what to do...what to do....

By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans say they're unsatisfied with Hillary Clinton's response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But a plurality of respondents believe that the congressional investigation into the attack is unfair and politically motivated.

The new national poll, conducted by Quinnipiac, asked voters to name the words that came to mind when the Democratic presidential frontrunner was mentioned. After “liar,” the word most commonly associated with Clinton was “dishonest.” The third-ranked word was “untrustworthy.” 61 percent of respondents said Clinton was not “honest and trustworthy,” her “lowest score ever” by that metric, according to the pollster.


Hillary blamed an assortment of "enemies" and "conspiracies" for her liar label and dishonesty problems....:rotflmao:

Fixed.

I watched a lot of the coverage and frankly it was shameful. Gowdy's assertion they were out for the truth was a total lie. What's really insulting to the American public is that all this energy did nothing to further any understanding of the event.

The mockery and insults, including the 11th hour barrage of questions intended to trip her up when she's exhausted were pretty pathetic. They clearly tried to tire her out and go for the kill.

Unfortunately for the GOP their failed efforts simply made Republicans look foolish and Clinton to be the smartest and most capable person in the room.

"when other countries do something we need to do it too?"

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Liberals tend to have a really hard time responding to what has actually been said, instead, they like to but radical jibberish in the mouth of whoever is asking the question.

Why did other countries, and the Red Cross, know enough to get their people out of Benghazi? Why was Hilary's State Dept so less aware of the danger on the ground? Is that unfair to ask? If other countries clearly outperform us (in any area), you're saying there's no value in figuring out why that is?

Let me slow this down for you. I am not saying we do everything other countries do. But I'd like to know why other countries had a much better appreciation for the reality of th ethreat in Benghazi, than we did. Am I going too fast for you?

"How funny is that. "

Not very, especially for the families of the dead.

"Let France decide our foreign policy. " Not remotely what I said. But if we all agree that our foreign policy needs to be superior to that of the French, how do we achieve that by electing someone who can't do as good a job at foreign policy, as the French? Our foreign policy status has been clobbered since she was Sec State. Is none of that her fault? How is that worthy of a promotion?

"Pure pathetic politics"

Your limitless defense of her, I agree, is pathetic politics. Asking why other nations got out of Benghazi, while only Americans were left to die, is not a fair question in your mind? Your refusal to ask her any questions, seems fairly political, as no reasonable person would argue that we screwed up there, and she was in charge of the agency that screwed up.

"Why didn't they look into why Congress turned down requests for more $ to strengthen the defenses of our embassies?"

If that's true, we need to look into that. Fair enough?

now I'm positive that Spence has a creepy Hillary shrine in his closet

It would be really nice if the GOP congress and senate removed their heads from their asses and actually focus on running this country with the focus of prosperity for all and not focus on destroying the dems. And vice versa. It's like watching two rats fight to the death on a log that is being washed out to sea. If they both worked together they could get back to land.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably because when dealing with Clinton's, you are never going to get any truth...I see what you did there :eyes:

Tell that to the families of the 4 dead Americans.

The hearing was motivated, to a large degree, by politics. No question.

That doesn't mean that her state department didn't drop the ball in Banghazi, and then attempt to lie about what caused their deaths, rather than admit that they failed.

I agree she probably comes out of this the winner. Not because she's smart or capable, but because sheep like you are incapable of questioning her explanation, that she did the best she could.

Let me re-state. I believe she did the best she could. In this case, her best was a pathetic, abject disaster, compounded by the fact that she tried to dodge guilt by saying it was a spontaneous response to a video, rather than a terrorist attack that was foreseen by everyone who had people in Benghazi, except her.

Others saw the danger and evacuated Benghazi. She failed to do so, and people died. Rather than admit she fu**ed up, she lied about what happened. And that's someone who we want to elevate, to give her more chances to screw up on a bigger stage?

Sorry. If you get your clock cleaned at Pop Warner football, you aren't ready for the NFL.

Agreed.

But it's almost impossible to work together, because I honestly don't have a clue what unites us anymore.

In San Francisco, an innocent, beautiful girl is murdered, as a direct cconsequence of the sanctuary city policy. What do they do? They uninamously vote to remain a sanctuary city, and pat themselves on the back for not letting Foxnews tell them what to do (they actually did this in speeches after the vote, as if mentioning a TV station that 1% of the nation watches, has any place in forming public policy).

If you think that's asinine, your are a conservative. If you think that it's great to give Foxnews and federal law enforcement the middle finger, even if it means sacrificing the occasional innocent person, you are a liberal.

Not much common ground anymore.

I just read he was a Delta Force master sgt with 11 bronze stars.

Special place in heaven for that guy.

The Repubs. have turned into the party of "if I can't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home". They don't have any ideas and can't agree on anything. Their idea of government is throwing insults.

Pathetic

But Bush? How pathetic!

you have a remarkable blind spot for the antics and shortcomings of the folks on the other side of the aisle..pretty sure the deaths of Americans and the lies and obfuscation by Hillary and the Admin. had a lot to do with the hearings...how about some accountability for the liars and obfuscators?

did you check your facts yet?

Sigh. Again, rather than responding to what the other side is actually saying, you say we have no ideas. I guess demonizing the opposition is a whole lot easier than responding to what they are actually saying, especially when what they are saying, is so rooted in common sense.

"Their idea of government is throwing insults."

Yawn. Obama says that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time", I guess we should look to his example on how to include and tolerate the opposition.

The senate Repoublicans just had an idea that if cities want to reject duly constituted federal laws, there would be consequences for that. In other words, the GOP had an idea that federal laws apply to all of us, equally. Shocking, I know. The Senate democrats blocked it, because that idea is offensive to Democrats. Funny, I didn't hear anyone caling them the party of opposition for blocking that.

I agree that the GOP Congress needs to propose more bills articulating their positions, and let the Dems block them all, and let Obama veto the ones the Dems can't block.

I said it is a waste of funds and resources. Never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Let's read and stay on track. with all do respect.

From what I understand (didn't watch any of it, but read summaries), ther ewas evidence presented which might suggest that Hilary suspected this was a planned terrorist attack, while saying pubicly (to cover her azz) that it was a spontaneous response to the video.

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. Hilary is supposed to be working for that person. Instead, she (and Obama) gleefully threw him under the bus, for political expediency.

Actually she explained pretty well why that wasn't the case.

Not to mention the previous investigations that went deep on the topic and found no intentional misrepresentation.

on the big scale of needless federal waste of funds and public resources which could have fed hungry children, this is pretty low in terms of cost and outrage, much of which could have been avoided if the folks under scrutiny had been more cooperative and honest .... but that's not in their nature

:rotflmao:

Her explanation that I saw, was that they were getting conflicting data from outside intelligence at the time. If that's true, why was she (and Obama) sticking with the video story? In the days following the attack, the administration wasn't being guarded or ambiguous in their assertion that it was the video. I never heard anyone, in the 3 days after the attack, say they didn't know what happened. All I heard, was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video. And by an amazing coincidence, that explanation absolves her from any blame for what happened, becaue that explanation, as opposed to the truth, would make it impossible for anyone to have predicted the attack. How fortunate for her!

Is her explanation, especially when it contradicts her previous actions, always enough for you?

Yesterday's hearing referred to some pretty blunt private communications from Hilary, within 48 hours of the attack, that she thought it was a planned terrorist attack. Yet every public statement from Hilary, Obama, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice, blamed the video, thus blaming an American citizen.

In my opinion, she stuck to the video story, knowing that there was at least a great chance it was false, to paint a picture that no one could have reasonably foreseen the attack. It wasn't true, and it threw an American citizen under the bus, But you have no concerns, because unless she openly admits she was lying, then she couldn't possibly have been lying.

Bingo. Why did it take Hilary 3 years to turn over the last batch or emails?

pretty much sums it up....

Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi
hearings. It was chilling

By K.T. McFarland

Published October 23, 2015

I did not watch the Benghazi hearings, unlike many others, in hopes of catching Secretary Clinton out, with my ears perked up for
some admission that could sink her presidential ambitions.
Secretary Clinton did not disappoint in her performance on Thursday.
She admitted to no wrongdoing, nor to breaking any laws.
Mistakes were made by others, the fault lies elsewhere.
Secretary Clinton was far more adept at bobbing and weaving than the members of Congress who questioned her were at
pinning her down.
She put up with hours and hours of questions, and no one laid a glove on her.
She brushed off blame by saying security decisions were handled at lower levels of the State Department professional staff, not
by the secretary.
She didn't receive Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security #^&#^& implying that if only she had things might have turned out
differently.
It was a masterful performance. She showed enormous discipline and nearly super#^&human stamina.
She let nothing slip. But in the end she let everything slip. She got a perfect score, but failed the test.
She didn't mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul.
It was chilling.
We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi she lied
about what happened.
Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi hearings. It was chilling.
She stood over the flag#^&draped coffins of four dead Americans and blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a
demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack.
She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes and swore she would bring the videomaker to justice. But she was
lying .
She knew they died from a planned terrorist attack from an Al Qaeda#^&like group. That's what she told her family and foreign
leaders according to newly released emails.
Why? Because the Obama administration had an election to win eight weeks later, and a terrorist attack that killed four
Americans didn't fit into that plan.
President Obama asked voters to reelect him because he had killed Usama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was on the ropes. Qaddafi was
dead and the Libyan war a success. The wave of war was a receding. President George W. Bush's War on Terror was over
because Obama and Clinton had won it.
A terrorist attack that killed Americans at Benghazi did not fit into that campaign narrative, so it had to be retold and spun into a
different story. It wasn't radical Islamist terrorists, but a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in reaction to an
obscure Internet video.
In the end, the Benghazi hearings probably didn't change many minds.
Secretary Clinton's supporters will say it was a waste of time, a politically motivated witchhunt.
Secretary Clinton's detractors will say she never answered the questions.
But for me it wasn't the questions or the answers that mattered.
It wasn't about negligence or criminality or incompetence.
Instead it was #^&#^& and still is #^&#^& about character. And Secretary Clinton has been found wanting.

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

Spence, without quoting MSNBC or anyone like that, just your thoughts...

(1) do you agree that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration was sticking to the "video" theory? Was there any hint, in the first 48 hours, that they weren't confident it was the video? For God's sake, one of the victim's father, said that Hilary told him that they were going to arrest the guy who made the video.

(2) do you believe, based on Hilary's private communications that have come to light, that she must have though there was a chance it was a planned terrorist attack?

If you agree with (1) and (2), how can you not hold her accountabke for blaming an innocent US citizen, for 4 murders? How would you like it is teh SecState went on national TV and called you out for something you didn't do?

It's not like her word is all that credible at this point. She's a pathological liar (I was shot at in Kosovo, Bill didn't cheat on me but was framed by the GOP, there were no work emails among what I deleted from my server). So why do you continue to accept everything she says, as God's word?

nope...just stunned at the incredible dishonesty of this woman and that she still garners any support despite all of the years of evidence...very disturbing.....facts are irrelevant to her, the "facts" are what she says they are..shifting sands of political convenience, she is everything that you feign to abhor but "seem" to approve because you share some political views I guess, or perhaps have "enemies" in common...but hey...it works for her, and maybe you....and fools continue to support and defend her

I don't take everything she says as God's word, I'm taking what she has said in context of the investigations on the matter.

The evidence after the attack was all over the map. Militants taking credit then not taking credit. Attackers claiming the video was indeed their motivation etc...the next day both Obama and Clinton referred to the attackers as terrorists and heavily armed militants. This is with over a dozen video protests in the region many of which were violent.

The emails presented last night have to be put in context of the thinking at that moment which by Clinton's admission went back and forth.

Add to that the multiple investigations which concluded the talking points were led by the CIA and not manipulated for political purposes.

I know you just don't want to let go, perhaps this will help. Nobody at the IRS broke the law either :smokin:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politi...rty/index.html

"The evidence after the attack was all over the map"

But. That's. Not. What. She. Said. At. The. Time.

She said, repeatedly, that it was the video. If she had said, "we're trying to figure it out", I would have no issue with that. She knew there was plenty of evidence that it was something other than the video, but that explanation would paint her in the best possible light, so who cares if it involved publicly blaming a citizen she swore to serve?

Do you listen to yourself?

I don't think you've paid any attention to what she actually said...then or now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about the Democrats having 2 years of complete control under Obama and not doing squat. It's the Democrats who won't reach across the isle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree one of us hasn't paid any attention to it.

Days after the attack, she said "We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." (so don't blame me!)

http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/22/h...terror-attack/

Yet the day after the attack (according to the hearings yesterday) she told the Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest."

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/22/h...benghazi-video

How many more do you want?

You said I don't want to let it go. Wrong. The issue, is that you don't want to go near it, because she has a "D" after her last name.

How many lies are told by politicians every day? The whole Iraq war was based on a lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) How many presidential candidates have lied about the deaths of Americans in their employ at the time?

You don't justify awful behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

(2) only the tin foil hat crowd thinks Bush lied. He was wrong, as were many, many people. No evidence that he intentionally lied, if there were, he would have been crucified by everyone, and I would have been leading the charge. Being wrong, isn't the same as lying.

According to the father of one of the victims, as his son's body was taken off plane, draped in the flag, Hilary told the father that she was going to arrest the filmmaker who was responsible for his son's death.

We know that Hilary told the Egyptian prime minister that she knew it was a planned terrorist attack. That email was revealed in the hearing yesterday. Yet after that, in public, the administration (you know, the most open and honest administration ever) claimed it was the video.

And Hilary is declared the winner by her PR folks such as Spence.

I don't get it. If someone is liberal, they cannot be called a liar when they are a liar?

Congress reviewed the Iraq War documents.
Among them where Senator Hillery Clinton and Senator John Kerry, both of whom voted YES to go to war.

No #^&#^&#^&#^& Sherlock. I said politicians. Not republicans. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They all lie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's some position you have there!

You find no redeeming value in ANY elected official?

They why do YOU post down here?

Nebe,I agree some politicians do lie, but if ALL politicians lie we are doomed as a country because without truth we are not living in reality. There is no way I could ever vote for a known liar.

That is the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing funniest thing I've read in days.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time to face facts......we are doomed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device