Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you were going to bring up a past president - Bush - I thought you might want to go back to the beginning and find other presidents to "blame". You seem to want to blame the past to excuse the present.
If you were going to bring up a past president - Bush - I thought you might want to go back to the beginning and find other presidents to "blame". You seem to want to blame the past to excuse the present.
You seem to want to forget the past--as in, pre-2009--and look at the current administration in a vacuum. Sorry, but you don't get to pretend that nothing bad ever happened at a U.S. embassy before President Obama.
According to the right, no administration before this one ever experienced violence at any of our embassies. Only this administration. At least one would think so, judging from the never-ending "investigations" on Benghazi.
Where were the years worth of investigations for all those other embassy deaths? Yeah, those didn't matter, right? Because...TALKING POINTS! YOUTUBE VIDEOS!!! Or something...
How do you know there were no investigations into Ambassadors who were killed? Let me remind you that there was no internet, no "breaking new", and the technology we have today did not exist when they were killed. Do you think they just boxed, shipped and buried them and that was the end of it?
This post, like the one burdell posted has nothing to do with this thread. Why not start your own thread about the deaths of previous Ambassadors.
You seem to want to forget the past--as in, pre-2009--and look at the current administration in a vacuum. Sorry, but you don't get to pretend that nothing bad ever happened at a U.S. embassy before President Obama.
I'm in the here and now. Is there another administration at the moment? Why the need to pull out history to justify and defend the present? Is it because there is nothing else?
Pretend? LOL. I thought the thread was about Clinton and Benghazi??
You too can start your own thread about pre-2009 and discuss the murders of past Ambassadors.
There has been terrific effort expended by the GOP to uncover a cover up re Benghazi by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While it does seem pretty apparent to me that there was an effort to cover up what happened at Benghazi, and that the impetus was from the Obama 2012 campaign (the election was less than two months away), the problem is that there is no smoking gun proof of this. and probably never will be. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been managing scandals for 30 years, and when you have that much experience, you become very good.
Jason Chaffetz, who has served on both the House Intel committee and on the oversight committee under Darrell Issa, has what I think is a better approach to the question of Benghazi. He traveled to Libya in October 2012, just after the attack.
The approach of Chaffetz was not to criticize on the basis of a nefarious but unproven cover up, but that the Benghazi attack was the result of Hillary Clinton's wrongheaded 'expeditionary diplomacy' philosophy. Hillary believed in strong engagement and outreach to places like Libya, which is why Chris Stevens was still in Benghazi after the Brits had pulled their people out due to violence and instability. In short Hillary was a believer not just in big government domestically, but in 'big foreign policy' (if you will).
If Republicans keep pursing the cover up angle, and never get their proof, we will end up looking like Wiley Coyote going after Road Runner. With the Chaffetz approach, we can have a civil debate over whether we want the US Dept of State extending tentacles into every country on earth in an effort to get them to behave the way we prefer, and in the process putting American lives at risk. And I think that Hillary Clinton will come out on the losing end of that debate.
As POTUS Johnson said. Republicans investigate and Democrats legislate.
As POTUS Johnson said. Republicans investigate and Democrats legislate.
But this thread has zip, zero nada to do with legislation. It's about foreign policy and the state dept. Hillary believed in a big, bold, expansive foreign policy. She wanted to use military, diplomacy, foreign aid, and the threat of sanctions to try to have an impact in foreign lands. This was her "smart power" philosophy. Correct The Record | HILLARY CLINTON: SMART POWER & FOREIGN POLICY
She had big plans for Libya and she and Stevens were working with a guy named Mahmoud Jibril, a Benghazi native who held a PhD in poli sci from the University of Pittsburgh. They wanted to remake a post-Qaddafi Libya in their image. Really not a whole lot different from what W Bush wanted to do in Iraq.
She wanted to turn the consulate in Benghazi into a permanent US outpost. The money to do that was supposed to be allocated by Sept. 2012, and that was mainly why Stevens was there on Sept 11, 2012. The US embassy was in Tripoli, 400 miles away.
Did POTUS Johnson have any witty quips on America getting mixed up in overseas entanglements?
No mater how paint Benghazi It stil remains President Obama did not want this affect his presidential run and misrepresented this to the American People. Susan Rice Sunday talk show run.
Clinton was not their for the 3 :00 am call and days after the assault, she went under cover for 30daysand was not avialble to the American People. sound Familiar with the Clinton Foundation.
Well, with the latest regarding her foreign contributions for favors, and "mistakes" in her taxes, I think it caught up to her and she's managed to do herself in with no help from the GOP - or Team Obama. Maybe as a private citizen she thought she was still untouchable???
Any potential candidate or politician taking cash-for-favors, regardless of party affiliation, should be investigated.
Well, she's certainly doing herself in with (big surprise) the help of media fools like Matt Lauer who, just this morning (and yet again), dismissed her multiple scandals by saying that she's dogged by new questions from political rivals....That's right, Matt, because she's certainly not been dogged by questions from YOU or the rest of the wimpy, liberal clowns that comprise today's "investigative" reporters.
Last edited by Delahanty; 05-05-2015 at 08:11 AM..
Anyone remember the problem with the Barbary Pirates in the Early 1800's? Same place, same people, different times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clintonis slick
That's right, Matt, because she's certainly not been dogged by questions from YOU or the rest of the wimpy, liberal clowns that comprise today's "investigative" reporters.