Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2015, 02:54 PM   #61
Doover
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Doover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Catskill Mountains Of New York
Posts: 85
Send a message via AIM to Doover
Exclamation

Jeepers! Wikileaks also hacked into the CIA's emal account!

Wonder if he had one of those ILLEGAL servers in his barn too?

343

ISAIAH 3:9

Romans 1:26-27
Doover is offline  
Old 10-21-2015, 03:58 PM   #62
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Glad to hear it was an accident. Repubs. do have a history of revealing CIA agent names for political purposes.
But only for retribution which is OK in my book.
spence is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 04:27 AM   #63
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
great article re: today's hearings from Andy McCarthy

Hillary Clinton’s Appearance Before the Benghazi Committee
By Andrew C. McCarthy — October 21, 2015

Hillary Clinton has done Trey Gowdy an enormous favor. In anticipation of her testimony on Thursday before the Benghazi select committee he chairs, and with a lot of Republican help, she has framed the committee as a partisan political witch-hunt obsessed with dashing her presidential ambitions.

To regain credibility, all Gowdy needs to do is demonstrate that it is not. Meaning: all Gowdy needs to do is focus on why the United States had its officials stationed in Benghazi, one of the world’s most dangerous places for Americans.

What mission was so essential that it was necessary to keep Americans on-site when the jihadist threat had become so intense that other nations and organizations were pulling their people out?

These questions implicate disastrous policy that was, very much, bipartisan policy: (a) withdrawing American support for the Qaddafi regime that our government was funding and allied with against jihadist terror; (b) switching sides to aid and arm the jihadist-rife “rebels” who opposed Qaddafi; (c) waging a war under false pretenses – i.e., working for Qaddafi’s ouster, without congressional authorization, under the guise of a U.N. mandate that only permitted the protection of civilians; and (d) transitioning from support of Libyan jihadists to support for Syrian jihadists – i.e., transitioning from the policy that has left Libya a failed state with a growing ISIS and al Qaeda foot print, to a policy that contributed to the ascendancy of ISIS – by among other things, abetting the shipment of weapons from Libya to Syria.

Getting answers on how and why these actions were taken is the business of statesmanship, not partisanship. It is a business for which the committee, to this point, has shown little zest.

Well, on Thursday, Chairman Gowdy will have the nation’s attention. It’s now or never.

Camp Clinton’s relentless attacks on the committee should have had little persuasive force. The Clintons exude partisan hardball, a fact only highlighted by the herculean efforts Mrs. Clinton has made to impede fact-finding. That she is nevertheless getting traction owes to three factors.

The first two are obvious. There is the stunning cluelessness of Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), who discredited the committee by publicly suggesting – bragging might be a better way of putting it – that it has succeeded in damaging Clinton’s presidential campaign. Then there are committee Democrats, who have maintained from the start, in naked partisanship, that the GOP-ordained panel is a farce.

For the third, Gowdy has no one to blame but himself. He has insisted that the committee do almost all of its work behind the scenes, despite the fact that this is not a criminal investigation of private wrongdoing shrouded in grand jury secrecy rules but, rather, an investigation by the people’s representatives to establish public accountability for government derelictions of duty.

There is, of course, a place for doing private interviews. They can be more productive than the posturing and sometime-circus atmosphere of open congressional hearings. But if you do virtually everything in secret, you give your opposition the opportunity to define your actions and motives without adequate rebuttal – a lesson a lawyer as sharp as Gowdy should have learned from the number Camp Clinton did on Ken Starr.

In the absence of open committee hearings that could have proved the good faith of committee Republicans to the public, we got months upon months of silence. Gowdy, inadvertently or not, then fueled the witch-hunt accusations by seeming to come to life only after news of Clinton’s lawless private server system surfaced in the spring.

There are extraordinarily good reasons for pouncing on Clinton’s obstruction: No fact-finding investigation can be competent and complete unless the investigators get access to the relevant evidence – and obstruction by key players is itself important evidence of their state of mind, shedding critical light on their actions.

Gowdy, however, did not stir until the Clinton private email scheme surfaced – a lapse compounded when the chairman conceded that he’d known about private system for months before news of it broke publicly, yet had failed either to (a) use his subpoena power to compel production of the emails, or (b) raise holy hell in Congress and the media – something he is quite good at – that would have shamed the Justice Department into seizing the private servers months earlier.

By doing next to nothing in public for over a year and then quite publicly complaining about the emails only after they became a subject of controversy, Gowdy has helped Democrats portray his investigation as political opportunism only tangentially related to the only thing that makes the emails pertinent – what they tell us about the security failures that led to the Benghazi massacre and the “blame the video” fraud that followed it.

Thursday, Chairman Gowdy has the chance to make things right. He will fail, however, if he does not tightly focus on the flawed policies and serious errors in judgment for which not only Mrs. Clinton but the Obama administration and congressional leaders of both parties are responsible.

Six more pieces of unsolicited advice for the committee:

1. The Accountability Review Board: be ready to destroy its credibility in the first five minutes, or just adjourn the hearing.

Mrs. Clinton is nothing if not utterly predictable. She and the State Department have been touting the ARB to anyone who would listen – from the time its report was issued in 2012 through her most recent dismissive comments about Gowdy’s committee. But the ARB investigation is a patent joke. It was the State Department investigating itself: Giving the ARB the undeserved benefit of the doubt, its purpose was not to establish accountability but to posit curative steps that would prevent a similar debacle from happening in the future. So even if the ARB were not a farce, it had a very different purpose from the Gowdy committee’s.

But it was a farce. Mrs. Clinton hand-picked the investigators, who conveniently and compliantly did not bother to interview her and other key Benghazi players. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that Mrs. Clinton withheld hundreds of her own emails from the ARB and that it did not have access to other highly relevant information. Further, a top State Department official has publicly stated that he walked in on an effort led by then-secretary Clinton’s staff to conceal unflattering information from the files being amassed for review by the ARB.

Clinton is going to keep hammering at the talking-point that there is nothing to see here because the ARB already did a thorough investigation, which – surprise! – cleared her. Gowdy and other committee Republicans have to be prepared to destroy the ARB as a sham. If, in the Washington way, they tip-toe around the sham because Hillary’s carefully chosen investigators were – surprise! – old Washington hands, the ballgame is over. The ARB can’t just be bruised; it has to be, and deserves to be, beaten to a pulp.

2. Mrs. Clinton’s soliloquies have to be mocked.

One of the reasons Clinton shrewdly declined to submit to a private committee interview is the calculation that she can control the public forum. There is no judge at a congressional hearing – no impartial presiding official who can order and shame witnesses (or, for that matter, questioners) to stick to the subject and not use the proceeding as a soap box. The former secretary and senator figures she can run the clock making long speeches spiced with faux indignation (“What difference, at this point, does it make …?”), with the Congress critters eventually becoming bored, frustrated, and ready to pack it in.

The way good trial lawyers deal with this tactic is to mock it. When Clinton starts this routine, probably in the first few minutes, somebody has to be ready to ask her how many times she practiced that speech in front of the mirror before coming to the hearing. They have to be ready to remind her of the question she has failed to answer – and that she has failed to answer it. Either the questioners control the witness or the witness controls the hearing. There’s no middle ground.

3. Similarly, committee Republicans have to be ready for the shenanigans of committee Democrats in service of Mrs. Clinton’s evasions.

Someone needs to be armed with the number of witness interviews committee Democrats have skipped, the documents they’ve not bothered to review.

Gowdy has said the reason for all the committee’s behind the scenes work was to assemble and master the facts of the case. Well, now’s the time to show you’ve mastered them: call your adversaries on their misstatements, show everyone that there is a real investigation here that they are trying to obscure. Be ready with the endorsements of Clinton’s candidacy they’ve touted. And while marshaling all this information, it would be effective to remind people that this is about murdered Americans who deserved the Democrats’ attention, not their gamesmanship.

4. The thousands of recently produced emails and documents.

As late as this week, the Obama State Department dumped 1300 of Ambassador Stevens’ emails on the committee. This stonewalling has gone on for years.

Mrs. Clinton is going to be ready to catalogue the investigations by the executive branch and several congressional committees in order to suggest that Benghazi has already been exhaustively probed. Gowdy’s committee, she’ll repeat, is unnecessary – just a Republican stunt to derail her campaign.

To refute this effectively, committee Republicans have to be ready to list, in exacting detail, the mounds upon mounds of evidence that was never reviewed – emails hidden, witnesses ignored – in those investigations. Incomplete, incompetent investigations get to the bottom of nothing, no matter how impressive-sounding the investigative body. And again, the Americans killed and wounded, their loved ones, and the country deserved better from Washington.

5. Remember Gregory Hicks.

Mrs. Clinton, the State Department, and the White House have their story down on the “Blame the Video” fraud they perpetrated: “We had determined that the anti-Muslim video was responsible for the rioting at the American embassy in Egypt earlier on September 11, 2012; in the fog of war, it was reasonable to presume that the video had the same instigating effect when it came to the violence in Libya.”

Committee Republicans must be armed with the facts that show the White House and State Department knew from the first minutes that the Benghazi siege was a terrorist attack, and that intelligence community talking points were willfully edited to conceal that fact. The CIA did not believe the video had anything to do with the violence. More significantly, Greg Hicks – the senior State Department official on the ground in Libya that night after Stevens was killed – was categorical is asserting that the video “was a non-event” in Libya. The video story appears to have been concocted for public consumption late on the night of the attacks … very shortly after Secretary Clinton and President Obama spoke on the phone.

6. Leave the criminal investigation to the FBI.

Mrs. Clinton’s reckless mishandling of national defense information is not the subject of the committee’s inquiry. Congress does not have the legal means or authority to resolve whether laws were broken. To give the appearance that this is what the committee is trying to do would play into the Clinton narrative that the committee is a partisan witch-hunt.

The emails are relevant to the cause of political accountability: showing what actually happened in the key Benghazi events and illustrating that Mrs. Clinton and the State Department had a motive – their disastrous performance of their duties – to withhold evidence. That’s what the committee is there to explore. Leave the criminal case to the FBI and the Justice Department.
scottw is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 07:07 AM   #64
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Hillary Clinton has done Trey Gowdy an enormous favor. In anticipation of her testimony on Thursday before the Benghazi select committee he chairs, and with a lot of Republican help, she has framed the committee as a partisan political witch-hunt obsessed with dashing her presidential ambitions.
I love it, so Hillary is in cahoots with the Republicans to discredit the committee.

Quote:
To give the appearance that this is what the committee is trying to do would play into the Clinton narrative that the committee is a partisan witch-hunt.
Which Gowdy has been caught red handed doing...
spence is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 11:42 AM   #65
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Spence, you have said, maybe with some merit, that there is no valid reason for th ehearing today, because there are no unanswered questions, no new additional information.

From Gowdy's opening statement...

"Just last month, three years after Benghazi, top aides finally returned documents to the State Department. A month ago, this Committee received 1500 new pages of Secretary Clinton's emails related to Libya and Benghazi. 3 years after the attacks. A little over two weeks ago, this Committee received roughly 1400 pages of Ambassador Stevens' emails. 3 years after the attacks"

Is Gowdy lying here? Or were you, as always, putting your personal spin on your statements?

If Gowdy isn't lying, why does it take 3 years to get that information to the Committee?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 04:04 PM   #66
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Spence, you have said, maybe with some merit, that there is no valid reason for th ehearing today, because there are no unanswered questions, no new additional information.
I've listened to a lot of the hearing today and have yet to see any new information from any new emails. The Republicans are very angry though. I thought this wasn't supposed to be about Hillary but wow, they sure have mounted a carefully planned attack against her character. I'm glad my tax dollars are paying for this.

They have been fruitlessly trying to push the Blumenthal conspiracy theory of what I don't really understand.

It's not over but Clinton is winning here big time.
spence is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 04:39 PM   #67
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
6 hours of interrogation with hopes of Hillary providing some magical sound bites to use against her.
What a joke and what a dishonor to those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 04:49 PM   #68
Doover
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Doover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Catskill Mountains Of New York
Posts: 85
Send a message via AIM to Doover
Exclamation

And then just like ground hog day the kilderbeast regurgitates the horrible video lie!

343

ISAIAH 3:9

Romans 1:26-27
Doover is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 05:52 PM   #69
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
Ahhh but the email to her daughter states the attack in Libya was known to be an AQ affiliate and not video based, on the night of the event, and in the weeks before the debates. So there was emails from HRC regarding Benghazi.

So, 1400 emails/documents (with more reportedly on the way) dumped the night before the testimony. Yes, this the previous investigations have all been above board with all of the information made available /sarc

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 07:16 PM   #70
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
Ahhh but the email to her daughter states the attack in Libya was known to be an AQ affiliate and not video based, on the night of the event,
Did you listen to her response?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 07:55 AM   #71
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Did you listen to her response?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What was her response to that? I didn't hear it.

During her tenure as Secstate, many nations had evacuated their diplomats from Benghazi, because of the danger. We didn't. The ambassador repeatedly asked for more security, which he never got, which cost him and 3 other Americans, their lives. There were no effective military contingency intervention plans either, obviously.

Then after it happened, they tried to dodge guilt by saying it was an unplanned response to a video. They said that, because that was easier for them to admit, than to tell the truth, which was they got caught with their pants down, when other nations clearly saw the danger and got their people the hell out of there.

Leading the State Dept isn't an exact science. You make a lot of judgment calls, and it's really easy to second-guess with the benefit of hindsight. However, in this case, it's clear the decision-making was awful, and 4 Americans are dead as a direct result.

She deserves to get promoted for that? She should've gotten fired.

We've come a LONG WAY from "the buck stops with me".
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 07:55 AM   #72
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Did anyone mention the serviceman who died in Iraq the day before? A moment of silence? anything?
PaulS is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 08:27 AM   #73
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Did anyone mention the serviceman who died in Iraq the day before? A moment of silence? anything?
If they didn't, they could have and should have.

Clearly there was a significant political angle to this on both sides. The GOP wants her head on a platter, the Dems will do anything to avoid criticizing her.

Politics aside, I dont know how you can argue that the State Dept didn't screw up royally. Other nations pulled their people out of Benghazi because it was too dangerous. Not only did we leave our people there, but Stevens' multiple requests for additional security were ignored. That is a major, major screw up. Other groups saw this coming, and her State Dept did not.

If she's that inept at keeping people alive who she puts in harm's way, she's not remotely fit for the job she seeks.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 08:57 AM   #74
joebaggs99
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
joebaggs99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: MASS. I miss CT
Posts: 213
Blog Entries: 1
Wasted time and resources to put a head on the chopping block. 3 investigations with the same results. A terrible thing happened, let's take a moment and remember what happened and do our best as a nation moving forward. Those millions of tax dollars on this last investigation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.
joebaggs99 is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 09:33 AM   #75
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebaggs99 View Post
Wasted time and resources to put a head on the chopping block. 3 investigations with the same results. A terrible thing happened, let's take a moment and remember what happened and do our best as a nation moving forward. Those millions of tax dollars on this last investigation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.
So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 10:04 AM   #76
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebaggs99 View Post
Wasted time and resources... Those millions of tax dollars on his last vacation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.
fixed it...

"It’s hard to imagine how Democrats complaining about the cost of the House Special Committee on Benghazi manage to keep a
straight face. After all, the total cost to date is under 5 million dollars, not even close to the actual cost of a weekend Obama family
getaway. Even more to the point, Elizabeth Harrington of the Free Beacon took a look at what the federal government pays for
other kinds of information:
The amount of taxpayer funding that has gone toward the investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is
less than the amount the federal government has invested in “Origami condoms” and studies on why lesbians are
obese. (snip)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami
condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full#^&body
plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded
corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results
have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic selfesteem,”
and young men think about their muscles.
The Democratic members on the Benghazi committee also like to point out that the Benghazi investigation has lasted
532 Days, “longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran#^&Contra, and Hurricane
Katrina.”
The federally funded investigation into lesbian obesity has lasted for 1,460 days, or four years since it began in
September 2011.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 10:14 AM   #77
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Under Bush there was 13 embassy attacks and 60 Americans died.
Where was the republican outrage then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 10:17 AM   #78
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Under Bush there was 13 embassy attacks and 60 Americans died.
Where was the republican outrage then?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
check your facts
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 10:19 AM   #79
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The US State Dept left those people in Benghazi when other countries correctly sensed the danger and pulled out. After leaving thos epeople in harm's way, the state dept then rejected multiple requests from Stevens for more security.

Now, is it a waste of time to ask the person who ran the State Dept at that time, WTF happened, how could we have been so wrong? That's a perfectly fair question, and she hadn't been asked that under oath until yesterday.

Her answer was "we did the best we could". Well, if that's true, her best wasn't NEARLY good enough. Other countries did much better, as did the Red Cross, which also got their people the hell out of there BEFORE any of them got killed.

If her "best", results in Americans getting killed when everyone else was smart enough to get out of there before their people got hurt, how in God's name is she fit to be POTUS?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 10:42 AM   #80
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
So now when other countries do something we need to do it too? How funny is that. Let France decide our foreign policy.

Pure pathetic politics. Using the death of American's for politics.

There needs to be more hearings and investigations since this one (like all the others) didn't turn anything up. Use the same reasoning that was used for this investigation. There must be something there other than some misstatements made during the 1st few days w/a fluid situation. Why didn't they look into why Congress turned down requests for more $ to strengthen the defenses of our embassies?

70% of the American public thinks this is political and the results proved that.
PaulS is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:12 AM   #81
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
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....
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:40 AM   #82
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
11 hours of interrogation with hopes of Hillary providing some magical sound bites to use against her.
What a joke and what a dishonor to those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
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.
spence is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:43 AM   #83
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
So now when other countries do something we need to do it too? How funny is that. Let France decide our foreign policy.

Pure pathetic politics. Using the death of American's for politics.

There needs to be more hearings and investigations since this one (like all the others) didn't turn anything up. Use the same reasoning that was used for this investigation. There must be something there other than some misstatements made during the 1st few days w/a fluid situation. Why didn't they look into why Congress turned down requests for more $ to strengthen the defenses of our embassies?

70% of the American public thinks this is political and the results proved that.
"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?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:50 AM   #84
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.
now I'm positive that Spence has a creepy Hillary shrine in his closet
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:52 AM   #85
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
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
Nebe is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:52 AM   #86
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Fixed.

Gowdy's assertion they were out for the truth was a total lie. .
probably because when dealing with Clinton's, you are never going to get any truth...I see what you did there
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:54 AM   #87
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Clinton to be the smartest and most capable person in the room.
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 11:59 AM   #88
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
If they both worked together they could get back to land.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 12:11 PM   #89
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Did anyone mention the serviceman who died in Iraq the day before? A moment of silence? anything?
I just read he was a Delta Force master sgt with 11 bronze stars.

Special place in heaven for that guy.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2015, 12:16 PM   #90
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
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
PaulS is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com