If there's no Hillary, there's less outrage from the right (Congress, ethical)

[Little-Acorn]

(duplicate post)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by C. Maurio

I don't know if she will carry that many but she should not have any trouble winning Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Nevada which will pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the Republican hopes.

She will win every state President Obama did in 2008 + Arizona, Montana,Missouri,Georgia and Arkansas

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

Pretty scary people would vote for someone......that showed little interest in how people under her were killed. Denying this was a terrorist attack should be quite embarrassing.

Your opinion is just that, yours.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

Try answering my question.

the ARB already did, so i assumed you were blaming Clinton, otherwise you wouldnt be writing these comments.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Willsson

If you haven't learned anything about the Clinton's then you might want to learn that just because they say so doesn't really 'make it so'.

Just because Hilary says she didn't see the cable doesn't really mean she really didn't see the cable. And after 'What difference does it make', there is absolutely nothing of value the woman could have to say.

This is not what Hillary said she saw, this is about other people interviewed and understanding how the chain of command worked. If you are claiming Hillary lied, then you are also claiming lies by all those under her and by those on the Accountability Review board and the whistle blowers themselves.

I also find it completely stupid how conservatives/republicans even while knowing the full context of the "what does it matter/make a difference" continue to pretend as if that is all that was said. You are proving the point that this is a which hunt.

What she said before and after that comment was that It was her responsibility to find out what went wrong and fix it, yet you are focusing your attack on her based on talking points.

[totsuka]

Hillary and Obama made this a political issue as soon as they heard the embassy was under attack by Muslim terrorists.

[DoD Guy]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

And where do you believe the blame should fall?

Bump for a good answer from somebody.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

That's the way I see it. There needs to be a thorough investigation, but it will never happen that way. The right has politicized the issue to the point that the potential investigation's integrity has been destroyed. Now, surprise surprise, here comes Rand Paul....

Rand Paul challenges Hillary Clinton in key Iowa speech - NBC Politics

Paul looks like he is feeling out his chances for the presidency, his motivations lay in that direction, not Benghazi.

So if the actions of a man exploring his chances for the presidency looks politically motivated to you, then congratulations, you paid attention on the first day of school in your political science 101 class.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

the ARB already did, so i assumed you were blaming Clinton, otherwise you wouldnt be writing these comments.

My question was, "where do YOU believe the blame should fall?" You clearly don't believe it should fall on Hillary so try answering my question. Where should the blame fall?

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Originally Posted by DoD Guy

Bump for a good answer from somebody.

It seems like a simple question right? If the liberals in here claim that we are wrongly blaming Hillary for political reasons fine, who should we be blaming for this failure? Hillary Clinton is the sec of state, who should be responsible for this failure and apparent coverup?