NOT A GOOD MORNING FOR HILLARY !!!!!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by austxjr

When you get to a point where you can at least acknowledge a little reality, those of us on the left can rationally discuss the many areas we don't agree with what Obama has done and may be doing, but until that time comes we will defend that he is a much better choice than Bush, Romney, McCain or anyone on the right could ever be.

You realize that is a mighty low bar your setting for Obama. And even he fails to reach it. Obama a much better choice? Not really. About the same is the best that can be said. The biggest problem we face are the clowns the two party system gives us from which to choose.

We need to quit voting for Democrats and Republicans. The differences between them are cosmetic, and only for show.

[tobydude1000]

If Fox News was really a news organization, they should quit bellyaching about how the senators and congressmen were too soft on Hillary - and get off their asses and stick a microphone in the faces of these congressmen when they are up for re-election and ask them point blank: "Why did you not ask Hilliary this question or that question?" but they won't do that. Furthermore, why doesn't Fox News just go to the families of the people who died in Libya and pose Hilliary's question to them. "What difference does it make?" But I doubt that they will do that either. This congressional hearing might have been just for show, but Fox News is no better. Sitting and complaining to each other about how bad the hearing went doesn't do this country a shred of good. When are we going to see a news organization with a real commitment to good news and good television? Congress isn't going to give us the answers we want until someone (CNN?? anyone) holds them accountable for the circus they provide to us - and this was for a hearing that we've been waiting to see for weeks! Maybe we'll wait for 60 minutes to cover this. Sad.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by austxjr

By your logic Bush was responsible for killing over 3000 Americans in 9/11 alone if you don't count the wars. How about his judgment and managerial skills? It will be amusing just to watch how you twist into knots to justify that.

If you want to talk about lies as far as Benghazi how about the lies on WMD that caused a war? The lies that were given to Colin Powell to propagate at the UN? The lies Condi Rice told? Just all goes back to the hypocrisy of the right.

So, Bush lying means that Obama gets to lie with impunity? How much sense does that make? That only proves that Obama is as bad, or worse, than GWBush.

Gawd, you libs will defend ANYTHING!

And just so you don't think I'm a Bush defender, I have stated several times that he should face trial for his lies, and spend the rest of his life in prison. Since Obama has continued the same policies and lies, he should do the same.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Republicans only care about it when it's a Democrat apparently. Hillary was in charge when there was a terrorist attack on a secondary diplomatic facility, not an embassy and not even really a consulate (technically it was a 'diplomatic mission') and four people died as a result. She took responsibility though the Libyan government was mainly responsible for protecting the facility and there was no advanced indication that it might be attacked, though there were other attacks on diplomats in Libya that could be seen as indicators.

None? Really?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...bya-landscape/

(CBS News) In the weeks before his death, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens sent the State Department several requests for increased security for diplomats in Libya.

Steven's memos to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating attacks, show he personally pressed for strengthened security.

On July 9, 2012, Stevens sent a "request for extension of tour of duty (TDY) personnel." That refers to a 16-man military temporary security team with expertise in counter terrorism. They were set to leave in August, but Stevens asked to keep them "thru mid-September."

On August 2, six weeks before he died, Stevens requested "protective detail bodyguard potions," saying the added guards "will fill the vacuum of security personnel currently at post who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent." It's not known what happened to that request.

In this weeks hearings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2534377.html

GOP lawmakers repeatedly questioned Clinton about whether she had seen earlier requests for beefed-up security.

"I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.

Well who the fuck did see them, and failed to get them to you? Deflect the blame...again.
But hey, shes "Responsible"

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Republicans only care about it when it's a Democrat apparently. Hillary was in charge when there was a terrorist attack on a secondary diplomatic facility, not an embassy and not even really a consulate (technically it was a 'diplomatic mission') and four people died as a result. She took responsibility though the Libyan government was mainly responsible for protecting the facility and there was no advanced indication that it might be attacked, though there were other attacks on diplomats in Libya that could be seen as indicators. Hillary was "in charge" when the consulate was bombed the first time on 2 April . . . Hillary was "in charge" when the consulate was bombed the second time on 6 June . . . and the negligent bitch was still "in charge" when she let it happen again on 9/11 2012 . . . and then she and Odumbo lied about what happened!!!

“ . . .[there were] over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89815N20121009


George Bush was in charge when 9/11 happened and we had intelligence that something big was going to be tried even if we didn't know what it might be. George Bush took no responsibility for allowing the attack to happen and if that isn't mismanagement I don't know what is. And Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator allowed of the terrorist pilots -- the whole damn lot -- to enter this country and train for their suicide attack on his watch! On top of that how about Rummy's leadership during the attack on Iraq? Where were the flowers we were supposed to be greeted with? How about all the other rosy predictions by Rummy, Bush and Cheney that never took place? Millions in cash going missing? That was all on a scale thousands of times bigger than Benghazi and not a peep from the Bush/Romney apologists.

We have never heard a one of you righty's call that mismanagement, though most of the world knows it was. Instead you either blindly defend (as you accuse us of doing for Obama) or say that it is past and no one should point fingers (sweep it under the carpet). Again, you all are the biggest lot of frauds and hypocrites the world has ever seen (well maybe not, but that we've seen lately). Shit, you hate Obama and his policies even when he adopts policies the right and Republicans supported until just recently. How insane it that? You were for it before Obama became for it and not you are against it. Talk to yourselves in the mirror much?

When you get to a point where you can at least acknowledge a little reality, those of us on the left can rationally discuss the many areas we don't agree with what Obama has done and may be doing, but until that time comes we will defend that he is a much better choice than Bush, Romney, McCain or anyone on the right could ever be.

.

[i'va biggen]

Here is your main Clinton hater in chief IB whining .doesn't matter if it is MR or MRS he hates 'em.take your Maalox IB

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You realize that is a mighty low bar your setting for Obama. And even he fails to reach it. Obama a much better choice? Not really. About the same is the best that can be said. The biggest problem we face are the clowns the two party system gives us from which to choose.

We need to quit voting for Democrats and Republicans. The differences between them are cosmetic, and only for show.

Yes, it was a very low bar purposely for the "conservatives" (more like reactionaries) to see the depths of their hypocrisy since most of them have either been silent far far worse failure and mismanagement if indeed that is what Benghazi was. How about thousands killed in 911, lies on WMD, an ongoing war ignored to start a second, tens of thousands killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed and wounded.

Obama: no wars started, one war ended, Osama bin Laden killed, a depression averted and recovery begun, a Libyan dictator overthrown on his watch with his support, no terror attacks on our soil and four diplomats killed on his watch by any standard is light years ahead of Bush.

Hey, there was apparently an epic fail in Libya to secure all the arms and munitions left by Qaddafi, but WE HAD NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND unlike Iraq where all the arms and munitions were left unsecured to be used by the insurgency. Obama even fails more elegantly with fewer resources (and where he couldn't possibly have succeeded anyway without putting boots on the ground which the Republicans would never have let him do).

I don't defend him, I just tell it like I see it, he is vastly superior to four or eight more years of war mongering incompetent fearful Republicans. Hell, we would likely be getting ready to go to war in Syria and Iran right now if Romney were in office.

[CuteOldGuy]

More soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan during Obama's presidency than W's. Obama wanted to stay in Iraq, but the Iraqis forced him to adhere to the timetable negotiated by President Bush. Obama booted Gadhafi, and it's worse in Libya. Obama booted Mubarak, and it's worse now in Egypt.

And if you think they're aren't plans on the table right now for Iran and Syria, you as big an idiot as I think you are. We're already arming Muslim terrorists who oppose Assad.

Obama is more of the same. Not any better, but slightly worse than his predecessors. And no noticeable difference from his competitors.

But you Obama worshipers have him built up into this God-like being who can do no wrong, and if something does go wrong, it's somebody else's fault.

And you may be right. It's the American people's fault for being stupid and uninformed and continuing to elect these lying, corrupt and dishonest Democrats and Republicans.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Here is your main Clinton hater in chief IB whining .doesn't matter if it is MR or MRS he hates 'em.take your Maalox IB

Actually, there were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during George W. Bush’s tenure — the most of any president in history — and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office, four under Condi. If you are keepin' score, that's Obama 2, Bush 12 (and for those of you that are math challenged these are scored like golf).

My main purpose was achieved though, send their blood pressure up and get 'em all apoplectic about something else for a bit. Fun to see the rats scurry about and try to defend their complete and total hypocrisy. Now my good work for the day is done LOL

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I hate it when Dimo's say they take full responsibilty for some disaster and then proceed to blame everything on someone else.

Someone needs to be held accountable for the loss of American lives in Benghazi; that someone is Barack Obama.

Oh They'll "Him Haw" around for awhile till they find their fall guy. Some distant fuck nobody has ever heard of, then they'll shake the dust of this trivial mess off their heels.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

More soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan during Obama's presidency than W's. Obama wanted to stay in Iraq, but the Iraqis forced him to adhere to the timetable negotiated by President Bush. Obama booted Gadhafi, and it's worse in Libya. Obama booted Mubarak, and it's worse now in Egypt.

And if you think they're aren't plans on the table right now for Iran and Syria, you as big an idiot as I think you are. We're already arming Muslim terrorists who oppose Assad.

Of course there are plans, there are always plans doofus, we just don't have a numbskull with his finger on the trigger who is out to get the guy who tried to kill his daddy. War is not a first resort or something to go to when he gets a little bored with diplomacy.

As far as Afghanistan, it is a war he inherited and felt was originally justified, but could have been ended and had troops withdrawn years before if not for Iraq. Obama helped boot Qaddafi and it is debatable that it is worse and for whom is it worse in Libya. Both Libya and Egypt are more unstable for now, but more free for their people. You and the other "conservatives" are always spouting off about Freedom, but is "Freedom" only for us? How hypocritical is that? So your policy is that we SHOULD invade countries that didn't do us harm on pretenses, but SHOULDN'T help people who are willing to try to free themselves like the Egyptians and Libyans? Keeping stable dictators in power is preferable to freedom? Is that what you advocate?

Oh, and Americans should have assault weapons so six year olds can be killed by crazy people, but Muslims shouldn't have arms to topple dictators? Is that your policy?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Yes, it was a very low bar purposely for the "conservatives" (more like reactionaries) to see the depths of their hypocrisy since most of them have either been silent far far worse failure and mismanagement if indeed that is what Benghazi was. How about thousands killed in 911, lies on WMD, What "lies"? It's been established that Bush 43 acted on operational intelligence, unlike you who obviously has none. an ongoing war ignored to start a second, tens of thousands killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed and wounded. Many of whom were trying to kill Americans or U.S. allies as they brought down the sadistic, dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein or end the reign of terror initiated by bin Laden.

Obama: no wars started It's neat how you punks on the left equivocate with the language and ignore how Odumbo has overtly bombed Yemen, Libya and Pakistan, but when an Dimocrap does it, "it's not war". , one war ended You didn't read in the newspaper where Odumbo redeployed troops to Iraq, did you? , Osama bin Laden killed, a depression averted and recovery begun, a Libyan dictator overthrown on his watch with his support, no terror attacks on our soil and four diplomats killed on his watch by any standard is light years ahead of Bush., You didn't read in the newspaper where an American Ambassador was killed on sovereign U.S. soil in Benghazi on Odumbo's watch, did you?

Hey, there was apparently an epic fail in Libya to secure all the arms and munitions left by Qaddafi, but WE HAD NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND unlike Iraq where all the arms and munitions were left unsecured to be used by the insurgency. Obama even fails more elegantly with fewer resources (and where he couldn't possibly have succeeded anyway without putting boots on the ground which the Republicans would never have let him do).

You left out Odumbo’s epic failure to support a valuable ally in Egypt, didn't read in the newspaper, did you.

I don't defend him, I just tell it like I see it, he is vastly superior to four or eight more years of war mongering incompetent fearful Republicans. Hell, we would likely be getting ready to go to war in Syria and Iran right now if Romney were in office.

Originally Posted by austxjr

Yeah, but my main purpose was achieved, send their blood pressure up and get 'em all apoplectic about something else for a bit. Fun to see the rats scurry about and try to defend their complete and total hypocrisy. Now my good work for the day is done LOL

Check the mirror, austxjr, you're the one who is apoplectically scurrying trying to defend Odumbo, et al.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Actually, there were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during George W. Bush’s tenure — the most of any president in history — and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office, four under Condi. If you are keepin' score, that's Obama 2, Bush 12 (and for those of you that are math challenged these are scored like golf).

My main purpose was achieved though, send their blood pressure up and get 'em all apoplectic about something else for a bit. Fun to see the rats scurry about and try to defend their complete and total hypocrisy. Now my good work for the day is done LOL

". . . a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89815N20121009

[Guest040616]

Shhhhhhh, don't tell anybody but mid way through Obama's first term in office, OBL officially began sleeping with the fishes.

Way to go Mr. President!

[CuteOldGuy]

Libya and Egypt are more free now? Jesus, Aust. You're an idiot.

I am all for freedom, worldwide. But you can't force freedom on anyone. Besides, we are having enough trouble preserving our freedom here, while people like you keep voting for Republicans and Democrats to take it away. Once we get our own house in order, we can tell the world what to do.