Hillary En Fuego

gimmesometruth27

fear4freedom wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

give me a fucking break.

“Ultimately, I think with your leaving, you accept culpability for the greatest tragedy since 9/11,"


comparing the loss of 4 americans to 9/11 is the biggest joke i have ever heard. invoking 9/11 in this case is minimizing the significance of 9/11. and having lost a friend in 9/11 i find it offensive.

this is why rand paul will never be president. he can not even get simple comparisons right. he is good at drama and political theater though.

how is that blocking of the executive orders going?

Are you sure you dont want to read the quote again? The word "since" shows that he wasnt comparing! Are you an "out-of-contexter"? Read again and try again!
Sorry bud but you have based your whole thought process on something that is non-existent!

to the vast majority of this country, every mass shooting in the last 3 months is a "greater tragedy" than this.

paul is politicizing 9/11 again, and he is politicizing this. he is invoking 9/11 to get an emotional response from the feeble minded out there. and it worked for his supporters.

paul will never be in a position to fire anybody from any cabinet and he is puffing his chest here so the tea party will continue to embrace him.

he is the new kid on the foreign committee and he wanted to make a splash. period.

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!

Or...not at all.

exactly.

as much as the republicans wish for there to be something here to impeach obama on, they are not going to find anything. all they are doing is looking like they are going on a witch hunt....which they ALWAYS do. it is grandstanding and political theater.

gimmesometruth27

also, if the gop has some sort of evidence, why did they not use it today? why did they not use it and take the case to the american people?

answer is simple. they have nothing.

they would love nothing more than for some huge announcement to turn the country against the president. problem is, people want to turn against the president, but who are they gonna turn to? certainly not the republicans.

congressional democrats received 1.5 million more votes than congressional republicans in 2012, so those results show where public opinion was 2 months ago. and 2 months AFTER benghazi...

gimmesometruth27

unsung

There was a seven hour gap between attacks that help didn't arrive. There were numerous requests to provide additional security prior to the attack from the Ambassador himself. How much more evidence needs to land in your lap before you realize that this was a failure on this administration?

badbrains

fear4freedom wrote:

This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!

Dude, EVERY administration hides BIG shit! Come on man, don't play dumb and blame one fucken side. Ever ask yourself, 44 presidents and NOT 1 had there own ideas or policies? Same shit every time just different name.

JimmyV

From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.

Liberty!

JimmyV

badbrains wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!

Dude, EVERY administration hides BIG shit! Come on man, don't play dumb and blame one fucken side. Ever ask yourself, 44 presidents and NOT 1 had there own ideas or policies? Same shit every time just different name.

And when sitting US Senators like Rand Paul and Ron Johnson cannot handle having information like adults you can see why.

even flow - question mark

Where was this kind of heated discussion when a supposed plane went through the pentagon?

JimmyV

even flow - question mark wrote:

Where was this kind of heated discussion when a supposed plane went through the pentagon?

Or when Reagan's people were meeting secretly with the Iranians during the 1980 campaign?

gimmesometruth27

the republicans don't like being blamed for anything. paul ryan was directly responsible for not appropriating money for adequate security to our embassies. they had been asked for more security and the funding was cut by ryan and the republicans. hillary even pretty much stated that in her testimony. but the witch hunt will continue...

plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...

JimmyV

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the republicans don't like being blamed for anything. paul ryan was directly responsible for not appropriating money for adequate security to our embassies. they had been asked for more security and the funding was cut by ryan and the republicans. hillary even pretty much stated that in her testimony. but the witch hunt will continue...

plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...

I do think if a woman wants one of these jobs she deserves to be beaten up just like a man would be. Hillary took it like a champ yesterday. Impressed by her I was.

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the republicans don't like being blamed for anything. paul ryan was directly responsible for not appropriating money for adequate security to our embassies. they had been asked for more security and the funding was cut by ryan and the republicans. hillary even pretty much stated that in her testimony. but the witch hunt will continue...

plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...

I do think if a woman wants one of these jobs she deserves to be beaten up just like a man would be. Hillary took it like a champ yesterday. Impressed by her I was.

they would not talk to a man the same way they talk to the women. look at what they did to sotomayor in her hearings. look what they did to anita hill in the clarence thomas situation.

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...

Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?

gimmesometruth27

pjl44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...

Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?

no, i have history of watching these proceedings, and i have no problem calling a spade a spade. they bully women in these proceedings. and they don't like it when people like hillary tell them to essentially go fuck themselves. rand paul and john mccain were DISGRACEFUL yesterday. they had no interest in having a civil conversation, and it was obvious to anyone who watched it.

hedonist

Granted, I only saw snippets, but I think the questioning wouldn't have been much different with a man there instead of her. The "war on women" thing seems sometimes to be used as haphazardly/gratuitously as sexual harrassment - takes away from those with legitimate beefs.

I also take exception to dismissing what precipitated this whole clusterfuck. How is that unimportant? Is there nothing to be learned from what happened, from what caused it to happen?

even flow - question mark

hedonist wrote:

How is that unimportant? Is there nothing to be learned from what happened, from what caused it to happen?

Nutshell.............US foreign embassy in an unstable land which happens to be Arab who the US isn't making too many friends with for the past couple of decades, toss in the aniversary of 911, along with some loose, free weapons from the Colnel's regime, in the right or wrong hands, a little bit of tinder around the old box and voila.

I listened to that last night and it amazes me how stupid some people in government can actually be and how low they can sink.

gimmesometruth27

i believe that this article sums it up nicely.. they ran a poor candidate who screwed up by talking to the press before the facts were in and it cost the gop the election. they are mad that obama has not been damaged politically by it.

i remember being all butt hurt too when kerry lost.


What's Behind the GOP's Fixation on Benghazi?

http://news.yahoo.com/whats-behind-gops ... 12344.html

As Republicans grilled Hillary Clinton on the Obama administration's response to Benghazi in congressional hearings Wednesday, they repeatedly hit on a talking point that doesn't seem like it'd do them a lot of good: It's been four months. "Here we are, four months later, and we still don’t have the basic information," Sen. John McCain told Clinton Wednesday. "I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, I’m just trying to get the answers I believe the American people deserve to hear. It’s been four months," Sen. Ron Johnson told a Milwaukee radio show after he and Clinton had a testy exchange. "More than four months later its unacceptable that the State Department has made it so difficult" to conduct oversight, Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot told Clinton. Clinton will have to respond later in writing, because Chabot used up all of his time with his statement. But they all raise a good question: What have we been debating for four months?

"The media has moved on," Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf lamented on the House floor, separately from the hearing, on Wednesday. Despite the frenzy of coverage of the Clinton hearings, he's mostly right. But that has at least something to do with the confused case Republicans have made in arguing that the Obama administration did something wrong in Benghazi. Initially, it was that President Obama supposedly apologized to the terrorists. This was the thrust of Mitt Romney's statement, issued hours after the attack, that Romney himself came to regret. This charge was mostly discarded. Then the focus was that Obama didn't call the attacks terrorism until two weeks later, a complaint Obama deflected during a presidential debate, when Obama demanded moderator Candy Crowley "check the transcript" of his Rose Garden speech the day after the attacks and he did use the word "terror," although rather obliquely: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..."

So, take three: Republicans moved on to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who said on five different Sunday shows that the attacks were inspired by protests in Cairo over an anti-Islam video. This charge was stickier, and cost Rice the Secretary of State nomination. But Rice's scalp did not end the Benghazi debate. In Wednesday;s hearings, Republicans had tough questions for Clinton, even if they didn't always allot enough time for her to answer them. Benghazi is still a rallying call for conservatives. But what do they think is the scandal?

How come no one was punished?

"To my knowledge, no one was held accountable" for the insufficient security, Sen. Bob Corker said. But four state department officials have been placed on administrative leave. Clinton said she did not read the cables related to the security situation at the Benghazi consulate. "I am the secretary of state and the [Accountability Review Board] made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below," she said.

How come no one got fired?

"People who make judgement errors should be fired and replaced," Sen. Rand Paul said. "Had I been president... I would have relieved you from your post." But Clinton explained that federal statute prohibits the state department from firing people for failure of leadership. (It's actually very difficult to fire civil servants.)

We circled back to, Wait, but the Sunday shows?

"I’m going back to then Ambassador Rice five days later going on Sunday shows and what I would say purposefully misleading the American public," Johnson said. Clinton said she had no role in preparing Rice's talking points. The Atlantic Wire has speculated that the obsession with Sunday talk show appearances might have something to do with how much senators love going on Sunday shows. He mentioned that in the hearings -- especially Rice's chief antagonist, John McCain. McCain mentioned his Sunday show cred in the hearings, saying, "By the way, as I said at the time -- I just happened to be on one of those talk shows -- people don't bring RPGs and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations. That's a fundamental."

Given that Rice was punished for her Sunday show performance, what does that mean the hearing is really about? For a clue, look at the statement of Rep. Matt Salmon, who referenced another incident that no level of congressional Republican obsession could turn into a major issue. "From Operation Fast and Furious, where Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly misled the American people and Congress…to U.N. Secretary Susan Rice who on five separate occasions went before the American people days after the attacks on Benghazi talking about a demonstration at the facility that never happened," Salmon said.

Perhaps the fixation on Benghazi has something to do with the fact that Republicans have been attacking Obama on Benghazi for four months and it hasn't damaged him. Let's review the incident: It was a terror attack, in which four Americans died. In Libya, a country whose dictator Obama controversially decided to help overthrow despite the advice of many staffers. On the anniversary of 9/11. As big anti-American protests spread across the Middle East. It's should have sunk Obama, but Romney, in his own words, "screwed up." Could you blame the GOP for wanting a do-over?

unsung

We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

plus, how fucking cowardly do these republicans look browbeating women like clinton, sotomayor, and obama's most recent pick to be nominated for sec of state? they purposely beat up on female liberals. women recognize that, and it is gonna show at the ballot box, again...

Can you really not see past your own bias enough to understand that has more to do with ideology than gender? Or do you purposefully obscure that to force a narrative?

no, i have history of watching these proceedings, and i have no problem calling a spade a spade. they bully women in these proceedings. and they don't like it when people like hillary tell them to essentially go fuck themselves. rand paul and john mccain were DISGRACEFUL yesterday. they had no interest in having a civil conversation, and it was obvious to anyone who watched it.

If you're seeing that pattern based solely on gender, it's confirmation bias.