Obama and his administration, including Hillary are going DOWN!

[xfire]

 

[georges]

Does anyone remember the USS Cole?

An attack that happened under the clinton administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

- - - Updated - - -

Gen. Powell is an honorable man, don't put his name with any of the trash of either party

True

 

[xfire]

 

[Sam Fisher]

WTF??? He was sitting in a classroom with little children. Would you have preferred he jump up and start running around like a crazy liberal? He kept his composure as best he could. And when he left the school, he got on with the tasks at hand.

I think BC was correct when he said all you do in here is troll.

 

[Sam Fisher]

And... don't think for a minute that the left wing news organizations didn't shit on Bush for 8 years. Because they did. With the help on Michael Moore and numerous other people including 99% of the Hollywood crowd.

Suck it up xfire and look at both sides of the picture.

It's a different story when your boy's black feet are held to the fire, but when it was Bush's, where were you?

 

[Mayhem]

WTF??? He was sitting in a classroom with little children. Would you have preferred he jump up and start running around like a crazy liberal? He kept his composure as best he could. And when he left the school, he got on with the tasks at hand.

For the record, I said the exact same thing then and now. It would have served no purpose and set a bad example for him to act any different.

Of course, it was the last fuckin' thing he did right during his Presidency, but he did do it right.

 

[Jeep!]

That suit. In another life that man should have been producing Genesis and Yes albums.

 

[xfire]

I think BC was correct when he said all you do in here is troll.

That's rich coming from you. The point of the post wasn't that I agreed with it, but to illustrate how stupid it is to criticize Obama in a similar situation. Maybe that was too nuanced for you.

 

[Sam Fisher]

pwnage

Republicans call for depositions in Benghazi probe, amid revelation Clinton barely interviewed

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ore-whistleblowers-in-benghazi/#ixzz2T72g1Y7j

 

[Jeep!]

So did they find the source of all this hot air yet or is this thing still going on?

 

[lurkingdirk]

This sums things up pretty well. From Andrew Sabl at The Reality-Based Community, who simply begs Republicans to make up their minds what they are actually pursuing here:


"Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:

(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).

But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:

(2) Who failed competently to perform his or her job, in which concrete ways? Which decisions are we talking about, by whom, at what time, and on what grounds should we believe that a competent person in the job in question would have had to make a different decision? Again, failure to devote unlimited resources to guarding every consulate at all times does not constitute an incompetent decision but rather precisely a competent one. And a judgment (apparently held by the diplomats on the ground at the time) that there was a tradeoff between high security and diplomatic effectiveness is also, absent conclusive arguments to the contrary, quite defensible. We need more.

(3) What information was covered up, and how? What facts do we (a) now know to be the case that (b) were previously concealed from view by (c) illegitimate threats or undue influence (as opposed to agency politics as usual, whereby those higher up would rather sweep mistakes under the rug but grudgingly tolerate subordinates who air them)?

Unless all three of these elements in (3) are present, there was no cover-up—at most a halfhearted attempt at a cover-up, or an honest difference of opinion about facts. And unless number (1) or (2) is present, there was nothing to cover up.

At this point in the career of a scandal, or attempted scandal, there are often disagreements over whether the charges are true. But I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a scandal where I don’t even know what they are."

 

[Mayhem]

Thomas Pickering: Benghazi Call Did Not Come From Hillary Clinton

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/thomas-pickering-benghazi_n_3263073.html

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The seasoned diplomat who penned a highly critical report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, defended his scathing assessment but absolved then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. "We knew where the responsibility rested," Thomas Pickering, whose career spans four decades, said Sunday.

"They've tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made," Pickering said of Clinton's critics.

The Accountability and Review Board, which Pickering headed with retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not question Clinton at length about the attacks but concluded the decisions about the consulate were made well below the secretary's level. Pickering's defense of his panel's conclusions, however, was unlikely to quiet Republicans' calls for accountability for the attacks that left four Americans dead, including an ambassador.

Pickering and Mullen's scathing report released in December found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" of the State Department meant that security was "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

That, however, has done little to calm Republicans' inquiry.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week heard a riveting minute-by-minute account from a former top diplomat in Libya about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the diplomatic outpost in eastern Libya. Gregory Hicks, a former deputy chief of mission to Libya, detailed his phone conversations from Tripoli with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died during the two nighttime attacks.

Hicks and two other State Department witnesses criticized the Pickering and Mullen's review. Their complaints centered on a report they consider incomplete, with individuals who weren't interviewed and a focus on the assistant secretary level and lower.

The hourslong hearing produced no major revelation but renewed interest in the attacks that happened during the lead-up to the November 2012 presidential election.

Meanwhile, the top Republican on the oversight committee wants sworn depositions with Pickering and Mullen.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said he would request private testimonies from both on Monday. Issa also said his oversight panel has not been provided sufficient details on the State Department review, such as a list of everyone the investigators interviewed or a full transcript of those conversations.

"We want the facts. We're entitled to the facts. The American people were effectively lied to for a period of about a month," Issa said.

Pickering, sitting next to Issa during an appearance on one Sunday show, said he wanted to appear at Wednesday's hearing, which Issa led, but was blocked.

Issa said Democrats could have invited their own witnesses, such as Pickering, but did not.

In a separate interview, Pickering said he asked, via the White House, to appear at that session. He said he could have answered many of the question lawmakers raised, such as whether U.S. military forces could have saved Americans had they been dispatched to the consulate, some 1,600 miles away from the nearest likely launching point.

"Mike Mullen, who was part of this report and indeed worked very closely with all of us and shared many of the responsibilities directly with me, made it very clear that his view as a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there were nothing within range that could have made a difference," Pickering said.

Even so, Republicans showed little interest in relenting to explore what happened at the consulate, what might be done to prevent future such attacks and what political calculations went into rewriting talking points the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, used on news shows the Sunday after the attack.

A series of emails that circulated between the State Department and the CIA led to weakened – and, in some cases, wrong – language that Rice used to describe the assault during a series of five television interviews the Sunday after the attacks.

"I'd call it a cover-up," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information, which was obvious."

"I was surprised today that they did not probe Secretary Clinton in detail," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said, of the review board.

One Republican eyeing a White House run, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, told an audience in Iowa that he thinks the Benghazi attack "precludes Hillary Clinton from ever holding office."

Clinton's allies said Republicans were looking to weaken her ahead of a potential 2016 campaign.

"This has been caught up in the 2016 presidential campaign, this effort to go after Hillary Clinton," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "They want to bring her in because they think it's a good political show and I think that's unfortunate."

Pickering, however, declined repeated opportunities to criticize Rice's now-debunked talking points that suggested the attacks were not terrorism.

"That was not in our mandate," Pickering said. "We were looking at the security, security warnings, security capacity, those kinds of things."

Democrats similarly did little to defend the mistaken talking points.

"This is one instance where you know it was what it was," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"There was no question this was a terrorist attack," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash.

Pickering spoke with CNN's "State of the Union," NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation." Issa and Feinstein spoke with NBC. McCain spoke to ABC's "This Week." Ayotte and Durbin were on CBS. Smith spoke to "Fox News Sunday."

 

[Sam Fisher]

Re: Obama and his administration, including Hillary are going DOWN!

I'll allow EVERYONE to respond to this before I pass judgement.

Oh, and one more thing..

When it's all said and done, I'll be waiting for an apology.

 

[Johan]

When it's all said and done, I'll be waiting for an apology.

1st, give us an apology for your countless landslide Romney victory predictions, then we'll talk about your Benghazi Obama impeachment predictions.

 

[lurkingdirk]

And if they don't go down, will you be apologising?

I find it interesting that now there is a new "scandal" on which to focus, the fox news site has one small mention on their site of Benghazi.

 

[Jeep!]

And if they don't go down, will you be apologising?

I find it interesting that now there is a new "scandal" on which to focus, the fox news site has one small mention on their site of Benghazi.

Meanwhile, the North American news from a real news source has only one mention of either. Guess which.

 

[Mayhem]

Polls: Hillary Clinton Would Win 2016 Primaries In New Hampshire, Wisconsin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/hillary-clinton-polls_n_3279790.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Early polling has consistently found Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Two surveys released this week are no exception, showing the former secretary of state a wide favorite in New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

A New England College poll, released Tuesday, found that 65 percent of New Hampshire Democrats said they would like to see Clinton as president. Ten percent backed Vice President Joe Biden, while support for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick was in the single digits. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley took 0 percent.

The Republican field was less stratified. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had a narrow edge at 17 percent, followed closely by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 16 percent and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 15 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the former GOP vice presidential nominee, each took 12 percent, followed by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The latest findings track with two April surveys that showed Clinton taking more than 60 percent of New Hampshire's primary vote and Republicans yet to settle on a favorite.

Meanwhile, a Marquette Law School poll of Wisconsin voters, also released Tuesday, found strong backing for Clinton among Democrats and for Ryan among his home-state Republicans.

Clinton took 62 percent of the field among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, trailed by Biden at 13 percent. On the GOP side, Ryan was supported by 27 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, followed by Rubio at 21 percent and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 16 percent.

Both New Hampshire and Wisconsin have open primaries, in which voters don't need to be registered with a party to vote in its primary.

The Marquette survey also found that a race between Clinton and Ryan would be close. She held a 4-point edge over Ryan, 48 percent to 44 percent, with wider leads over other possible opponents.

The New England College poll surveyed 340 Republican voters and 314 Democratic voters by phone. The Marquette poll surveyed 717 voters, including 302 Republicans and 333 Democrats, by phone between May 6 and May 9.

 

[Sam Fisher]

And if they don't go down, will you be apologising?

No.

I find it interesting that now there is a new "scandal" on which to focus, the fox news site has one small mention on their site of Benghazi.

If you had paid attention to Fox News since 9/11/12 instead of focusing only on the left leaning newscasts, you would have seen that they were relentless in not letting the Benghazi terrorist attack fall to the wayside.

 

[Jeep!]

If you had paid attention to Fox News since 9/11/12 instead of focusing only on the left leaning newscasts, you would have seen that they were relentless in not letting the Benghazi terrorist attack fall to the wayside.

Until it became painfully evident even to them that the story was even limper than you.

 

[lurkingdirk]

No.

If you had paid attention to Fox News since 9/11/12 instead of focusing only on the left leaning newscasts, you would have seen that they were relentless in not letting the Benghazi terrorist attack fall to the wayside.

So, you expect people to apologise if your prediction comes true, but you won't apologise if your prediction is proved entirely wrong and false? That seems problematic.

Additionally, my point was that Fox "News" was all over Benghazi, dozens of articles on the main page daily. Until it became obvious that it was a non-story, and this new, more exciting story broke. I pay attention to non-left news, sir, but thank you for trying to paint me into a corner. You complain that people treat you badly because of your views. Here is an example of you being fairly rude to me. I haven't called you names since I told you I would stop, and apologised for doing so quite a while ago. I have tried to engage you in civil discourse, but you just call me names, dismiss my opinion because you don't like it, and are generally rude. People don't like you. It's not because of your views, it is because of how you express them.

I know this will have no impact on you, but I have a clear conscience, that's for sure.