She's a Clinton. Nobody knows better how to protect themselves political and remove themselves from blame of any kind.Originally Posted by SiggyPoke
|
|
She's a Clinton. Nobody knows better how to protect themselves political and remove themselves from blame of any kind.
From the article, and I agree with both of you.
"Now sequestration will be very damaging to the State Department and USAID if it does come to p****, because it throws the baby out with the bath," Clinton said, referring to the United States Agency for International Development, which administers civilian foreign aid.
While the State Department does need to make cuts in certain areas, "there are also a lot of very essential programs … that we can't afford to cut more of," she added.
The Accountability Review Board did not find her accountable (in a liable since). She has taken responsibility for the department's failure to protect 4 diplomats. It has nothing to do with knowledge of law.
The following users like this post: Aurora
KSsooner-always like your avatar...do you know her?
Every administration ever has lied to us about something. Sometimes they just don't know the best way to keep people from flipping out. I think the Republicans would have been all tra la laaa la la had this been a Republican President and the Democrats would be filled with faux outrage for the dead, which is actually outrage for the fact their guy isn't in office and doing the lying.
Mrs. Clinton had a hard job, ask Condi Rice if the job was easy ... Nope it is a hard one and if you have a president who never wants to be wrong it is even harder.
The following users like this post: Sancho
Disagree. What the admin did was obstructionist and dishonest to drive an agenda. I don't think Clinton was part of that.
I don't either but I think they were not the first obstructionist and dishonest administration in history and they won't be the last!
Agree. Nixon and Clinton were impeached.
The following users like this post: Aurora
Tumblr is my favorite besides of course LT
Also, the outrage could be driven in part from a near perfect foreign policy from the Obama Administration with the crowning point being the Tea-Bagging of W by killing Bin Laden.
I am very sad for the death of four diplomats, but I think the State Department handled it very well, despite all the confusion at the very start. If anything, this is proof that the Accountability Review Board process works very well and is a good way to figure out problems.
What does Hillary have on her mind?
.
And ... we disagree. The FP moves have not been good.
What kind of idiot still believes that Bin Laden's death had anything to do with Obama's foreign policy? Or Obama at all for that matter? How gullible are you, OOO?
I don't know that is a hard question , I am ready for 5 o'clock on this happy hump day
2 users like Aurora's post: okie52, OnlyOneOklahoma
Yeah, without Obama's great FP and intervention into Libya we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The State Department is so underfunded that it can't afford security for its Embassy in Tripoli and for an 11 acre luxury compound in Benghazi and the CIA annex in Benghazi? How many other facilities did they have in Libya?
When did the team from Spain arrive in Behghazi after being delayed 90 minutes to change clothes? The attack on the CIA annex was much later after the attack on the compound and they could have ****isted with that. The team in Italy was even closer. Clearly the POTUS and the SOS didn't want it to appear that we would use military force to stop terrorists.
Hillary stood next to Obama in the Rose Garden the next day when he mentioned terror attacks in general at the end of his comments, but Susan Rice went on five television shows after that calling him a liar because she said it was a protest in response to the video.
What difference does it make if the SOS and the POTUS lie to us? Somebody will still vote for them anyway.
Maybe that is the point Hillary was trying to make? That it doesnt matter that the Obama Administration continually lies to us and acts against the will of the people behind closed doors... the sheeple will continue to support them anyway.
My God man... you are the biggest ****ing sheep I've ever encountered, it's not even close. You've got to be a troll. There's no way you believe 1/10th of the **** you spew.
The following users like this post: nolesooner
The pub politicians did another great job.... of making a donk even more popular.
The following users like this post: Sancho
How is she? I haven't yanked on that hair in ages.
I believe those people are all still employed. They just moved their desks around. And funding had nothing to do with Obama, Biden, and others standing around and doing nothing while these men were murdered and then doing everything they could to lie and cover it up before the election and beyond. That didn't cost anything.
The ARB is her people, correct? So we just totally screwed the pooch, four people are dead, and there has been a massive, failed whitewashing and no one is to blame? Beautiful.
So after declining killing UBL three times because mommy Valerie said no and basically Panetta making the decision to finally man up is a great success? Using policies set in place by Bush and executing the raid with "**** Cheney's death squad" is tea bagging the previous administration? Then afterwards leaking every secret you could and dancing on UBL's grave thus giving the terrorists in Benghazi fuel for their firs is great diplomacy? I know someone called you a sheep but I hear some sheep are complaining. Lemming comes to mind.
The State Department handled it well? Lying about it until it was obvious even to the MSM that it was all bull****? That's handling it well? Confusion? There wasn't any confusion. They all watched it go on in real time. They weren't too confused to not send in any help even when it was obvious that help was needed. They weren't too confused to create a cover up and tell that ridiculous story about a video. BHO wasn't too confused to go to bed as his ambassador was being ****d and murdered and then skip his intel meeting and go party in Vegas comparing his campaign volunteers to the four dead.
I have posted this once, I will post it again.
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/02/164207...enghazi-attack
The timeline matches up and this bizarre anger with the president, despite doing everything possible is more proof that the extreme right wing is taking over. Come on cub, you are the voice of reason in this thread for the moderate right.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4329014
She makes the Senator from Wisconsin to look like an absolute ****. The thing that strikes me as bizarre, is that Hillary is concerned with facts, and with the deaths of those diplomats. The Senator is concerned about bad information given on a Sunday talk show as the story was still developing.
Her typical Clinton fake pre-planned emotional outburst designed to avoid answering questions. Her replacement the war criminal will be just as ****ty as Hillary.
Lol... Okay, Junior. Did your high school teacher tell you to think that along with his outstanding Economics lesson?
Americans died and they shouldn't have died. That's why people are outraged. If Obama and the Sheep would've given a rat's **** about something as practical as security, they may still be alive.
She is not a good SOS because the people she picked to help her ignored the realities of the region and four Americans died because of it. The story the Obamanites spun regarding the YT video was created out of panic. They knew they were politically vulnerable (i.e., responsible) and they hoped their pals in the media wouldn't ask too many questions.
Hillary's false indignation about being questioned today is what is really laughable. It's so transparent. But the people who want to believe she and the Obamanator do nothing wrong will gladly lap up her act as something genuine, just as they did when she "came under fire" on the tarmac ... and just as they did when she feigned surprise and anger when her husband got getting a hummer from an intern.
Well, we know he is gullible enough to believe his dumb**** high school teacher who told him that presidents don't really influence economic policy. That pretty much says it all right there.
This has nothing to do with anything in the thread and you are fast becoming another terrible conservative poster in this ****hole of a forum. Read what I said and get back to me in another thread.
I'm sitting here providing proof of what the administration say happened, happened. All I am getting in response is faux outrage from the mouth breathers on this forum. Please find me a source that says the Administration knowingly lied about the cause (not that is matters because it happened before they had all information, and corrected themselves), find me a link that says Obama watched this attack happen in realtime, find me a link that shows Obama did not do everything possible to help people out on the ground. The way Hillary handled herself on the Hill yesterday is exactly how she has handled herself since the Benghazi attacks and throughout the entire Obama first term. She is nothing but a consumate professional, a caring leader, and an exceptional American. What proof do you have that her emotion was scripted or fake?
The idiots on the Right are making a big deal out of a YouTube video, Secretary Clinton is trying to explain what happened, and what steps the State Department has taken and is implementing to prevent this from happening. Turns out lack of funding which is controlled by congress contributed to the incident, but instead we get questions about a YouTube video of all things...
I am just getting political theater and it seems that there is not a rational person on this forum (besides cub) who can present an un-emotional argument on this topic.
The NYT reporting that three of the surviving terrorists captured in algeria claim to have taken part in Benghazi. Outstanding. What difference does it make!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to be a troll or a sock. No one is this big of an idiot.
The following users like this post: jdmt37
It's amazingly effective what the Dems have done here. They've flipped the script and are the ones incredulous about a video being mentioned. The only reason the video is an issue is because this administration falsely blamed it for the attack. Intelligence or links? I want a link that shows why they falsely blamed a video for several weeks. It wasn't faulty intelligence. It was wagging the dog.
The reason conservatives are outraged about the idea of a video is because this administration blamed a video for a failure. You can't seriously try to convince anyone it was a Congressional lack of funding--this President is extremely happy to blame Congress for anything he can. He's trying that now that the video thing has blown up in his face. If there were no criminal acts going on in the CIA safe house, at the very least the administration ignored repeated requests for increased security by the ambassador. At minimum there is responsibility with this administration for ignoring the requests for more guards that led to the deaths of Americans.
He is neither. He is just really comfortable with lying. The ends justify the means.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/170101...an-comedy-tour
State Dept can spend $100K on an Indian comedian buy can't afford to secure our ambassadors?
FIFY
FIFY
Your youth and naivete are showing here. For those of us old enough to remember the Clintons in the White House, this feigned outrage from HRC is part of the same old act. As for your comment about why the YouTube video is being called into question ... take a look back at the first week or so after the attack. It's all we heard from the administration, even from Obama. They were too quick to try to capitalize on that and something smells about that.
If you want to say that some of the questioning from the conservatives is politically motivated, I can't totally disagree with that. But I do know that if they didn't ask these questions they would be doing us all a disservice.
If you're the SOS of the U.S., you need to be able to handle tough questions without losing your cool.
I've previously stated that I don't hold her responsible in this, and I think she's done a pretty good job all things considered. I do have a little trouble with your faith in the Clintons. She's been hiding out waiting for the heat too cool--that doesn't show that she's been that concerned about these deaths. I didn't think she made the guy from WI look bad--in fact, if she runs in '16, she'll get bludgeoned with that clip.
There is nothing in this time line about the 50 marines from Spain who were delayed 90 minutes because they were ordered to change clothes.
She makes herself look like a **** spewing maggot gagging **** with her idiotic comment about "What difference does it make at this point?" She said she stood next to Obama on the 12th when he said it was a terror attack, but then she, Obama and Rice all started talking about the video. All three lied. It matters when they lie. It matters what happened. It matters that 4 Americans were killed because of her stupidity and incompetence. It matters that the State Department tried to stretch their so called underfunded budget in order to have a consulate in Benghazi in addition to the embassy in Tripoli, not to mention the CIA annex in Behghazi. If they can't afford security, they shouldn't have all of those locations. Of course she wasn't concerned with security. She didn't even see the cables calling for more security. Not her problem. She is responsible and she is to blame for the deaths of 4 Americans.
It clearly doesnt matter that they lie. The sheep will just re-elect them. She is right. They can say and do whatever they want at this point.
The sheep want to be ruled not lead and they are getting just what they asked for.
She does
The following users like this post: kssooner
So by this logic I can go out and commit crimes, wait a few months and use the defense "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
If you are a Liberal, yes.
Ah yes. The pink dress. Stand by your man; the bimbo eruption; FBI files; Vince Foster; the vast right wing conspiracy; Whitewater; Travelgate; impeachment. What a great eight years for our country.
Obama lied from the beginning. So did Hillary. So did Rice. He mmade that absurd, pant wetting speech to the UN. He and Hillary embarrassed themselves with that PSA to Pakeestan. Rice, well we know about her. This was a save our **** action from the beginning. The lying and covering up is horrible. No one expected her to come clean yesterday. Sadly nothing will come of this.
No, by that logic, you can say arguing about the motivation of the Sandy Hook killer is less important than making it less likely that a crazy killer walks onto an elementary school campus and kills 20 people.
Clinton was saying focusing on the motivation of the murderers is less important than correcting security, communciation, etc, to make it less likely that Americans are murdered - regardless of their motivation.
I'm sure Mizz Clinton would say what's the diff here too. Nice job, Hill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...med-at-US.html
No, Clinton did not want to have to answer the question of why the Administration opted to lie about the motivation of the attack rather than just call it what it was from the get-go or answer why they then lied about lying about it.
Nice try though.
What you brought up about Sandy Hook is not analogous. Clinton wasnt asked to talk about the (actual) motivation she was asked why the Obama Administration lied about it in the first place. Her answer, literally, was "What difference does it make?".
That quote alone should sink the S.S. Hillary Clinton's career as it demonstrates she has a perverse and warped interpretation of what the role of government and the job of the President is. It wont though, because as has been demonstrated the sheep want to be ruled.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
