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.
I'd like to know why you think Benghazi was nonsense. Did it happen or didn't it? It did. Why did it happen? Because of Hillary's incompetence. Failure to do her job. Her refusal to adequately protect the compound, and then when under attack, she (and the President) did nothing.
Then, to make matters worse, for weeks afterward, she blamed the attack on a video!
Hillary lied and people died.
You mean the places where funding for increased security was asked for and denied? by the congress?
Benghazi where multiple massive investigations ran by Republicans have found no scandel? What are we on, try #3 to find something?
Nice catch phrase at the end. Wasn't it "obama lied" before? which one is it?
You mean the places where funding for increased security was asked for and denied? by the congress?
It is the State Department, not Congress, that is responsible for Embassies and their security. It was the Obama Administration that denied those requests, not Congress.
"[M]ultiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added. “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”
"Officials in Washington" does not mean "Congress," which played no role. It means "Obama Administration" officials; i.e., State Department officials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Benghazi where multiple massive investigations ran by Republicans have found no scandel? What are we on, try #3 to find something?
Nice catch phrase at the end. Wasn't it "obama lied" before? which one is it?
Seriously fake controversies will hide real ones.
"Fake controversy" is your label. But there is nothing "fake" about the fact that increased security was denied by this administration (as the Oversight Committee learned). Further is the fact that the Administration tried to cover their incompetence by claiming the attack was "spontaneous," because of an "offensive video," when it has been proven [read the article below] that there had been multiple attacks on the Benghazi compound prior to the 9/11 attack.
Hillary, as Secretary of State at the time of this attack, is directly responsible for the deaths of these four Americans, because she did nothing to prevent the attack, even when it was known that a major attack was highly likely.
The Benghazi nonsense gives her a lot of cover. Its like the boy who cried wolf.
Really? "Benghazi nonsense?" Deny, deny, deny!
Why do you people defend this woman, and this Administration, when the evidence is so clear? Is it that "the end [a socialist U.S.] justifies the means?"
You would think she is finished however I think that she will probably be elected despite her faults.
1) The number of people that are dedicated "true believers" in political parties is higher for the democrats at 31% vs republican at 25%. Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents
2) While 42% of the voters say they are "independent" a majority of them are low information voters and will not bother giving it too much thought.
3) Clinton is prepared to spend 2,000,000,000.00 to buy the Presidency. (A new record previously held by President Obama)
5) There are no other viable candidates for the Democrats. Joe Biden?
6) Women. Frankly speaking there will be a lot of women voting for Clinton because she is a woman. I have no problem with a woman President. I have a problem with THAT woman though.
I give Clinton better than even odds of winning. I am a true independent with a bad taste in my mouth for the Democrats/Republicans. I always vote third party so I KNOW my person isn't going to win.
Why do you people defend this woman, and this Administration, when the evidence is so clear? Is it that "the end [a socialist U.S.] justifies the means?"
People like you really scare me.
Deny? You mean like the last Republican led investigation?
I havent attacked Clinton once on this thread.. You are the one calling me partisan for not even attacking someone.
What you've done is that you introduced a subject (The Bush testing incident) that has nothing to do with me and nothing to do with this thread. You did that so you can take a jab at certain political demographic and you tried to lump me into that group with no reason at all.
That's pretty standard partisanship.
It's one thing to be a right-wing hitman and own up to it. But to jump on this thread and start accusing people and throwing out label, and then say, "Oh, I am not a partisan." Is pretty sad.
If the table is turned, we all know the conservative's response would be - "Liberal media can't be trusted!!" "This is gotcha politics!!!!" "You can't trust CNN, NYT, Yahoo, Time, or anything besides Fox News!!!" The conservatives would somehow find a way to blame the "liberal media" for releasing the news story and play victim to an imaginary conspiracy.
The liberals' response is mostly - this looks bad on the surface and let's find out more facts. The liberals have not attacked the media, have not denied that it might have happened, is raising some valid questions about the story, and want more facts. This is in stark contrast to the typical conservative reaction. You can see by the liberals response that most are very rational people who are not partisan at all even if they do have agendas. The conservatives habit of ignoring facts and going on the attack against messengers is why they are so commonly known as extreme hacks (and yes, you would be one of them).
.
After President Truman retired from office in 1952, he was left with an income consisting of basically just a U.S. Army pension, reported to have been only $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an "allowance" and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year. When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
Today everything is for sale including the liberty we used to hold so dear.
But the Clinton family of thieves has only earned a little less than $1 million a month since they left office. Now tell me they are not the for sale pair of horrors.
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.
Nice try.
