Hillary Clinton blasts Republican senator at Benghazi hearing

  • metta

    Posts: 39108

    Jan 23, 2013 5:35 PM GMT
    Hillary Clinton blasts Republican senator at Benghazi hearing



    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181410/-Hillary-Clinton-blasts-Republican-senator-at-Benghazi-hearing
  • metta

    Posts: 39108

    Jan 23, 2013 5:56 PM GMT
    Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton: 'I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post'



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-hillary-clinton_n_2534120.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 6:28 PM GMT
    Clinton exposed the Republicans for the pathetic excuses legislators that they are, whining about Susan Rice on Sunday TV instead of figuring out how to properly fund embassy security (which they've refused to do).
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 23, 2013 8:01 PM GMT
    FYI the State dept official testified that Budget considerations had nothing to do with the decisions on Security in Libya.....


    It would have been nice for Hillary instead of Rice went on 5 political shows during a Presidential election cycle.

    I agree with Clinton, "What difference does it make whether it was a protest etc etc".. It really doesn't make a difference what the reason was.

    The point is why is a non political State Department appointee " Susan Rice" serving up a unsubstantiated spin during a election cycle?

    Who made up these talking points and why? We may never know. And if there was no difference why was there so much effort to put forth the false narrative slung to the press?

    At the time the administration defended the "protest line" then quite boldly the President declared it a Terrorist attack in a Presidential debate.

    If you believe everything the Democratic side says, then the people at the highest point in government clearly do not communicate well and all fit nicely into a difference on semantics.

    The public does not have the right to a minute to minute accounting on classified information. Why not just say it is under investigation to what happened? Instead we received a story invented that showed to be false.

    I do not believe for a second Rice did what she did on her own accord. A UN ambassador that spends more time in Washington than in NYC. She took the fall for higher ups and it is a shame she did not name who told her to go on 5 different cable shows, who gave her the narrative. Maybe in a memoir in the future she will name names.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 9:32 PM GMT
    I still can't figure out why this is such a big deal; whether it was based on protests or a random act. And who's to say that the militants weren't provoked to do what they did based on the ongoing protests? This whole inquiry seems so irrelevant.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 23, 2013 9:32 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidClinton exposed the Republicans for the pathetic excuses legislators that they are, whining about Susan Rice on Sunday TV instead of figuring out how to properly fund embassy security (which they've refused to do).







    Hilary for POTUS in 2106 icon_exclaim.gif





    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidI'm surprised these republicunts don't warm up the dead bodies and wheel them in on gurneys to make their trolly points. icon_rolleyes.gif No outrage over the whole WMD debacle in Iraq (and thousands dead and trillions wasted on that), but watch them trip over themselves to make political hay over this. Shameful.


    Absoltely correct, we should be upset at Dumocrats at the WMD debacle in Iraq. Shameful !









  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 23, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidI still can't figure out why this is such a big deal; whether it was based on protests or a random act. And who's to say that the militants weren't provoked to do what they did based on the ongoing protests? This whole inquiry seems so irrelevant.



    Well I will try to explain it.

    It would have be different if David Axelrod went on 5 Sunday shows after a September 11th the sequel attack .

    However it was Susan Rice who is the UN Ambassador . This is a apolitical post within the State Department.

    So how or why did a apolitical officer come up with such a politically favorably story ? At the time and to this day Obama has been saying that terrorism is coming to an end. During a campaign it surely would not have been favorable at the time for there to be a September 11th anniversary attack. So the questions is asked who came up with the narrative this was a spontaneous protest in Benghazi, when on the ground it was known that there were real threats of terrorism.


    So we have the unanswered requests from the Libyan ambassador, and the perceived political cover story by Susan Rice.

    I would point out the quote from the Clarence Thomas hearings. Its not the nature of the evidence its the SERIOUSNESS of the charge that matters.

    The charge of a national coverup over a terrorist attack is serious enough to have vetted in the public.

    Personally I think Rice had little to do with her 5 show appearance. Plenty of media monitor the State Department briefings. This was a narrative someone crafted, orchestrated and mobilized. Unfortunately for her she is left with the political hot potato of Benghazi. There is NO way she would be confirmed to Sec of State, a apolitical job after so many unanswered questions.

    I am not surprised about how little the media has done to investigate being spoon-fed a false narrative. Dan Rather was complicit in 2004 with Rathergate.
    Within hours many on the internet debunked the story, but CBS an other media outlets stood by it for weeks. When an election is at stake anything goes.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 23, 2013 9:51 PM GMT
    Omg, Hillary was GREAT.
    Those Senators are going to be going home with some mighty sore asses after Hillary got through chewing them out.
    I LOVE her.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 23, 2013 9:54 PM GMT
    metta8 saidRand Paul To Hillary Clinton: 'I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post'



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-hillary-clinton_n_2534120.html




    Hillary's response to Rand Paul should have been that, luckily, we'll never get the chance to see what a "President" Rand Paul would do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 9:55 PM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    freedomisntfree said
    [typical misleading bullshit]

    Since you're just a breeder who comes here to troll us fags, of course you're not to be taken seriously. ;-)

    And if you actually think Democrats are responsible for Iraq II, then you're every bit as stupid as I've always thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_and_the_Iraq_War


    Always here with the name calling, aren't you ..... cunt.

    If and that's a great BIG IF, you were a man, you could also be a fag. But instead you'll have to settle with being a lesbo.









  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 23, 2013 10:08 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]freedomisntfree said[/cite]
    yourname2000 said
    freedomisntfree said
    [typical misleading bullshit]



    Thanks for the Gore and Clinton clips.


    I would say I do give credit to the Clintons , especially Hillary. She managed to get through the hearings without being tagged to blame.

    Surely the White House would not have minded that. I think Clinton did a good job as Sec of State. And the fact that she did not go on the Sunday shows and put out any false narrative or somehow fall on her sword when the Benghazi scandal came out is to her credit. I am certain she was probably asked or pressured to do so with the looming election.

    I do think Clinton was treated very unfairly in the 2008 primary season.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 10:10 PM GMT
    musclmed said[quote][cite]freedomisntfree said[/cite]
    yourname2000 said
    freedomisntfree said
    [typical misleading bullshit]



    Thanks for the Gore and Clinton clips.


    I would say I do give credit to the Clintons , especially Hillary. She managed to get through the hearings without being tagged to blame.

    Surely the White House would not have minded that. I think Clinton did a good job as Sec of State. And the fact that she did not go on the Sunday shows and put out any false narrative or somehow fall on her sword when the Benghazi scandal came out is to her credit. I am certain she was probably asked or pressured to do so with the looming election.

    I do think Clinton was treated very unfairly in the 2008 primary season.


    I think she did fine from what I saw of the hearing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2013 11:29 PM GMT
    Of course it's ok if the public was repeatedly lied to, after all, "what difference does it make".

    But if a republican's watch is off by 5 seconds, he's skinned alive. I always love a double standard.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 23, 2013 11:58 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidOf course it's ok if the public was repeatedly lied to, after all, "what difference does it make".

    But if a republican's watch is off by 5 seconds, he's skinned alive. I always love a double standard.



    Benghazi and fast and furious make a difference to a few thousand people who pay attention to it.

    As liberal and biased the press was in the 90's they were not "in the bag" for Clinton.

    The mainstream press is "In the Bag" for Obama. He can do no wrong, they are 100% invested in him.

    Again I would say I would take 8 years of Hillary/Bill Clinton over 8 years of Obama. A President that does not fear public outcry is a dangerous person. Hillary and Bill have a history of bipartisan work. Obama has the exact opposite record.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 12:14 AM GMT
    I would say they were definitly in it for the Clintons. They were adored and worshipped. I agree that Obama is worse, with the news media continuing to follow with the same fervor.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 24, 2013 12:28 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI would say they were definitly in it for the Clintons. They were adored and worshipped. I agree that Obama is worse, with the news media continuing to follow with the same fervor.


    It depends on the frame of reference. Comparing to Bush 1 yes. Then you still had tough questions during press conferences/ daily briefings.

    Now you have "what enchants you about being president?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 12:53 AM GMT
    I'm not sure where you two, musclmed and Blakes7, are getting your information but the NY Times, Economist, etc. are quite often critical of Obama! But only when it's deserved.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 1:03 AM GMT
    Yeah, that he's not openly marxist enough for them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 1:24 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidYeah, that he's not openly marxist enough for them.


    I don't think you can have read Marx if you think either the NYT or the Economist are Marxist!
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 24, 2013 1:59 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidI'm not sure where you two, musclmed and Blakes7, are getting your information but the NY Times, Economist, etc. are quite often critical of Obama! But only when it's deserved.






    If you are claiming a unbiased frame of reference which brought you to that conclusion then well the conversation stops .

    The NYTimes is only critical of Obama when he is not progressive enough.

    In fact within my lifetime they have yet to endorse anyone but a Democrat.

    I forget how many front page articles there were about Scooter Libby. Mind you no one died in that scandal. ( i think it was 24 or some straight front page articles).

    On September 12th the coverage of Benghazi was on A4, which is shocking indictment of them.
  • arinano

    Posts: 81

    Jan 24, 2013 4:51 AM GMT
    Excuse my lack of understanding but isn't Rand Paul a libertarian? I will always see Hillary Clinton as a liar, no better than Obama. Or have I been watching the wrong video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH0CDErX1rg&feature=youtu.be
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 24, 2013 5:23 AM GMT
    arinano saidExcuse my lack of understanding but isn't Rand Paul a libertarian? I will always see Hillary Clinton as a liar, no better than Obama. Or have I been watching the wrong video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH0CDErX1rg&feature=youtu.be


    I do not think Hillary Clinton is a liar. She is a shrewd politician. We can only speculate whose idea it was for Susan Rice to go on TV / 5 shows.

    Susan Rice tells us THE WHITE HOUSE.


    “As a senior U.S. diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities – American diplomatic facilities – around the world and Iran’s nuclear program,” Rice told reporters at a press briefing at the United Nations. ”The attack on … our facilities in Benghazi was obviously a significant piece of this.”

    Without the facts all we have is speculation. Was Clinton asked? Did she rightly refused such a request?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 5:46 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    TigerTim saidI'm not sure where you two, musclmed and Blakes7, are getting your information but the NY Times, Economist, etc. are quite often critical of Obama! But only when it's deserved.






    If you are claiming a unbiased frame of reference which brought you to that conclusion then well the conversation stops .

    The NYTimes is only critical of Obama when he is not progressive enough.

    In fact within my lifetime they have yet to endorse anyone but a Democrat.

    I forget how many front page articles there were about Scooter Libby. Mind you no one died in that scandal. ( i think it was 24 or some straight front page articles).

    On September 12th the coverage of Benghazi was on A4, which is shocking indictment of them.


    Musclemed and Blake7 live in the "bubble" where they get their news only from the lying howler monkeys on Faux News and AM radio. Neither would recognize a fact if it leaped up and bit them in the ass. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Jan 24, 2013 7:01 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    musclmed said
    TigerTim saidI'm not sure where you two, musclmed and Blakes7, are getting your information but the NY Times, Economist, etc. are quite often critical of Obama! But only when it's deserved.






    If you are claiming a unbiased frame of reference which brought you to that conclusion then well the conversation stops .

    The NYTimes is only critical of Obama when he is not progressive enough.

    In fact within my lifetime they have yet to endorse anyone but a Democrat.

    I forget how many front page articles there were about Scooter Libby. Mind you no one died in that scandal. ( i think it was 24 or some straight front page articles).

    On September 12th the coverage of Benghazi was on A4, which is shocking indictment of them.


    Musclemed and Blake7 live in the "bubble" where they get their news only from the lying howler monkeys on Faux News and AM radio. Neither would recognize a fact if it leaped up and bit them in the ass. icon_rolleyes.gif



    care to point out one thing I said that was false?

    Christian73 is a serial namecaller who rarely contributes much more than just that his low class disdain for anyone he disagrees with.