Hillary Clinton Missing As G O P Refuses To Confirm Kerry As Secretary Of State

[thaibeachlovers]

Shame this ridiculous diatribe came before this:

Off-topic posts have been deleted. This topic is starting to veer off course. Please stay on topic and refrain from making outlandish remarks about people or political parties which cannot be justified.

Fact is that she will testify - just like Rice did. Republicans or right-wingers in general just don't like the fact that their timing isn't paramount and that not everybody dances to their tune.

I have seldom seen a more dysfunctional, angry and disruptive political party . . . it's amazing how polarising a black man can be

Rice contributed nothing to shed light on the situation. and her testimony created more questions than answers. As Obama said, she knows nothing.

So, first this uproar about Rice not testifying, which was never in doubt - then she did testify and people like you cry foul when nothing crops up that you can sink your fangs into or that fits into your snug 'views' . . . now it's Clinton's turn.

Uproar that she won't testify and pretending to be ill . . . oh, a bloodclot int he brain? What a treacherous cop-out!!!! Uproar!

Console yourselves with the fact that she is unlikely to say what you want her to . . . instead sticking to facts

According to the people that were in the room with her, Rice did not provide any useful information, and created more questions without answers, so far.

The problem is that "facts" have been sorely lacking.

I'm not holding my breath that Clinton will clear anything up either, as either she was responsible for the deaths, or she wasn't, and therefore wasn't in charge of her department, so it is in her own interests to muddy the waters.

Modified to allow posting.

[koheesti]

]

Rice contributed nothing to shed light on the situation. and her testimony created more questions than answers. As Obama said, she knows nothing.

So, first this uproar about Rice not testifying, which was never in doubt - then she did testify and people like you cry foul when nothing crops up that you can sink your fangs into or that fits into your snug 'views' . . . now it's Clinton's turn.

Uproar that she won't testify and pretending to be ill . . . oh, a bloodclot int he brain? What a treacherous cop-out!!!! Uproar!

There was no "uproar about Rice not testifying". You just made it up because you put far more importance on protecting the present admin's tangled web of lives surrounding Benghazi than on the lives of our (USA's) ambassador and three others. Undoubtedly, you figure that they are dead, Obama won, there is nothing to gain from the truth coming out so it is best to sweep it under the rug and move on.

[Sing_Sling]

According to the people that were in the room with her, Rice did not provide any useful information, and created more questions without answers, so far.

The problem is that "facts" have been sorely lacking.

I'm not holding my breath that Clinton will clear anything up either, as either she was responsible for the deaths, or she wasn't, and therefore wasn't in charge of her department, so it is in her own interests to muddy the waters.

Modified to allow posting.

So, because their thirst for having their own theories 'proven' didn't materialise she was labelled as 'creating more questions without answers' and the 'facts' that are lacking are based on . . . what?

I do wonder if you know how the State Department works - I'll address that in the next paragraph.

There was no "uproar about Rice not testifying". You just made it up because you put far more importance on protecting the present admin's tangled web of lives surrounding Benghazi than on the lives of our (USA's) ambassador and three others. Undoubtedly, you figure that they are dead, Obama won, there is nothing to gain from the truth coming out so it is best to sweep it under the rug and move on.

There certainly was an uproar - 'she won't testify' etc etc, same as with Clinton now . . . Rice did and Clinton will, quite simple - but I doubt anything she says will meet with your - or your tinfoil hat - brigade's approval.

Now, about dips getting killed and my not caring . . . here's one for you; my uncle, father, bother and sister-in law were/are diplomats and for you to say something as simply ludicrous as that shows you up for the one-eyed bigot you clearly are. They were/are all non-appointees, in other words career diplomats and are as shaken up about this as anyone else but they certainly do not believe that there is a conspiracy of any kind revolving around this.

The state department has hundreds of missions overseas, thousands and thousands of employees. I was born in Thailand (made in Germany), my eldest brother was born in Nigeria (made in Nigeria) and my middle brother was born in Tanzania (made in the US).

Perhaps, just perhaps you should look at the topic with a bit of distance to see and understand the picture instead of politicising it for your own convenience

[koheesti]

There certainly was an uproar - 'she won't testify' etc etc, same as with Clinton now . . . Rice did and Clinton will, quite simple - but I doubt anything she says will meet with your - or your tinfoil hat - brigade's approval.

I don't remember there being one. Do you have a link to prove your assertion? It's pretty easy to find links about "uproars" over Petraeus not testifying, or Hillary not testifying but I couldn't find one (maybe because one doesn't exist?).

Now, about dips getting killed and my not caring . . . here's one for you; my uncle, father, bother and sister-in law were/are diplomats and for you to say something as simply ludicrous as that shows you up for the one-eyed bigot you clearly are. They were/are all non-appointees, in other words career diplomats and are as shaken up about this as anyone else but they certainly do not believe that there is a conspiracy of any kind revolving around this.

The state department has hundreds of missions overseas, thousands and thousands of employees. I was born in Thailand (made in Germany), my eldest brother was born in Nigeria (made in Nigeria) and my middle brother was born in Tanzania (made in the US).

Perhaps, just perhaps you should look at the topic with a bit of distance to see and understand the picture instead of politicising it for your own convenience

Whether it is true or not that you have family members who were diplomats is totally irrelevant. To think that adds weight to your own opinion is ridiculous. I'm actually living in the residence of a career diplomat as I type this...I guess that makes my opinion pretty heavy, eh? There are plenty of diplomats both current and former who smell something fishy about this whole thing just as there are who put on a public face that it is all in a day's work and no one's fault.

I'm certain your opinion is based solely on one thing...your support of the admin who lied about it. Step back and try some objective thinking instead of tossing around "bigot" and "tin-foil hat". Or try this, imagine it happened under the Bush Admin..OMFG! The New York Times would have devoted months of front pages and special full-color inserts to it then.

Before Hillary's accident and blood clot, she had spent weeks avoiding appearing before the committee on Benghazi. Personally, I think it is because of loyalty to the Democratic Party and the last thing she wanted to do was testify under oath which would have been damning for the current administration and as therefore the Democrats in general. She has already assumed full-responsibility so her testimony can't really hurt her much. But for the prez it would be devastating.

[Sing_Sling]

You should have attended debating classes at school . . . as it is your 'discussions' are stuck in the playground - have fun debating this with yourself.

"I'm certain" . . . herein lies your problem - have at it

[thaibeachlovers]

According to the people that were in the room with her, Rice did not provide any useful information, and created more questions without answers, so far.

The problem is that "facts" have been sorely lacking.

I'm not holding my breath that Clinton will clear anything up either, as either she was responsible for the deaths, or she wasn't, and therefore wasn't in charge of her department, so it is in her own interests to muddy the waters.

Modified to allow posting.

So, because their thirst for having their own theories 'proven' didn't materialise she was labelled as 'creating more questions without answers' and the 'facts' that are lacking are based on . . . what?

I do wonder if you know how the State Department works - I'll address that in the next paragraph.

There was no "uproar about Rice not testifying". You just made it up because you put far more importance on protecting the present admin's tangled web of lives surrounding Benghazi than on the lives of our (USA's) ambassador and three others. Undoubtedly, you figure that they are dead, Obama won, there is nothing to gain from the truth coming out so it is best to sweep it under the rug and move on.

There certainly was an uproar - 'she won't testify' etc etc, same as with Clinton now . . . Rice did and Clinton will, quite simple - but I doubt anything she says will meet with your - or your tinfoil hat - brigade's approval.

Now, about dips getting killed and my not caring . . . here's one for you; my uncle, father, bother and sister-in law were/are diplomats and for you to say something as simply ludicrous as that shows you up for the one-eyed bigot you clearly are. They were/are all non-appointees, in other words career diplomats and are as shaken up about this as anyone else but they certainly do not believe that there is a conspiracy of any kind revolving around this.

The state department has hundreds of missions overseas, thousands and thousands of employees. I was born in Thailand (made in Germany), my eldest brother was born in Nigeria (made in Nigeria) and my middle brother was born in Tanzania (made in the US).

Perhaps, just perhaps you should look at the topic with a bit of distance to see and understand the picture instead of politicising it for your own convenience

Everyone knows that the missions were not protected properly, and that is down to the State department. Clinton was in charge and has admitted responsibility. Now it's time for her to front up and tell the truth about what happened before, during and after. The American people employ her, they have a right to know the facts.

[geriatrickid]

She's recovering. The republicans are indeed behaving crassly. So transparently partisan as opposed to prioritizing the needs of the nation as a whole. What they will end of doing is strengthening Hillary's already massively strong brand even more. Trying to bully Hillary. They don't know who they're dealing with.

I'm certain they are quaking in their boots at the thought of interrogating a 65 year old woman with a history of concussions.

Perhaps she could give a demonstration of her might by testifying to Congress about the cover-up of Benghazi.

There is no definitive evidence of a coverup. To date, the advocates of a coverup have yet to offer actual facts to support such an allegation.

All that we have so far is innuendo and nonsensical manifestations of paranoia. Call me naive, but I have faith in the US State department to be honest in this matter. If you and others wish to go down the road of claiming a conspiracy, go right ahead and waste your energy, but at least try and come up with actual proof to support the position.

Edited January 5, 2013 by geriatrickid

[chuckd]

She's recovering. The republicans are indeed behaving crassly. So transparently partisan as opposed to prioritizing the needs of the nation as a whole. What they will end of doing is strengthening Hillary's already massively strong brand even more. Trying to bully Hillary. They don't know who they're dealing with.

I'm certain they are quaking in their boots at the thought of interrogating a 65 year old woman with a history of concussions.

Perhaps she could give a demonstration of her might by testifying to Congress about the cover-up of Benghazi.

There is no definitive evidence of a coverup. To date, the advocates of a coverup have yet to offer actual facts to support such an allegation.

All that we have so far is innuendo and nonsensical manifestations of paranoia. Call me naive, but I have faith in the US State department to be honest in this matter. If you and others wish to go down the road of claiming a conspiracy, go right ahead and waste your energy, but at least try and come up with actual proof to support the position.

I made my post some 7 days ago and have moved on. You seem to be the one wasting energy.

Thank you for permitting me to waste mine as well.

[Chicog]

Sorry, I was away. Was the blood clot just a "convenience" as well?

[Sing_Sling]

at least try and come up with actual proof to support the position.

Not going to happen - that's the beauty of slinging mud and creating fanciful conspiracy theories and throwing them about . . .

[chuckd]

Sorry, I was away. Was the blood clot just a "convenience" as well?

Perhaps.

[Chicog]

Only a small point, but if she testifies, and the bits that are released don't satisfy the requirements of the baying pitchfork mob (and Fox News), will they ask for it all to be declassified?

Because I doubt very much they are going to admit that all the goings on in Benghazi had anything to do with the CIA trying to funnel weapons to the Syrian opposition. Even if the supposed leaks about that are untrue, the chances are that there is plenty of CIA operational detail that they will not want in the public domain, but which are directly related to the events.

So I would suggest that even if she testifies, the naysayers will never be happy.

[chuckd]

Only a small point, but if she testifies, and the bits that are released don't satisfy the requirements of the baying pitchfork mob (and Fox News), will they ask for it all to be declassified?

Because I doubt very much they are going to admit that all the goings on in Benghazi had anything to do with the CIA trying to funnel weapons to the Syrian opposition. Even if the supposed leaks about that are untrue, the chances are that there is plenty of CIA operational detail that they will not want in the public domain, but which are directly related to the events.

So I would suggest that even if she testifies, the naysayers will never be happy.

Please use some of your valuable time to try and locate just one of my posts indicating I thought they were smuggling weapons to Syria. I would love to read what you must believe I said.

I have always said the conspiracy is the cover-up of the lack of having a "hard" target in Benghazi, the lack of adequate security for the Ambassador and the lack of providing help after the attack began when help was only a couple of hours away. Why else would they send Ambassador Rice out as a sacrificial lamb to do their jobs for them if not to cover up their failures?

All of my posts equate to the job Secretary Clinton was supposed to be doing before and during the 9/11 attack and what Obama might or might not have done under the pressure of the attack. It is my firm belief they both failed their responsibilities at the time and I think the American people deserve to know the truth.

You may choose to believe everything you hear from these two camps. There are others not quite so naive who may choose not to do so..

[Sing_Sling]

So I would suggest that even if she testifies, the naysayers will never be happy.

Indeed, indeed . . . they do live in their own little, isolated-from-reality, conspiracy-laden land

[Chicog]

Only a small point, but if she testifies, and the bits that are released don't satisfy the requirements of the baying pitchfork mob (and Fox News), will they ask for it all to be declassified?

Because I doubt very much they are going to admit that all the goings on in Benghazi had anything to do with the CIA trying to funnel weapons to the Syrian opposition. Even if the supposed leaks about that are untrue, the chances are that there is plenty of CIA operational detail that they will not want in the public domain, but which are directly related to the events.

So I would suggest that even if she testifies, the naysayers will never be happy.

Please use some of your valuable time to try and locate just one of my posts indicating I thought they were smuggling weapons to Syria. I would love to read what you must believe I said.

I have always said the conspiracy is the cover-up of the lack of having a "hard" target in Benghazi, the lack of adequate security for the Ambassador and the lack of providing help after the attack began when help was only a couple of hours away. Why else would they send Ambassador Rice out as a sacrificial lamb to do their jobs for them if not to cover up their failures?

All of my posts equate to the job Secretary Clinton was supposed to be doing before and during the 9/11 attack and what Obama might or might not have done under the pressure of the attack. It is my firm belief they both failed their responsibilities at the time and I think the American people deserve to know the truth.

You may choose to believe everything you hear from these two camps. There are others not quite so naive who may choose not to do so..

Chuck, why do you think I'm talking about you?

[theblether]

She's recovering. The republicans are indeed behaving crassly. So transparently partisan as opposed to prioritizing the needs of the nation as a whole. What they will end of doing is strengthening Hillary's already massively strong brand even more. Trying to bully Hillary. They don't know who they're dealing with.

I'm certain they are quaking in their boots at the thought of interrogating a 65 year old woman with a history of concussions.

Perhaps she could give a demonstration of her might by testifying to Congress about the cover-up of Benghazi.

The majority of the nation has gotten well beyond such sexist and ageist preconceptions. Maybe you didn't get my point. She WILL testify. There is no scandal. It's an artificial scandal cooked up at Fox News and Friends.

Can you explain how it's an artificial scandal?

[Sing_Sling]

She's recovering. The republicans are indeed behaving crassly. So transparently partisan as opposed to prioritizing the needs of the nation as a whole. What they will end of doing is strengthening Hillary's already massively strong brand even more. Trying to bully Hillary. They don't know who they're dealing with.

I'm certain they are quaking in their boots at the thought of interrogating a 65 year old woman with a history of concussions.

Perhaps she could give a demonstration of her might by testifying to Congress about the cover-up of Benghazi.

The majority of the nation has gotten well beyond such sexist and ageist preconceptions. Maybe you didn't get my point. She WILL testify. There is no scandal. It's an artificial scandal cooked up at Fox News and Friends.

Can you explain how it's an artificial scandal?

By definition

[chuckd]

Only a small point, but if she testifies, and the bits that are released don't satisfy the requirements of the baying pitchfork mob (and Fox News), will they ask for it all to be declassified?

Because I doubt very much they are going to admit that all the goings on in Benghazi had anything to do with the CIA trying to funnel weapons to the Syrian opposition. Even if the supposed leaks about that are untrue, the chances are that there is plenty of CIA operational detail that they will not want in the public domain, but which are directly related to the events.

So I would suggest that even if she testifies, the naysayers will never be happy.

Please use some of your valuable time to try and locate just one of my posts indicating I thought they were smuggling weapons to Syria. I would love to read what you must believe I said.

I have always said the conspiracy is the cover-up of the lack of having a "hard" target in Benghazi, the lack of adequate security for the Ambassador and the lack of providing help after the attack began when help was only a couple of hours away. Why else would they send Ambassador Rice out as a sacrificial lamb to do their jobs for them if not to cover up their failures?

All of my posts equate to the job Secretary Clinton was supposed to be doing before and during the 9/11 attack and what Obama might or might not have done under the pressure of the attack. It is my firm belief they both failed their responsibilities at the time and I think the American people deserve to know the truth.

You may choose to believe everything you hear from these two camps. There are others not quite so naive who may choose not to do so..

Chuck, why do you think I'm talking about you?

Perhaps because it immediately followed a rather pithy comment from me to one of your posts. Whatcha think?

[Chicog]

Oh, I see. Actually I was just making a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular.

I don't believe in your cover-up but I don't think it makes you morally bankrupt.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Chicog

[theblether]

Maybe I'm thick, the death of an Ambassador partly attributed to a lack of security which was requested and not enacted upon is extraordinarily serious.

Then we read this......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19958739

" US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she takes responsibility for the security failure at the Benghazi consulate that led to the killing of four Americans in Libya last month. "

Can someone explain to me what is artificial about this?

[Chicog]

I don't think there is anything artificial about it. There are many questions, among them: what was asked for, who asked for it (if they did), who refused it (if they did), and why?

But the congressional and senate investigations are answering these questions, and while news organisations have a right to report, numpties like Fox are only interested in deciding the outcome before it has been determined.

[theblether]

Thanks for that Chicog.......It's quite obvious that Fox will try to exploit every angle in this story, however we are now seeing Democrats taking just as an unreasonable view on the other end of the spectrum.

The truth is being drowned by partisan politics, I reckon the truth will out in the end and I am sure that HC will come to regret taking that bullet for Obama. Then again, it was her bullet to take as at the end of the day the buck stops with her in regards to this department.

The worst case scenario is that the Executives stop taking responsibility for their departments......and it doesn't matter which party you represent. Good governance and trust in politics will just evaporate, and that doesn't help anybody.

[Sing_Sling]

There's also a limit on how many military personnel one can station at an embassy or legation . . . in a war-zone it is best to get the people out until calm has been restored to avoid things like this happening.

[chuckd]

There's also a limit on how many military personnel one can station at an embassy or legation . . . in a war-zone it is best to get the people out until calm has been restored to avoid things like this happening.

There was NO US Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli. One had been requested by the Ambassador but it was denied somewhere in the State Department.

[Chicog]

There's also a limit on how many military personnel one can station at an embassy or legation . . . in a war-zone it is best to get the people out until calm has been restored to avoid things like this happening.

There was NO US Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli. One had been requested by the Ambassador but it was denied somewhere in the State Department.

Wouldn't have done much good if there was one, considering the attack was in Benghazi.

[Jingthing]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

[JDGRUEN]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

Bengazi was and still is a scandal Because the obama Administration LIED about it ... it is a matter of record that misinformation and disinformation was delivered by the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and various other officials including obama himself. It is on video tape numerous times by different people - LIES, Distortion and COVER UP. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[Chicog]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

Bengazi was and still is a scandal Because the obama Administration LIED about it ... it is a matter of record that misinformation and disinformation was delivered by the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and various other officials including obama himself. It is on video tape numerous times by different people - LIES, Distortion and COVER UP. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

If it's a matter of public record then it will be in the report, won't it?

[Exsexyman]

It's not a scandal. It's something bad that happened. Was the attack on the Iranian embassy under Carter a scandal?

No doubt many of the usual suspects on the right, plus the swivel eyed Fox News 'Contributors', would be desperate to suggest it was a scandal if it meant a chance to have a bash at a Democrat President. Likewise with the present Benghazi killings, they are desperate to try and undermine Obama and try and somehow link him and try to suggest that he is somehow responsible for the deaths of Americans. Yet in the 1983 Barracks bombing in Beirut in which more than 240 servicemen perished, and the Beirut Embassy bombing in the same year in which more than 60 lost their lives, there was a Republican administration and President, (Reagan), I don't seem to recall him being criticized for weeks on end with attempts to hold him responsible for a 'Scandal'. Strange that!

[chuckd]

There's also a limit on how many military personnel one can station at an embassy or legation . . . in a war-zone it is best to get the people out until calm has been restored to avoid things like this happening.

There was NO US Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli. One had been requested by the Ambassador but it was denied somewhere in the State Department.

Wouldn't have done much good if there was one, considering the attack was in Benghazi.

If there had been a permanent Marine guard at the Embassy in Tripoli, it is highly likely some would have accompanied the Ambassador on his TDY assignment in Benghazi.