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

[F430murci]

Obama v. Nixon. Unlike Nixon, I have to think a huge part of these guys that won't let go of anything anti-Obama are motivated by race. These guys just cannot accept a black president no matter what or how well he does. Racism in certain pockets of the US is still as bad as it's ever been.

Why do you liberals always throw around the race card when anybody opposes Obama?

I personally don't care if he is pea green with purple polka dots, he's still just a sleazy politician from the Chicago political sewer.

And that was my opinion well over four years ago on this forum, and it hasn't changed.

Not sure I have thrown race around before, but if I have it is because it is true with him.

Your opinion four year ago and your opinion has not changed . . . He was black four years ago and that has nit changed so not clear on your logic.

There are so many that will never give him a chance and look to criticize everything he does because of his race. If you don't see that, then you truly have been away from the US too long and are out of touch.

The irony to me is all of the impoverished white Americans from the South that are anti-Obama even though the Republican platform does absolutely nothing to benefit them and Obama's policies would. I cannot tell you how many people I asked to tell me how the Republican platform benefitted them or what the Republucan policies did to benefit them and they could not answer except to say they would never vote for Obama.

Edited January 18, 2013 by F430murci

[DaffyDuck]

Of course, as usual, no one has considered that maybe she's had a stroke... You know, a real, and quite 'not fun' illness.

All the classic signs are there.

[keemapoot]

Of course, as usual, no one has considered that maybe she's had a stroke... You know, a real, and quite 'not fun' illness.

All the classic signs are there.

If you are right, that would be a much bigger cover-up than the Benghazi situation. It would be a huge advantage for the Republicans to exploit this if true. They should focus their efforts on uncovering that one as it would result in bigger net gains than beating this Benghazi horse to death.

[F430murci]

Of course, as usual, no one has considered that maybe she's had a stroke... You know, a real, and quite 'not fun' illness.

All the classic signs are there.

If you are right, that would be a much bigger cover-up than the Benghazi situation. It would be a huge advantage for the Republicans to exploit this if true. They should focus their efforts on uncovering that one as it would result in bigger net gains than beating this Benghazi horse to death.

No, they should focus on their jobs and start doing things to benefit the country and nit themselves.

[mania]

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

At the same time failing to protect them if info dictated the likely possibility of harm to them should be questioned.

Just because you don't "want" to kill something does not mean it is ok to drive like a drunken fool ignoring risks.

Especially when your driving a vehicle that represents the USA

Edited January 18, 2013 by mania

[DaffyDuck]

Of course, as usual, no one has considered that maybe she's had a stroke... You know, a real, and quite 'not fun' illness.

All the classic signs are there.

If you are right, that would be a much bigger cover-up than the Benghazi situation. It would be a huge advantage for the Republicans to exploit this if true. They should focus their efforts on uncovering that one as it would result in bigger net gains than beating this Benghazi horse to death.

I have high hopes that the Republicans will continue along the same path of incompetence, short-sightedness, and general stupidity that has defined them so far.

I doubt any of them are able to unfocus from their favorite chewtoy long enough to examine (gasp) facts - they can't even get evolution or the age of the Earth right.

So, I'm not worried.

[chuckd]

Obama v. Nixon. Unlike Nixon, I have to think a huge part of these guys that won't let go of anything anti-Obama are motivated by race. These guys just cannot accept a black president no matter what or how well he does. Racism in certain pockets of the US is still as bad as it's ever been.

Why do you liberals always throw around the race card when anybody opposes Obama?

I personally don't care if he is pea green with purple polka dots, he's still just a sleazy politician from the Chicago political sewer.

And that was my opinion well over four years ago on this forum, and it hasn't changed.

Not sure I have thrown race around before, but if I have it is because it is true with him.

Your opinion four year ago and your opinion has not changed . . . He was black four years ago and that has nit changed so not clear on your logic.

There are so many that will never give him a chance and look to criticize everything he does because of his race. If you don't see that, then you truly have been away from the US too long and are out of touch.

The irony to me is all of the impoverished white Americans from the South that are anti-Obama even though the Republican platform does absolutely nothing to benefit them and Obama's policies would. I cannot tell you how many people I asked to tell me how the Republican platform benefitted them or what the Republucan policies did to benefit them and they could not answer except to say they would never vote for Obama.

You don't understand my logic? What part of this is unclear?

"I personally don't care if he is pea green with purple polka dots, he's still just a sleazy politician from the Chicago political sewer."

That was my opinion over four years ago and that is still my opinion. Case closed.

[thaibeachlovers]

Of course, as usual, no one has considered that maybe she's had a stroke... You know, a real, and quite 'not fun' illness.

All the classic signs are there.

If she did and it comes out, any hopes she had of winning in 2016 are dust.

[Jingthing]

If Hillary's health really is seriously frail, I don't believe she will WANT to run. Sad for her and the country but she's human.

If as I reckon she has some real health issues but none that would be serious enough to kill her chances if she runs, I think she probably will run but will be pressured to release her health records and if she doesn't, that will be a legitimate political issue for her opposition.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. Let's try to stay close to the topic.

[Chicog]

Anyone heard any more of this rumour?

Clinton crash claim denied by White House

Posted on » Friday, January 18, 2013

WASHINGTON: The US was yesterday still denying reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was injured and US Navy Seal Commander Job W Price killed when their C-12 Huron transport aircraft crash landed in the Iranian city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border recently.

Or has my local rag been scammed?

Edited January 18, 2013 by Chicog

[mania]

Anyone heard any more of this rumour?

Or has my local rag been scammed?

Googling it does give interesting results...as to scam or no...No idea

http://www.eutimes.n...ission-to-iran/

Edited January 18, 2013 by mania

[koheesti]

Anyone heard any more of this rumour?

Clinton crash claim denied by White House

Posted on » Friday, January 18, 2013

WASHINGTON: The US was yesterday still denying reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was injured and US Navy Seal Commander Job W Price killed when their C-12 Huron transport aircraft crash landed in the Iranian city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border recently.

Or has my local rag been scammed?

Scammed...

http://news.yahoo.com/official-navy-seal-died-apparent-suicide-213239200.html

[Jingthing]

Hillary testified today before the house and senate. It was a big bore but as predicted -- no scandal.

She performed brilliantly ... as expected.

She also looks healthy and well rested.

Don't count her out for 2016.

She is a national hero, well loved, and ridiculously popular. Possibly the best secretary of state ever following her amazing career as a U.S. senator.

The Benghazi "scandal" is officially over. It never existed in the first place.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

Possibly the best secretary of state ever...

Better than George C Marshall? Why? Thomas Jefferson? John Quincy Adams? Dean Acheson? Cordell Hull?

Perhaps a case can be made - I'd enjoy reading it.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

I watched some clips of her testimony. She was emotional, feisty, combative, respectful, and cool under pressure. She successfully framed this "scandal" in the best possible light for her and the administration. It would be hard to make a case for her being the best Secretary in history, if not for the simple fact that she was not faced with the same issues as some of the great ones. Plus, Condi Rice looked better in high-heeled boots.

[Jingthing]

I watched some clips of her testimony. She was emotional, feisty, combative, respectful, and cool under pressure. She successfully framed this "scandal" in the best possible light for her and the administration. It would be hard to make a case for her being the best Secretary in history, if not for the simple fact that she was not faced with the same issues as some of the great ones. Plus, Condi Rice looked better in high-heeled boots.

If you watched the ENTIRE thing you would NOT be calling her emotional. That also sounds like a veiled reference to her sex. You watched a few highlight clips. There were a few short moments where she expressed her emotion out of MANY mostly boring and tedious HOURS. Again, no scandal. The right wing was out for blood from Hillary. They wanted to destroy her prospects for 2016. They got absolutely ZILCH just as I predicted. Not only wasn't there a smoking gun there was no smoke and there wasn't even a water pistol.

BTW, that so called "libertarian" Senator Rand Paul's comments and insults to Hillary were despicable. Happily, he damaged his own sorry brand horribly with that kind of attack on the most popular politician in America, Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, if he had been president, he would have fired her over her “failure of leadership” on the Benghazi attack.

I feel a little sorry for Obama. She looked so presidential in these hearings that I think most of the country wishes we didn't have to WAIT four years for her to take power.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

I watched some clips of her testimony. She was emotional, feisty, combative, respectful, and cool under pressure. She successfully framed this "scandal" in the best possible light for her and the administration. It would be hard to make a case for her being the best Secretary in history, if not for the simple fact that she was not faced with the same issues as some of the great ones. Plus, Condi Rice looked better in high-heeled boots.

If you watched the ENTIRE thing you would NOT be calling her emotional. That also sounds like a veiled reference to her sex. You watched a few highlight clips. There were a few short moments where she expressed her emotion out of MANY mostly boring and tedious HOURS. Again, no scandal. The right wing was out for blood from Hillary. They wanted to destroy her prospects for 2016. They got absolutely ZILCH just as I predicted. Not only wasn't there a smoking gun there was no smoke and there wasn't even a water pistol.

You're right, I just now watched a few clips on BBC, but I certainly didn't reference her being emotional as a bad thing. She showed empathy for the families of those killed. As far as any scandal, I think this shows just how desperate the GOP is to discredit the Dems. The US is so polarized now it's incredible. I watched the daily show yesterday, and Stewart juxtaposed the inaugural coverage of Fox with other channels. Fox was slamming Obama at every turn of the inaugural speech, while other channels were praising him or at least being circumspect.

[thaibeachlovers]

I watched some clips of her testimony. She was emotional, feisty, combative, respectful, and cool under pressure. She successfully framed this "scandal" in the best possible light for her and the administration. It would be hard to make a case for her being the best Secretary in history, if not for the simple fact that she was not faced with the same issues as some of the great ones. Plus, Condi Rice looked better in high-heeled boots.

If you watched the ENTIRE thing you would NOT be calling her emotional. That also sounds like a veiled reference to her sex. You watched a few highlight clips. There were a few short moments where she expressed her emotion out of MANY mostly boring and tedious HOURS. Again, no scandal. The right wing was out for blood from Hillary. They wanted to destroy her prospects for 2016. They got absolutely ZILCH just as I predicted. Not only wasn't there a smoking gun there was no smoke and there wasn't even a water pistol.

BTW, that so called "libertarian" Senator Rand Paul's comments and insults to Hillary were despicable. Happily, he damaged his own sorry brand horribly with that kind of attack on the most popular politician in America, Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, if he had been president, he would have fired her over her “failure of leadership” on the Benghazi attack.

I feel a little sorry for Obama. She looked so presidential in these hearings that I think most of the country wishes we didn't have to WAIT four years for her to take power.

As there hasn't been a dedicated thread about the hearings, thanks JT, for giving me the opportunity to say that seeing the fawning sycophantic toadie Dems spouting hours of drivel, most of which had nothing to do with Benghazi had me reaching for the barf bag.

BTW, I did watch a portion of the Senate hearings from the begining, and ALL of the lower house proceedings. IMO, it was all a complete waste of time, as we learned NOTHING that we didn't already know. Rep Duncan was the only one that gave her a real grilling- good on him. Sen Paul was the only one I saw in the Senate that asked hard questions, and she definitely didn't like it!

[keemapoot]

As there hasn't been a dedicated thread about the hearings, thanks JT, for giving me the opportunity to say that seeing the fawning sycophantic toadie Dems spouting hours of drivel, most of which had nothing to do with Benghazi had me reaching for the barf bag.

This is a classic case of "to the victor, belong the spoils." The Dems are juicing every bit of glory out of Obama's win, including being able to have Benghazi become nothing more than a bitter squawk box by the GOP losers. Obama poured more of it on in his inaugural speech, setting out a liberal agenda, including gay rights that must have today's Republicans seeing stars. For sure, Benghazi will raise its head again if Hilary runs in 2016, but it will be even more forgotten by then than it is now, witness the scant media interest or coverage, other than Fox, of course.

I saw a news headline that the GOP is even reaching out to the public to ask for help in reshaping the GOP. If Obama rides out a moderate uptick in the economy in the next 4 years, Hilary should be a shoe-in if she wants it.

[Sing_Sling]

As there hasn't been a dedicated thread about the hearings, thanks JT, for giving me the opportunity to say that seeing the fawning sycophantic toadie Dems spouting hours of drivel, most of which had nothing to do with Benghazi had me reaching for the barf bag.

BTW, I did watch a portion of the Senate hearings from the begining, and ALL of the lower house proceedings. IMO, it was all a complete waste of time, as we learned NOTHING that we didn't already know. Rep Duncan was the only one that gave her a real grilling- good on him. Sen Paul was the only one I saw in the Senate that asked hard questions, and she definitely didn't like it!

Of course we didn't learn anything new - because there is nothing else. Accept it. You can invent as much nonsense as you wish but that still doesn't make it reality.

Johnson (R-Wis) was an ass. Hillary clocked him several times because he interrupted her every answer because he didn't like what he was hearing. He is the model Republican narcissist, interested only in hearing his own voice and his own question.

There's nothing, accept it . . . or the black helicopters, captained by President Blackenstein, will come hovering silently one night

[KKvampire]

I watched some clips of her testimony. She was emotional, feisty, combative, respectful, and cool under pressure. She successfully framed this "scandal" in the best possible light for her and the administration. It would be hard to make a case for her being the best Secretary in history, if not for the simple fact that she was not faced with the same issues as some of the great ones. Plus, Condi Rice looked better in high-heeled boots.

If you watched the ENTIRE thing you would NOT be calling her emotional. That also sounds like a veiled reference to her sex. You watched a few highlight clips. There were a few short moments where she expressed her emotion out of MANY mostly boring and tedious HOURS. Again, no scandal. The right wing was out for blood from Hillary. They wanted to destroy her prospects for 2016. They got absolutely ZILCH just as I predicted. Not only wasn't there a smoking gun there was no smoke and there wasn't even a water pistol.

BTW, that so called "libertarian" Senator Rand Paul's comments and insults to Hillary were despicable. Happily, he damaged his own sorry brand horribly with that kind of attack on the most popular politician in America, Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, if he had been president, he would have fired her over her “failure of leadership” on the Benghazi attack.

I feel a little sorry for Obama. She looked so presidential in these hearings that I think most of the country wishes we didn't have to WAIT four years for her to take power.

As there hasn't been a dedicated thread about the hearings, thanks JT, for giving me the opportunity to say that seeing the fawning sycophantic toadie Dems spouting hours of drivel, most of which had nothing to do with Benghazi had me reaching for the barf bag.

BTW, I did watch a portion of the Senate hearings from the begining, and ALL of the lower house proceedings. IMO, it was all a complete waste of time, as we learned NOTHING that we didn't already know. Rep Duncan was the only one that gave her a real grilling- good on him. Sen Paul was the only one I saw in the Senate that asked hard questions, and she definitely didn't like it!

The whining GOP, The Johnsons and MCCains the Bitter and twisted brigade , The ones who were all behind Dubya and his weapons of Mass destruction , failed miserably They never nailed anything on Hillary The Pickering Mullan report cleared her, So go away losers, soon its no filibustering in the Senate

[Scott]

The choice of adjectives to describe some of the politicians is beginning to sound a little like baiting. I suggest that posters be a little more diplomatic in their choice of words.

The Bengahzi situation resulted in the loss of life of a number of people. It needs to be looked at and examined.

Let's keep it civil, please.

[Jingthing]

...

The Bengahzi situation resulted in the loss of life of a number of people. It needs to be looked at and examined.

Let's keep it civil, please.

The Bengahzi situation has been and is being looked into. The point is, there is NO scandal. The republicans were all about making political points rather than solving any problems that were revealed by the event.

[F430murci]

Hillary testified today before the house and senate. It was a big bore but as predicted -- no scandal.

She performed brilliantly ... as expected.

She also looks healthy and well rested.

Don't count her out for 2016.

She is a national hero, well loved, and ridiculously popular. Possibly the best secretary of state ever following her amazing career as a U.S. senator.

The Benghazi "scandal" is officially over. It never existed in the first place.

Great use of time and resources by the GOP, almost as great as the time and resources they spent trying to impeach Clinton over a BJ. Sadly, this had very little to do with loss of life or a BJ and everything to do with politics.

Edited January 24, 2013 by F430murci

[Jingthing]

Hillary Clinton nailed this hearing. Assuming she will run in 2016, the Bengazi "scandal" will be 100 percent irrelevant, because again there was never a scandal. Of course the Hillary demonizers will always demonize her. So what? They are a minority.

The main result of this hearing is the massive damage to tea party darling Senator Rand Paul. Not worth wasting Hillary's breath on. Perfect justice.

Only gadfly Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) still had the stomach to fight with Clinton. “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi . . . I would have relieved you of your post,” he charged.

“Ohhh!” exclaimed one of Clinton’s aides, appalled.

But Paul, a man of exotic opinions, is never going to be president, and Clinton deflected his provocation with a mild reply: “I believe in taking responsibility, and I have done so.”

That may have been Clinton’s most cutting response to a critic: Letting him know he’s not worth wasting her breath.

http://www.washingto...55e7_story.html

More on the darkest day in the political career of Rand Paul. The man was totally off base.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would have fired Hillary Rodham Clinton for the debacle in Benghazi, Libya. “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi . . . I would have relieved you of your post.” On the other hand, had the secretary of state spent her time reading staffing requests for consulates all over the world, someone else would have called for her firing. That person would have been right.

...

Now to this Benghazi matter. It is both serious and tragic — four Americans were killed, after all, one of them Ambassador Christopher Stevens — but the post in Benghazi is the consulate, not the embassy. The embassy is in Tripoli. And so when the request came to beef up security at Benghazi, does anyone really think the matter should have gone to the secretary of state and that she should have personally reviewed it? After all, what does she know about such matters? This is what the security professionals do. This is why you have subordinates. Paul must know that and so his suggestion that the president ought to have fired Clinton for the attack in Benghazi made no sense. At any rate, everyone is entitled to one mistake. Rand Paul just made his.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/24/there-is-just-something-about-hillary-clinton Edited January 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

I read that Marco Rubio was pretty tame in his questioning, aware of Clinton's popularity for 2016 and his own likely Presidential run. Rand Paul probably doesn't have much chance of the nomination anyway in 2016. I suppose the GOP, if they get their sh*t together, will try to come more right center for 2016 and appeal to the new realities. Rubio asked the questions, but didn't attack, which was perfect.

[beechguy]

Actually, I'm not surprised at the way it went, you don't think she lived with Bill all those years and didn't learn anything did you. So far as Rand Paul and the others, I don't think they hurt themselves, they just showed they still have some sense of reality, as to those fawning over her. I keep hearing about the great accomplishments, hmm, that would be she put the Iranians and N. Koreans in their place and shaking in their boots?

For the incident as a whole, I don't think it was a waste of time to keep the attention focused on it. Four people got booted from their positions, 29 recommendations were included on the review report that may not have happened, and they didn't leave those people hanging in Central Africa Republic. So maybe something was accomplished.

Edited January 25, 2013 by beechguy

[thaibeachlovers]

As there hasn't been a dedicated thread about the hearings, thanks JT, for giving me the opportunity to say that seeing the fawning sycophantic toadie Dems spouting hours of drivel, most of which had nothing to do with Benghazi had me reaching for the barf bag.

BTW, I did watch a portion of the Senate hearings from the begining, and ALL of the lower house proceedings. IMO, it was all a complete waste of time, as we learned NOTHING that we didn't already know. Rep Duncan was the only one that gave her a real grilling- good on him. Sen Paul was the only one I saw in the Senate that asked hard questions, and she definitely didn't like it!

Of course we didn't learn anything new - because there is nothing else. Accept it. You can invent as much nonsense as you wish but that still doesn't make it reality.

Johnson (R-Wis) was an ass. Hillary clocked him several times because he interrupted her every answer because he didn't like what he was hearing. He is the model Republican narcissist, interested only in hearing his own voice and his own question.

There's nothing, accept it . . . or the black helicopters, captained by President Blackenstein, will come hovering silently one night

So, tell me:

1/ why Obama told the UN it was about a vdo when he knew it was terrorism- he told us that he said so the "next day" when he was debating Romney?

2/ who changed the talking points that Rice used?

3/ why, when Obama claimed that he ordered a military response to the attack, nothing was done?

4/ who ordered the CIA not to intervene?

5/ who ordered the DOD personnel to leave prior to the attack?

[koheesti]

As there hasn't been a dedicated thread about the hearings, thanks JT, for giving me the opportunity to say that seeing the fawning sycophantic toadie Dems spouting hours of drivel, most of which had nothing to do with Benghazi had me reaching for the barf bag.

BTW, I did watch a portion of the Senate hearings from the begining, and ALL of the lower house proceedings. IMO, it was all a complete waste of time, as we learned NOTHING that we didn't already know. Rep Duncan was the only one that gave her a real grilling- good on him. Sen Paul was the only one I saw in the Senate that asked hard questions, and she definitely didn't like it!

Of course we didn't learn anything new - because there is nothing else. Accept it. You can invent as much nonsense as you wish but that still doesn't make it reality.

Johnson (R-Wis) was an ass. Hillary clocked him several times because he interrupted her every answer because he didn't like what he was hearing. He is the model Republican narcissist, interested only in hearing his own voice and his own question.

There's nothing, accept it . . . or the black helicopters, captained by President Blackenstein, will come hovering silently one night

So, tell me:

1/ why Obama told the UN it was about a vdo when he knew it was terrorism- he told us that he said so the "next day" when he was debating Romney?

2/ who changed the talking points that Rice used?

3/ why, when Obama claimed that he ordered a military response to the attack, nothing was done?

4/ who ordered the CIA not to intervene?

5/ who ordered the DOD personnel to leave prior to the attack?

Where are the survivors of the Benghazi attack? There were quite a few of them, 20 or 30 and so far none has been heard from.