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

[Scott]

This is the 2nd time I have deleted an off-topic, personal, and baiting comment aimed at another poster. These type of conversations are off-topic and have nothing to do with the thread. If you continue, you will receive a suspension.

Enough already.

[Chicog]

Unless anything new has been reported, I can't see any use for this thread until Clinton testifies.

[thaibeachlovers]

When Hillary Clinton was taken ill, Fox News pundits were questioning whether she was really ill. Indeed John Bolton stated that it was common knowledge that she was feigning illness to avoid testifying. When it transpired that she was suffering from a blood clot near her brain, not one word of apology or acknowledgement that he was wrong.

That's a scandal!

Regarding the Benghazi killings, just because John Bolton and his fellow travellers, like you, desperately want there to be a scandal, doesn't mean that there is one!

I don't WANT there to be a scandal, contrary to your somewhat biased opinion, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. It demeans you even further.

However, I do believe there already IS a scandal and it deserves looking into. Just my humble opinion, if you will still permit me to offer one.

It does seem as though you need there to be a scandal to justify your position vis-a-vis this discussion.

Well, let me get this right.

Exsexyman claims he knows what I want and now you say I need a scandal to justify my opinions. I don't need justifications for my opinions when it comes to the Clintons. They are the consummate political animals and have been known to stretch the truth when it became politically convenient.

Both of your statements are false (I never liked the word "lies").

For the record, in my opinion the only thing I think Hillary is guilty of is malfeasance in not protecting the Benghazi facilities properly and providing inadequate security details to protect the State Department personnel.

Higher up the food chain is where the main cover-up is being handled.

What seems to have got lost in the chaos is that Obama claimed to have ordered that whatever needed to be done to save the Ambassador et al should be done. However, it does seem as though nothing actually happened. Should that not be looked at as well? If the military refused to obey a presidential order, that would be the most serious part of this fiasco.

[thaibeachlovers]

Unless anything new has been reported, I can't see any use for this thread until Clinton testifies.

Don't hold your breath.

[chuckd]

I don't WANT there to be a scandal, contrary to your somewhat biased opinion, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. It demeans you even further.

However, I do believe there already IS a scandal and it deserves looking into. Just my humble opinion, if you will still permit me to offer one.

It does seem as though you need there to be a scandal to justify your position vis-a-vis this discussion.

Well, let me get this right.

Exsexyman claims he knows what I want and now you say I need a scandal to justify my opinions. I don't need justifications for my opinions when it comes to the Clintons. They are the consummate political animals and have been known to stretch the truth when it became politically convenient.

Both of your statements are false (I never liked the word "lies").

For the record, in my opinion the only thing I think Hillary is guilty of is malfeasance in not protecting the Benghazi facilities properly and providing inadequate security details to protect the State Department personnel.

Higher up the food chain is where the main cover-up is being handled.

What seems to have got lost in the chaos is that Obama claimed to have ordered that whatever needed to be done to save the Ambassador et al should be done. However, it does seem as though nothing actually happened. Should that not be looked at as well? If the military refused to obey a presidential order, that would be the most serious part of this fiasco.

...and that is exactly where "higher up the food chain" stops.

[Thai Dreamer]

Does she have some kind of immunity if she is still Secretory of State when she testifies as apposed to have resigned to prepare for the next election campaign?

[thaibeachlovers]

Does she have some kind of immunity if she is still Secretory of State when she testifies as apposed to have resigned to prepare for the next election campaign?

I doubt that she did anything so bad as to need immunity.

What she will be concerned about though, is that if she appears incompetent or not in charge of her department it will put paid to her chances of becoming the next president.

[theblether]

^^ and there lies the nub of the matter.....and she can't squirm out as she has taken responsibility already.

[koheesti]

^^ and there lies the nub of the matter.....and she can't squirm out as she has taken responsibility already.

She took responsibility back in October before all the other testimony blasting the State Dept.

But there are two issues here;

1) lack of security at the Benghazi consulate despite requests,

2) the admin covering up the attack to protect their election chances.

This wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president tried to cover-up a problem to get re-elected. Today, most Americans (including Republicans) will agree that finding out the truth behind that break-in at The Watergate 40 years ago just months before the 1972 election was very important even though a break-in where no one was hurt is certainly no big deal and certainly not national news. Today's Democrats are behaving like Republicans back then. Although, while Nixon won the election, I don't remember anyone saying, "Nixon won, get over it!". No, there was an investigation then, and there should be one now. 40 years ago, it took one year for the evidence to pile up and that was with a media who wasn't protecting the president. Today, who knows? But whatever the outcome, we shouldn't let the admin off with a free pass just like we didn't back then.

In the meantime, move on, confirm Kerry as Sec of State, get a new Senator up in Massachusetts (preferably Scott Brown!) and let Hillary get some much needed rest away from the public eye for the first time in 20-30 years.

Edited January 15, 2013 by koheesti

[thaibeachlovers]

^^ and there lies the nub of the matter.....and she can't squirm out as she has taken responsibility already.

She took responsibility back in October before all the other testimony blasting the State Dept.

But there are two issues here;

1) lack of security at the Benghazi consulate despite requests,

2) the admin covering up the attack to protect their election chances.

This wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president tried to cover-up a problem to get re-elected. Today, most Americans (including Republicans) will agree that finding out the truth behind that break-in at The Watergate 40 years ago just months before the 1972 election was very important even though a break-in where no one was hurt is certainly no big deal and certainly not national news. Today's Democrats are behaving like Republicans back then. Although, while Nixon won the election, I don't remember anyone saying, "Nixon won, get over it!". No, there was an investigation then, and there should be one now. 40 years ago, it took one year for the evidence to pile up and that was with a media who wasn't protecting the president. Today, who knows? But whatever the outcome, we shouldn't let the admin off with a free pass just like we didn't back then.

In the meantime, move on, confirm Kerry as Sec of State, get a new Senator up in Massachusetts (preferably Scott Brown!) and let Hillary get some much needed rest away from the public eye for the first time in 20-30 years.

Who needs the rest, Hillary or the public?

[Chicog]

Although, while Nixon won the election, I don't remember anyone saying, "Nixon won, get over it!". No, there was an investigation then, and there should be one now

But there is an investigation now, isn't there? Both Senate and Congressional hearings are underway I think?

[koheesti]

Although, while Nixon won the election, I don't remember anyone saying, "Nixon won, get over it!". No, there was an investigation then, and there should be one now

But there is an investigation now, isn't there? Both Senate and Congressional hearings are underway I think?

Yes, there are. But Democrats and their supporters (especially around here) have been calling it a waste of time, Republican revenge, etc. I'm surprised the Dem-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee is having also having an investigation Maybe they are doing it just so the Rep-controlled House doesn't have a monopoly on the "facts".

Edited January 15, 2013 by koheesti

[Credo]

The difference is that in Watergate, they did want to break in. In Behngazi, I very much doubt they wanted to kill the ambassador.

[MacChine]

I think it is established the ambassador died from smoke inhalation from a riotous group setting a building on fire, an unfortunate incident but hardly an assasination.

I always felt Kerry rolled over way too easy on the voting irregularities, he should have pushed hard to get rid of secret software tallying ballots.

[GiHadOrange]

I think it is established the ambassador died from smoke inhalation from a riotous group setting a building on fire, an unfortunate incident but hardly an assasination.

I always felt Kerry rolled over way too easy on the voting irregularities, he should have pushed hard to get rid of secret software tallying ballots.

He was killed in a planned commando attack and not by a mob of rioters.

The mob version is just a fabrication by people who are interested in painting Muslims in a bad light.

[Credo]

Oh, and your version paints the Muslims in a better light?

[F430murci]

I think it is established the ambassador died from smoke inhalation from a riotous group setting a building on fire, an unfortunate incident but hardly an assasination.

I always felt Kerry rolled over way too easy on the voting irregularities, he should have pushed hard to get rid of secret software tallying ballots.

He was killed in a planned commando attack and not by a mob of rioters.

The mob version is just a fabrication by people who are interested in painting Muslims in a bad light.

Haha, this is why I live this site. Fiction writers could not come up with this stuff. Monikers like Jihad and Machine ala 8 mm dude with mask. You guys need to move over to the guns thread and add some entertainment value there.

[GiHadOrange]

Oh, and your version paints the Muslims in a better light?

fact is he wasn't killed by a mob or a group of protesters who got upset by a movie.

[metisdead]

Oh, and your version paints the Muslims in a better light?

fact is he wasn't killed by a mob or a group of protesters who got upset by a movie.

Can you refute this?:

The ambassador was said to be among four US officials killed in a protest over a US-produced film that is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

[GiHadOrange]

Oh, and your version paints the Muslims in a better light?

fact is he wasn't killed by a mob or a group of protesters who got upset by a movie.

Can you refute this?:

The ambassador was said to be among four US officials killed in a protest over a US-produced film that is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

That are old news.and Islamophobes assumed something like that and Islamophobes wants to believe it. but it is not true.

Search later reports if there is anyone still sticking to that angry mob theory.

edit to add.

and yes i know even the POTUS felt for that theory but that doesn't make it true.

it just shows how much of this and baseless prejudice towards muslins seems to be acceptable by the people without recognizing what it is baseless prejudice and negative attitude toward Muslims.

Edited January 15, 2013 by GiHadOrange

[metisdead]

Oh, and your version paints the Muslims in a better light?

fact is he wasn't killed by a mob or a group of protesters who got upset by a movie.

Can you refute this?:

The ambassador was said to be among four US officials killed in a protest over a US-produced film that is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

That are old news.and Islamophobes assumed something like that and Islamophobes wants to believe it. but it is not true.

Search later reports if there is anyone still sticking to that angry mob theory.

Provide the links to later reports to back up your theory.

[GiHadOrange]

fact is he wasn't killed by a mob or a group of protesters who got upset by a movie.

Can you refute this?:

The ambassador was said to be among four US officials killed in a protest over a US-produced film that is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

That are old news.and Islamophobes assumed something like that and Islamophobes wants to believe it. but it is not true.

Search later reports if there is anyone still sticking to that angry mob theory.

Provide the links to later reports to back up your theory.

here in that article are plenty of links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack

no one, serious and reliable sources, still comes up with that angry mob theory. that was just at the first day after when everybody and his dog jumped to conclusions and some of them were obviously false. But some believed them, depending on their level of prejudice and bias towards Muslims.

[chuckd]

Can you refute this?:

The ambassador was said to be among four US officials killed in a protest over a US-produced film that is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

That are old news.and Islamophobes assumed something like that and Islamophobes wants to believe it. but it is not true.

Search later reports if there is anyone still sticking to that angry mob theory.

Provide the links to later reports to back up your theory.

here in that article are plenty of links.

http://en.wikipedia....Benghazi_attack

no one, serious and reliable sources, still comes up with that angry mob theory. that was just at the first day after when everybody and his dog jumped to conclusions and some of them were obviously false. But some believed them, depending on their level of prejudice and bias towards Muslims.

Will these help dispel the "mob angry at the video" rumors?

http://edition.cnn.c...ings/index.html

http://edition.cnn.c...tack/index.html

http://www.factcheck...ghazi-timeline/

http://www.washingto...anned/?page=all

[SteeleJoe]

People may or may not recall that I am a (conditional) supporter of the Obama administration and I certainly am not predisposed to assume some sort of nefarious motives or even criminal negligence - in other words, I'm hardly on ChuckD's "side"...

But I'm stunned to see there are still people who think Benghazi was just a angry mob that went too far and inadvertently caused fatalities. I remember reading from credible sources (ie NOT Fox News) within a day that there was intelligence that it was a planned attack by armed militants and that was long ago confirmed.

Where have you folks been?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Jingthing]

I actually don't care whether it was an angry mob or whether it was pre-planned or a combo. It's of academic interest but on the list of what SHOULD be high priorities for the American people it rates almost nothing. This is all a political blame game now. Americans want there to be tweaks in how embassy/consulate security responds to threats in future for sure and any lessons learned from Libya should be applied. Obviously in retrospect there were mistakes made in Libya. But American power isn't God-like. Bad things happens sometimes and they will again, no matter the preparations. The minority of Americans obsessed with the blame game on Libya are basically the same demographic as birthers. Not to be taken seriously when there are actual super big problems that need to be addressed.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

I actually don't care whether it was an angry mob or whether it was pre-planned or a combo. It's of academic interest but on the list of what SHOULD be high priorities for the American people it rates almost nothing. This is all a political blame game now. Americans want there to be tweaks in how embassy/consulate security responds to threats in future for sure and any lessons learned from Libya should be applied. Obviously in retrospect there were mistakes made in Libya. But American power isn't God-like. Bad things happens sometimes and they will again, no matter the preparations. The minority of Americans obsessed with the blame game on Libya are basically the same demographic as birthers. Not to be taken seriously when there are actual super big problems that need to be addressed.

I couldn't be less interested in a blame game and I also see at least some cross-pollination with the Birther types. My only reason to even comment was to express my sincere wonder at people acting as if the initial reports are still held true.

However, I think a mode of reflexive denial or even the appearance of wanting to brush aside -- and especially a genuine attempt to do so -- is just as bad as the blame game. As I said early on (on another thread), any American should want a full and accurate accounting - especially those who believe the Obama administration to be innocent of any deliberate or great misdeeds. I find it unseemly - and seemingly partisan - when a comment like the above seems to diminish or dismiss this event without a full investigation having been completed.

As to how important this is and super big problems that need to be addressed - the latter certainly exist and many or all of them need more immediate attention. But the fact remains -- and the Obama administration CLEARLY agrees with this (anyone who thinks not, hasn't been paying attention) - Islamist extremism and violence against America and its allies is a very important item on the national agenda. Understanding when, how and why it happens is not a trivial concern.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[GiHadOrange]

I actually don't care whether it was an angry mob or whether it was pre-planned or a combo. It's of academic interest but on the list of what SHOULD be high priorities for the American people it rates almost nothing.

Pushing that lies about the angry mob is insulting the locals.

[Sing_Sling]

I actually don't care whether it was an angry mob or whether it was pre-planned or a combo. It's of academic interest but on the list of what SHOULD be high priorities for the American people it rates almost nothing.

Pushing that lies about the angry mob is insulting the locals.

Considering we have millions of them here on TV we should be more considerate of what we write . . . added to which TV has probably put a dent in Libya's tourist industry with its characterisation of the place as 'unruly'.

Really, every sentence a 'defense' of Muslims? Libya is a Muslim country, both the mob and the killers were Muslim . . . stands to reason that a few en-gross comments can be made of this, in the context of Libya.

This whole brouhaha is a terrible indictment of a waning political party which is trying to grasp at straws to remain relevant . . . with politicians like an embittered political loser in McCain leading the charge

[F430murci]

Oh, and your version paints the Muslims in a better light?

fact is he wasn't killed by a mob or a group of protesters who got upset by a movie.

Can you refute this?:

The ambassador was said to be among four US officials killed in a protest over a US-produced film that is said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.

That are old news.and Islamophobes assumed something like that and Islamophobes wants to believe it. but it is not true.

Search later reports if there is anyone still sticking to that angry mob theory.

edit to add.

and yes i know even the POTUS felt for that theory but that doesn't make it true.

it just shows how much of this and baseless prejudice towards muslins seems to be acceptable by the people without recognizing what it is baseless prejudice and negative attitude toward Muslims.

Do you or Muslims ever accept responsibility for anything or do you just always blame someone else? I would probably have more respect to someone or people that could man up and say "yeah I did it, what cha gonna do about."

[koheesti]

I actually don't care whether it was an angry mob or whether it was pre-planned or a combo. It's of academic interest but on the list of what SHOULD be high priorities for the American people it rates almost nothing.

Pushing that lies about the angry mob is insulting the locals.

I actually never thought about it that way but, you're right.

An angry mob is just regular local people pushed to the point of being very angry. So angry that they go out attack a consulate and kill the ambassador? If I were a local in Benghazi I would be pissed about that. I guess that explains whey there were counter protests just two days after the attack.

Libyans hold peaceful demonstrations decrying the Benghazi attacks [PHOTOS]

Even as the anti-American protests in Libya and Egypt spread to Yemen, Libyans in Tripoli and Benghazi are holding peaceful counter-protests condemning any violence and mourning Chris Stevens.

Read more:

http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/09/13/Libyans-hold-peaceful-demonstrations-decrying-the-Benghazi-attacks-PHOTOS/8311347548279/#ixzz2I7xUDzyu