Too bad there’s no actual evidence for Clinton having caused the attack in Benghazi. Turns out it was terrorists. Rachel Maddow had a nice analysis of all of the attacks (and the amount of evidence supporting them) on Friday, you can find it at Maddowblog. The most damning is the lack of preparation against attacks, which falls at least as much on congress as it does on the State Department, but Clinton has accepted all recommendations and all responsibility for fixing those problems, so there hasn’t really been a story there since December.
Unfortunately, I don’t see a strong enough third party candidate running by 2016. Currently, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a candidate that I can see worth voting for. I guess I’ll have to wait and see which candidate gets the most tolerable platform and vote that way, as usual. Unless the Republicans make it easy by running someone like Bachmann or Perry, then I guess its Democrat.
ARodney said, about 2 hours ago “Too bad there’s no actual evidence for Clinton having caused the attack in Benghazi. Turns out it was terrorists.” -No actual evidence? Testimony sworn by oath to a US congress hearing?? Most courts accept testimony as evidence. Evidence in emails exists and should be published for the public. No one claims Hillary “caused” the attacks.Hillary’s decisions (no doubt Obama’s policy) gave the terrorists OPPORTUNITY and she sent Amb. Stevens to an unprotected, insecure consulate after CIA had given many warnings about the dangers in Libya’s buildup of terrorists; that other foreigns heeded and removed their people from harm’s way!-Congress had given sufficient funding for diplomatic security, and after 9/11/12 sworn testimony of the official in charge said funding was NOT the cause of poor security. It was a POLITICAL decision to advance Obama’s narrative (MYTH) that he killed Osama so Al Qaeda was “dead”….to keep the US site open with US staff present to be attacked…and #2 in Libya told the State Dept during the attack that IT WAS TERRORISTS. Hillary called Hicks at 2a.m. Libya time and that was AFTER the report that it was a terrorist attack and not one word was sent to D.C. that there had been a protest, there had not been a protest, and Hicks, stationed in Tripoli, testified that in Libya the “offensive film” was a NON-EVENT.-Your post, Rodney, is biased and false as is your source.
The democrats also chickenhawked their little butts into the war. It was even more revolting to witness than what the republicans did because American NEEDED opposition to that madness and these fools put their tails between their legs and lined up behind the wave of Freedom Fry eating lunatics for what they thought might be some political salvation.
Despite delusions and desperation to the contrary….I don’t expect this GOP sideshow to do Hilary much long term damage. In fact, before it ends, if the GOP continues to overplay what actually is a very limited card, it could come back on them like a 2 × 4. I mean…Obama ‘covered up’ a belief that Benghazi was the work of ‘terrorists?’ Really? Or maybe that Hillary could have jetted over to the embassy and led the first SEAL team in to stop the embassy assault. The rot at the core of the GOP is getting thicker, dumber and denser all of the time.
Sorry with oprah and the other lib talk show. The women can not think for themselves any more they must follow because oprah is thier leader sell us more of your for sure weight loss products all 20 of them. Or maybe montel williams will tell his phyic syliva to say that her opponent is dead and they will not vote for them becasue they are smart enough not to vote for a dead person.
^because, Like most of the minority of americans that voted, I voted for a candidate that was ON the ballot. I usually vote strategically and did so in 2008. had i entered a protest vote (which I have done from time to time) for someone who wasn’t on the ballot (aka a ‘writein vote’), which would have been a vote for romney in an extremely important election, I voted for the candidate that was NOT Romney who was most likely to win.I’m quite pleased with the outcome of my ‘strategic’ votes, both in 2008 and 2012.Obama is a far better president than the republican alternative(s).geez, if we had mccaine we’d be growing the deficit and involved in at least two more wars, while crying our military needs to be doubled in size in order to handle a 6 front war.of course that would have been an economic boom for the military industrial component part of our economy.
ARodney almost 11 years ago
Too bad there’s no actual evidence for Clinton having caused the attack in Benghazi. Turns out it was terrorists. Rachel Maddow had a nice analysis of all of the attacks (and the amount of evidence supporting them) on Friday, you can find it at Maddowblog. The most damning is the lack of preparation against attacks, which falls at least as much on congress as it does on the State Department, but Clinton has accepted all recommendations and all responsibility for fixing those problems, so there hasn’t really been a story there since December.
Fourcrows almost 11 years ago
Unfortunately, I don’t see a strong enough third party candidate running by 2016. Currently, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a candidate that I can see worth voting for. I guess I’ll have to wait and see which candidate gets the most tolerable platform and vote that way, as usual. Unless the Republicans make it easy by running someone like Bachmann or Perry, then I guess its Democrat.
disgustedtaxpayer almost 11 years ago
ARodney said, about 2 hours ago “Too bad there’s no actual evidence for Clinton having caused the attack in Benghazi. Turns out it was terrorists.” -No actual evidence? Testimony sworn by oath to a US congress hearing?? Most courts accept testimony as evidence. Evidence in emails exists and should be published for the public. No one claims Hillary “caused” the attacks.Hillary’s decisions (no doubt Obama’s policy) gave the terrorists OPPORTUNITY and she sent Amb. Stevens to an unprotected, insecure consulate after CIA had given many warnings about the dangers in Libya’s buildup of terrorists; that other foreigns heeded and removed their people from harm’s way!-Congress had given sufficient funding for diplomatic security, and after 9/11/12 sworn testimony of the official in charge said funding was NOT the cause of poor security. It was a POLITICAL decision to advance Obama’s narrative (MYTH) that he killed Osama so Al Qaeda was “dead”….to keep the US site open with US staff present to be attacked…and #2 in Libya told the State Dept during the attack that IT WAS TERRORISTS. Hillary called Hicks at 2a.m. Libya time and that was AFTER the report that it was a terrorist attack and not one word was sent to D.C. that there had been a protest, there had not been a protest, and Hicks, stationed in Tripoli, testified that in Libya the “offensive film” was a NON-EVENT.-Your post, Rodney, is biased and false as is your source.
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
Hate to say it, but onguard’s right.
The democrats also chickenhawked their little butts into the war. It was even more revolting to witness than what the republicans did because American NEEDED opposition to that madness and these fools put their tails between their legs and lined up behind the wave of Freedom Fry eating lunatics for what they thought might be some political salvation.
I’ll never forget this at the voting booth. Ever.
dannysixpack almost 11 years ago
Hillary will make a GREAT president. She’s got my vote if she runs in the ’16. The first woman president!
Dr Lou Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Despite delusions and desperation to the contrary….I don’t expect this GOP sideshow to do Hilary much long term damage. In fact, before it ends, if the GOP continues to overplay what actually is a very limited card, it could come back on them like a 2 × 4. I mean…Obama ‘covered up’ a belief that Benghazi was the work of ‘terrorists?’ Really? Or maybe that Hillary could have jetted over to the embassy and led the first SEAL team in to stop the embassy assault. The rot at the core of the GOP is getting thicker, dumber and denser all of the time.
rsmoak almost 11 years ago
obviously another desperate Republican
pirate227 almost 11 years ago
And that is exactly what those partisan “hearings” were all about.
dannysixpack almost 11 years ago
Tigger said, about 4 hours ago
“@dannysixpack
Why didn’t you vote for her in 2008?"assuming you’re talking about the primaries, I couldn’t vote for her. I was and still am a registered republican.
Michael Peterson Premium Member almost 11 years ago
You wish.
rini1946 almost 11 years ago
Sorry with oprah and the other lib talk show. The women can not think for themselves any more they must follow because oprah is thier leader sell us more of your for sure weight loss products all 20 of them. Or maybe montel williams will tell his phyic syliva to say that her opponent is dead and they will not vote for them becasue they are smart enough not to vote for a dead person.
dannysixpack almost 11 years ago
^because, Like most of the minority of americans that voted, I voted for a candidate that was ON the ballot. I usually vote strategically and did so in 2008. had i entered a protest vote (which I have done from time to time) for someone who wasn’t on the ballot (aka a ‘writein vote’), which would have been a vote for romney in an extremely important election, I voted for the candidate that was NOT Romney who was most likely to win.I’m quite pleased with the outcome of my ‘strategic’ votes, both in 2008 and 2012.Obama is a far better president than the republican alternative(s).geez, if we had mccaine we’d be growing the deficit and involved in at least two more wars, while crying our military needs to be doubled in size in order to handle a 6 front war.of course that would have been an economic boom for the military industrial component part of our economy.