do when the other party is involved. I know that's a crazy thought, but hey, it's Friday.
 
BedellBrave said:
That's hyperbole now for around here. I don't believe anyone around here reverences Reagan to that extent. POTUSes are all fallen men even the ones we like best.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I'll believe that when I see any conservative actually mention and talk about Reagan's faults, mistakes, etc., around here. I'm more than happy to give him credit for his successes, but I never see a conservative actually blast him for those flaws.
 
Could someone who understands all this tell the board WHAT Hillary is supposed to be guilty of?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
But you see I'm doing the exact opposite, I'm not dismissing this one at all, I'm saying if you're in charge you have the responsibility to protect American lives, and if you don't do that something should happen to you, that's what responsibility means, at least to me. We had a terrible, inexcusable thing happen to use back in 1979, and as bad as that was, we still don't seem to have learned anything from it.

Historians make fun Hitler (for Operation Barbarossa) for not learning the lessons of Napoleon when he invaded Russia in 1812 and his men froze and died of disease BUT:
Why don't they also make fun of Charles XII and the Swedes who invaded a century before Napoleon and had a lot of the same stuff happen to them? How many examples of stupidity and poor leadership do we need to actually stop having hearings and start making positive changes?

You don't find it odd that all those embassy attacks took place and all those people, including Americans were killed, and the same party who cares so much about 1 attack and 4 lost lives didn't give a rat's arse back then? And of course this isn't just because Obama and Hillary are involved and there's political hay to be made, right? That's why the American people seem to not care or to dismiss it so easily, some because they really Hillary (damned if I can figure out why) but many, most IMO because they see these hearings for the political dog and pony show they are, hell even the one numbnut who wanted to be Speaker of the House all but admitted that.

If you want the American people to believe you aren't hypocrites, (and yes this goes for both parties) then make as big a deal about these sorts of things when your party is involved as you do when the other party is involved. I know that's a crazy thought, but hey, it's Friday.
Click to expand...

It's not so much a crazy belief as it is an oversimplified one. My challenge to you was to avoid 'taking broad and overreaching liberties' -- but, it's exactly what you resorted to in the bit about Republicans 'not giving a rat's arse' and the whole party spiel. We could muse about politics in this kind of pseudo-realistic abstract all afternoon, but what's the point when there's so much marrow in the bone of the subject of this thread? Let's talk about Libya and Syria, Middle Eastern realities post-Arab Spring ... information that is actually directly applicable to the subject matter at hand.
 
Runnin said:
Could someone who understands all this tell the board WHAT Hillary is supposed to be guilty of?
Click to expand...

On May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 567, Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya. (Roll Call Vote 209)

The Select Committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study and issue a final report of its findings to the House regarding--

All policies, decisions, and activities that contributed to the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the United States to prepare for the attacks;
All policies, decisions, and activities to respond to and repel the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, including efforts to rescue United States personnel;
Internal and public executive branch communications about the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012;
Accountability for policies and decisions related to the security of facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the response to the attacks, including individuals and entities responsible for those policies and decisions;
Executive branch authorities' efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012;
Executive branch activities and efforts to comply with Congressional inquiries into the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012;
Recommendations for improving executive branch cooperation and compliance with congressional oversight and investigations;
Information related to lessons learned from the attacks and executive branch activities and efforts to protect United States facilities and personnel abroad; and
Any other relevant issues relating to the attacks, the response to the attacks, or the investigation by the House of Representatives into the attacks.
 
Hawk said:
It's not so much a crazy belief as it is an oversimplified one. My challenge to you was to avoid 'taking broad and overreaching liberties' -- but, it's exactly what you resorted to in the bit about Republicans 'not giving a rat's arse' and the whole party spiel. We could muse about politics in this kind of pseudo-realistic abstract all afternoon, but what's the point when there's so much marrow in the bone of the subject of this thread? Let's talk about Libya and Syria, Middle Eastern realities post-Arab Spring ... information that is actually directly applicable to the subject matter at hand.
Click to expand...

In other words Democratic shortcomings that in no way suggest the Repubs are just as bleeping useless?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
In other words Democratic shortcomings that in no way suggest the Repubs are just as bleeping useless?
Click to expand...

I just don't think a game of finger pointing, however nuanced it may be, is beneficial at all in understanding what occurred on the ground in Libya.

If you want to say that the Democrats and Republicans are ****ed up, then fine, I'll gladly concede that because I agree with you (and have pointed that out many times before), but not because I think that type of debate has any place in trying to break down the operational validity stemming from the circumstances surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens.
 
Hawk said:
No, I'm not saying that at all ... I just don't believe you could construct a series of events in any of those other attacks which would end up so directly at someone's doorstep without taking some pretty broad and overreaching liberties.

Does your bag ever tear a little bit when you are taking out food trash? And then suddenly you realize that this trail of noxious smelling putrid greenish liquid is all through your house? That's what I see Benghazi as.

I mean, we could go through all the embassy attacks one by one, but most of them are explicable. This one stinks to high heaven and it's baffling to me why so many Americans are willing to dismiss it as a consequence of foreign policy.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Julio3000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top